Do not spam bill

[WildFire]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives stood poised on Friday to outlaw most Internet spam and create a "do-not-spam" registry for those who do not wish to receive unsolicited junk e-mail.

In debate on the House floor, lawmakers from both parties praised a compromise bill that would set jail time and multimillion dollar fines for online marketers who flood e-mail inboxes with pornography and get-rich-quick schemes.

"There's so many good things in this bill, it's hard to go over them all in a few minutes," said Texas Democratic Rep. Gene Green.

A final vote was expected later in the evening. The Senate unanimously passed a similar bill last month.

Anti-spam bills have died in Congress for six years while unsolicited commercial e-mail has grown from a nuisance to a plague that threatens to derail the Internet's most popular means of communication.

Lawmakers faced additional pressure to put a national law into place after California passed a tough anti-spam bill earlier this year. Online marketers say it would be difficult to comply with a patchwork of conflicting state laws.

The House bill, which would override state anti-spam laws, would allow businesses to send unsolicited e-mail to Internet users until they are asked to stop, an approach that some anti-spam activists say would only lead to more spam.

It would outlaw spammers' attempts to cover their tracks by requiring marketers to identify themselves clearly and avoid misleading subject lines or return addresses. Pornographic messages would have to be clearly labeled as such to allow users to more easily filter them out.

Think it will work?

 

[Civrules]

Sure it will...as good as the phone "do not spam" program. Hell, I registered and I still have telemarketers calling me even though it was supposed to stop months ago! I don't think the internet spam will ever stop. There are much more internet email spammers than phone telemarketers which obviously tells you something.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The only effect of this bill will be less freedom, and a dubious security. The advantages of having free expression far outweigh the momentary benefits of such a law. Also, since it only applies to the US, the effect will be limited. Moreso, it's far easier to "fake" evidence of online movements, so a possibility of abuse remains widely evident. In theory it would be a terrific idea, but as usual, it's practice that kills us.

 

[Perfection]

Nope, won't work! The registry would undoubtedly be a massive database of e-mail adresses, that the uncsroupolous could easily make a scam off of and the actual legitimate companies could fall easy prey to lawsuits when they cannot integrate the undoubtedly hard to use registry!

 

[Speedo]

Sure it will...as good as the phone "do not spam" program.

Works here. I've recieved almost no calls since signing up. In fact just last week NC filed lawsuits against 4 telemarketing firms for continuing to call people registered on the list.

 

[Speedo]

It passed.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House voted overwhelmingly Saturday for a bill to outlaw most Internet spam and create a "do not spam" registry for those who do not wish to receive unsolicited junk e-mail.

Online marketers who flood e-mail in boxes with pornography and get-rich-quick schemes would face multimillion dollar fines and jail time under the measure. It passed by a vote of 392-5 at dawn Saturday, following an all-night session of the House that was largely devoted to a separate Medicare bill.

The Senate unanimously passed a similar anti-spam bill last month, but it must assent to the House changes before the measure can become law. The Senate is expected to do so in the coming days.

Anti-spam bills have died in Congress for six years while unsolicited commercial e-mail has grown from a nuisance to a plague that threatens to derail the Internet's most popular means of communication.

Spam now makes up more than half of all e-mail, according to several surveys, and even online marketers have come to support some restrictions.

Lawmakers said spam has become a top constituent concern, and they also faced hundreds of unwanted messages daily.

Spam "cripples computer networks and makes regular e-mail checking a seemingly endless hassle," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La.

Lawmakers faced additional pressure to put a national law into place after California passed a tough anti-spam bill earlier this year. Online marketers say it would be difficult to comply with a patchwork of conflicting state laws.

The House bill, which would override state anti-spam laws, would allow businesses to send unsolicited e-mail to Internet users until they are asked to stop, an approach that some anti-spam activists say would only lead to more spam.

It would outlaw spammers' attempts to cover their tracks by requiring marketers to identify themselves clearly and avoid misleading subject lines or return addresses. Pornographic messages would have to be clearly labeled as such to allow users to more easily filter them out.

Violators would face millions of dollars in fines and up to five years in jail. The bill would not allow individuals to sue spammers.

The bill also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to set up a "Do Not Spam" registry of Internet users who wish to receive no unsolicited e-mail at all, similar to the Federal Trade Commission's popular "Do Not Call" list.

It also would outlaw cell-phone spam, which is commonplace in Europe and Asia. Under the provision, subscribers to cell phone services would not receive text message spam unless they have provided express authorization.

America Online Inc., the nation's No. 1 online service, applauded the bill, saying it would help turn the tide against spam. "This law will be a significant weapon for the online industry in the ongoing fight to can the spam and thwart the spam kingpins," the company said in a statement. AOL is a unit of Time Warner Inc., parent of CNN/Money.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

[Civrules]

Originally posted by Speedo


Works here. I've recieved almost no calls since signing up. In fact just last week NC filed lawsuits against 4 telemarketing firms for continuing to call people registered on the list.

You are lucky then. Although I have to admit, I used to get a lot more calls than I do now.

 

[Shadylookin]

The House bill, which would override state anti-spam laws, would allow businesses to send unsolicited e-mail to Internet users until they are asked to stop, an approach that some anti-spam activists say would only lead to more spam.

that's pointless, so i get my spam email go to there site which they will probably put a bunch of cookies and spyware on my computer, then i tell them to stop spaming my email address so they'll just spam me with a different product and they'll know my email because i had to tell it to them. Even if it is legitimate and they will never email me again it will be extremly time consuming with the 10+ spam messages i get a day, not to mention i don't check it but twice a week.

and even if they make a do not spam list what exceptions are they going to leave out, like on the do not call list. I also doubt every spammer is from the US and the bill won't apply to other countries

 

[covok48]

10+ a day? I was receiving upwards towards 30-60 a DAY. In fact. I had to shut down my hotmail account because there was so much spam. I have since switched to my university email, but now I receive university spam. Hmm what a trade off...

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

We don't need an anti spam bill in the USA, we need India to pass one

This is just a bit of "pandering to the people" on the part of our glorious Congress that will not accomplish squat.

Sad that we can only get a bipartisan consensus when the problem has reached the proportions of an epidemic.

 

[CivCube]

Pontiuth is right; most spam is sent from overseas. How will this bill make any difference?

 

[Perfection]

Originally posted by CivCube
Pontiuth is right; most spam is sent from overseas. How will this bill make any difference?

By making it harder for legitimate business's to do internet advertising!

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
The only effect of this bill will be less freedom, and a dubious security. The advantages of having free expression far outweigh the momentary benefits of such a law. Also, since it only applies to the US, the effect will be limited. Moreso, it's far easier to "fake" evidence of online movements, so a possibility of abuse remains widely evident. In theory it would be a terrific idea, but as usual, it's practice that kills us.

Agreed. Such a law also violates the 1st Amendment.

 

[Cecasander]

What sane person would vote for spamming?

 

[Archer 007]

I would. I may be problematic, but it is easy to get rid of. We call it deleting.

I just don't want the government with a precedent to control the internet.

 

[The Person]

Originally posted by Cecasander
What sane person would vote for spamming?

I just want all of you to know that I am[/] insane before proceeding.

I think a law against spamming won't work. All thanks to this thread. I hate spam. Long live CFC.

 

[EdwardTking]

All seems a bit soft. I've missed the bit about capital punishment for these people trying to sell me 'septic tanks' from Florida.