nanog mailing list archives
Re: identity theft != spam
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner () nic-naa net>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:44:26 -0400
unfortunately, until proper legislation is passed, they are to some degree hamstrung by said mandate from congress.
The wait condition (FTC jurisdiction) is possibly eqivalent to the switch from an opt-out regime to an opt-in regime, which three years ago I though was likely in the first Gore/Lieberman term. At the time I worked for an ad network, so I paid more attention to technical and policy nuances in all of the three basic jurisdictions than I do now. My crystal ball had an off-by-at-least-one error. The serious bit of this is, expect _no_change_ at the Federal level until conditions change. Eric
Current thread:
- identity theft != spam Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Richard Welty (May 15)
- Re[2]: identity theft != spam Richard Welty (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam John Payne (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Daniel Golding (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Chris Horry (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Chris Woodfield (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Charles Sprickman (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Vadim Antonov (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Peter Galbavy (May 16)
- Re: identity theft != spam steve uurtamo (May 16)
- Re: identity theft != spam Charles Sprickman (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Richard Welty (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Bill Woodcock (May 15)