There's a question about whether the bill would be applied literally--do what it says, as anyone would ever interpret the actual words--or whether somebody would step back, look at the spam report, and say, “Oh, my goodness, nobody ever intended that.”
Look at the spyware provision, as an example. It says you need express consent before any computer program can be installed on a computer. When I first saw those words, I thought, “Oh, my goodness”, because when you think about how the Internet works, code is loaded into browsers, and the instant a web browser hits a site, if it's a Java program, you have Java programs installed in a browser. Or if the site is developed using HTML code, the second the browser hits the site, you have HTML code installed.
Taken very literally--although I have no doubt that nobody intends this, since it would be impossible to get express consent prior to actually accessing the website, unless website operators were going to try to get consent from everyone who might possibly use them in some other medium--then technically it could have that far-reaching effect. I think people realize that needs to be fixed. I don't think the fix is to rely on some web browser setting, as one suggested, because that's not a technologically neutral fix. It deals with only one situation. This is a more generic problem.
Again, I think the bill can be fixed so this doesn't happen. If that section targeted only malware, it would not be a question.