Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government The Courts Businesses United States News

MPAA Kills California Anti-Pretexting Bill 299

Posted by Zonk
from the revealed-to-be-playing-dirty-pool dept.
IAmTheDave writes "A California anti-pretexting bill that got unanimous support in the state senate with a vote of 30-0 was struck down after heavy last-minute lobbying by the MPAA. The bill aimed to make deceptive 'pretexting' (lying) to gain personal information on another person illegal. The MPAA told legislators 'We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,' and thus killed the bill when it came up for a final vote. California passed a much narrower bill that 'bans the use of deceit to obtain telephone calling records, and nothing else.' In a final 'think of the children' bid, the Califonia Association of Licensed Investigators also opposed the bill, saying it needed to be able to use pretexting to help find missing children, among other things."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Kills California Anti-Pretexting Bill

Comments Filter:
  • History of Violence (Score:5, Informative)

    by udderly (890305) * on Friday December 01, 2006 @11:24AM (#17065658)

    To paraphrase Ed Harris in the movie, History of Violence, "...how come the MPAA is so good at killing bills?"

    The answer is that succesful politicians are not developed, they're bought.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01, 2006 @11:52AM (#17066196)
    It's only fraud by definition if there is money involved.

    I can make fake IDs all I want, and use them, and I can't be charged with fraud, unless I used them to obtain money. However, if I make a fake government ID, they'll still get me for making a fake ID. But that's not fraud.
  • by CliffEmAll (794568) on Friday December 01, 2006 @12:10PM (#17066528) Homepage
    The Legislative system in United States governments at the federal and state levels have two separate bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives. In order to become law, bills must pass both houses. What happened here is that the Senate wrote and passed a bill, which was voted down by the House.
  • by krell (896769) on Friday December 01, 2006 @12:12PM (#17066576) Journal
    "The Legislative system in United States governments at the federal and state levels have two separate bodies"

    As long as you remember that some states do not have two separate bodies.
  • by idobi (820896) on Friday December 01, 2006 @12:16PM (#17066634) Homepage

    The Legislative system in United States governments at the federal and state levels have two separate bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives. In order to become law, bills must pass both houses. What happened here is that the Senate wrote and passed a bill, which was voted down by the House.

    That's not even close. The bill passed in committee 30-0, and was voted down by the full assembly 33-27. We're talking about California legislators, not the US Congress.

  • by JerkBoB (7130) on Friday December 01, 2006 @12:26PM (#17066852)
    I'm not an American nor do I pretend to understand American politics but how can a vote swing from 30-0 to the other way?

    In the US system of government, at both federal and state levels, legislation must pass through both houses of congress (legislative branch) and then be signed into law by the president/governor (executive branch). There are variations on the path that aren't worth getting into for this discussion.

    So, the bill passed the CA state Senate, but was killed in the House of Representatives. Two completely different sets of people. The intent of having two legislative bodies is to get different perspectives on an issue. Representatives are (re-)elected every two years, and therefore tend to take a short-term perspective on issues, looking at what's going to look best to their constituents who will be voting on their re-election (or contributing campaign dollars, as the case may be). Senators are supposedly able to take a bigger-picture view because they have a longer term (six years), and aren't scrambling to please constituents as much as Representatives.

    This is the theory. In practice, I don't know how well it works. I think the only thing that's really going to make a major difference is some serious campaign finance reform, at both the State and Federal levels. And I have little hope for that happening because it's like asking pigs to vote on whether they'll voluntarily get less slop in their troughs. Yeah, right.
  • by hansonc (127888) on Friday December 01, 2006 @01:08PM (#17067746) Homepage
    For those confused, the only state with a Unicameral Legislature (only one house) is Nebraska.
  • Re:Big time! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Danga (307709) on Friday December 01, 2006 @01:29PM (#17068222)
    Of course they wouldn't mind - it would give them more doughnut time at Denny's.

    I have never been to a Denny's that had donuts, I do love the Grand Slam Slugger breakfast though! I think instead of Denny's you should have said they would get more time at Dunkin' Donuts or Krispy Kreme, those seem to be common morning cop hangouts in the Chicago area.
  • by yali (209015) on Friday December 01, 2006 @02:52PM (#17069750)
    these freshman legislators turn to the only people there with experience at the job at hand - the lobbyists

    That's really only been a problem since California passed term limits. Why not repeal them, rather than increasing term length?

    Term limits + law of unintended consequences = More power to lobbyists

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...