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.
