Free Articles, Free Web Content, Reprint Articles
Sunday, October 24, 2021
 
Free Articles, Free Web Content, Reprint ArticlesRegisterAll CategoriesTop AuthorsSubmit Article (Article Submission)ContactSubscribe Free Articles, Free Web Content, Reprint Articles
 

SPAM Laws of 2001

For a law to take effect on the U.S. federal level, both the Houseand the Senate must pass the bill and then the ... ofthe United States must sign the bill into law.Last year we almost got a SPA

For a law to take effect on the U.S. federal level, both the House
and the Senate must pass the bill and then the President of
the United States must sign the bill into law.

Last year we almost got a SPAM law on the books when House
legislators approved their version of the SPAM bill, H. R. 3113,
the "The Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2000",
with a vote of 427-1.

However, it never came close to becoming law because the
Senate never even voted on it.

This year, there are already several attempts being made to
place SPAM under the law.

The most recognized is known as bill HR 95, which is a
re-introduction of H. R. 3113 from last year and is named:
"To protect individuals, families, and Internet service
providers from unsolicited and unwanted electronic mail."
http:/ homas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.00095:

A SUMMARY AS OF:
1/3/2001--Introduced.

"Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001 -
Amends the Federal criminal code to provide criminal
penalties for intentionally initiating the transmission
of any unsolicited commercial electronic mail message
(message) to a protected computer in the United States
with the knowledge that any domain name or other
initiator identifying information contained in or
accompanying such message is false or inaccurate.

Prohibits any person from sending such a message
unless the message contains a valid e-mail address,
conspicuously displayed, to which a recipient may
send notice of a desire not to receive further messages.

Makes it unlawful for a person to initiate the transmission
of such a message in violation of a policy regarding unsolicited
commercial e-mail messages that complies with specified
requirements, including requirements for notice and public
availability of such policy and for an opportunity for
subscribers to opt not receive such messages.

Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to notify violators
under this Act, to prohibit further initiation of such messages,
and to require the initiator to delete the names and e-mail
addresses of the recipients and providers from all mailing lists.

Provides a right of action by a recipient or provider against
e-mail initiators who violate the above requirements. "

As bill HR 95 stands right now, it is not expected to
pass vote in the House for two reasons, even though the
language of the bill is exactly the same as that passed
last year in a vote of 427-1:

First, because of the language that allows for a one-time
email to be sent so long as a valid return email address
is provided by the sender and the sender removes anyone
the so requests to be removed from that mailing list.

Although this is the same exact language that was included
in the bill that passed the House last year, many SPAM
fanatics are raising objections to its' inclusion in the
bill this year.

Second, is the language in the last paragraph that would allow
a "right of action by a recipient or provider", the problem being
that the law would allow Internet Service Providers, ISP's, to
file for monetary damages against spammers to the tune of
$500 per email sent or $50,000 per mailing incident.

Opponents argue that ISP's would be filing against anyone that
might be accused of SPAM, guilty or not, in hopes of reaping
big financial gains.

Considering how SPAM compalints are often handled these
days with innocent people having their services terminated
or web site shut down without even having allegations of
SPAM investigated, perhaps there is reason for such fears
of abuse.

A search of both the Senate, http://www.senate.gov/ and the
House, http:/ homas.loc.gov/ found only the following under
The keyword "Spam":

Two other bills introduced in the House are:

1. Wireless Telephone Spam Protection Act - H.R.113 :
http:/ homas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:. emp/~c107WLOF59::

2. Anti-Spamming Act of 2001 - H.R. 1017:
This Act may be cited as the `Anti-Spamming Act of 2001'
http:/ homas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:. emp/~c107WLOF59::

Rep. Gene Green, from the 29th District in Texas and
is the sponsor of HR 95, so if you wish to make any
suggestions or comments on the proposed Spam Law,
he can be reached by any of the following:

HON. GENE GREEN
2335 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-1688
Fax: (202) 225-9903

HON. GENE GREEN
256 N. Sam Houston Pkwy. E., Suite 29
Houston, TX 77060
(281) 999-5879
Fax: (281) 999-5716

If you would like to send him an emailArticle Search, you may do so
by visiting his official web site at: http://www.house.gov/green/
and filling out the supplied form.

Article Tags: Unsolicited Commercial Electronic, Commercial Electronic Mail, Unsolicited Commercial, Commercial Electronic, Electronic Mail

Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


A.T.Rendon is an entrepreneur and published writer.
Subscribe to FREE Business Classifieds Newsletter
& receive FREE online access to our Password
Protected "FREE Submit To Over 1 MILLION FREE
Ad Sites!" mailto:subscribe_fbcn9@emailexchange.org
Visit us at: http://emailexchange.org/?articles



Health
Business
Finance
Travel
Technology
Home Repair
Computers
Marketing
Autos
Education
Entertainment
Family
Law
Other
Communication
ECommerce
Sports
Home Business
Internet
Self Help
Partners


Page loaded in 0.022 seconds