Spammers could face fines

Tue May 21 23:01:59 UTC 2002

We can hope cant we? Forward from another list:

>Spammers could face fines
>
>Reuters
>May 17, 2002, 12:20 PM PT
>
>A bill aimed at limiting unwanted junk e-mail was approved and sent
>to the floor by the Senate Commerce Committee on Friday with
>unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans. It would strengthen
>the Federal Trade Commission's enforcement authority by allowing it
>to impose fines of up to $10 each on e-mails that violate existing
>laws against spam, with a cap of $500,000.
>
>Sen. Conrad Burns, a Montana Republican and co-sponsor of the
>legislation, said the bill would help both e-commerce and consumers
>burdened by unsolicited junk or pornographic e-mails. "Rampant
>pornography and fraudulent credit deals were never the destiny of the
>Internet, but they have become commonplace fixtures in in-boxes
>everywhere," he said.
>
>No similar measure is pending in the U.S. House of Representatives.
>
>New Mexico Republican Rep. Heather Wilson's bill requiring spammers
>to use a legitimate return address--so unwanted e-mail can more
>easily be blocked--has not yet been scheduled for a vote.
>
>Twenty-two states have passed anti-spam legislation. Spam has
>especially been a problem for rural consumers, many of whom pay
>long-distance charges for Internet connections and waste time and
>money erasing their unwanted e-mails, Burns said.
>
>The Senate Commerce Committee on Friday approved an amendment by Sen.
>Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, that would prohibit
>transmitting unwanted e-mails to addresses that were illegally
>obtained from Web sites.
>
>Co-sponsor Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said moving the bill
>would help the FTC deal with thousands of complaints it has received
>about spam.
>
>"The problem is, the technology is on the side of the spammer," Wyden
>said.
>
>The proposal would also require e-marketers to include a working
>return address to allow recipients the option of refusing further
>e-mails, and give Internet service providers the ability to bring
>suit to keep unlawful spam off their networks.
>
>It would also subject spammers who intentionally disguise their
>identities to misdemeanor criminal penalties.