Web Hosting Talk : Other Forums : Web Hosting Lounge : New Anti-Spamming Law.

[phisholay]

Passed by the U.S Senates 97-0

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...eut/index.html

[NewtSys]

Marketers who falsify return addresses or routing information, hide their pitches behind misleading subject lines such as "Re: your request" or promote body-enhancement pills or other fraudulent products would face jail sentences of up to a year and fines of up to $1 million; repeat offenders could face jail terms of up to five years

hmmmmmmm I would like to see this in my life time

[Artashes]

Internet "spammers" who flood e-mail inboxes with pornography and get-rich-quick schemes could face jail time and million-dollar fines under the bill, which passed by a vote of 97 to 0.

Is this for real??

[phisholay]

Voting season is next year and they are trying to capture a large number of internet users. So don't be suprised if some of the new laws gets passed. lol

[Kerry Jones]

I can't wait to start bashing the spammers

[akashik]

I'm not going to hold my breath and any re-opening of this issue and possible laws to attempt to stamp it out are good in my eyes.

[Rich2k]

The EU already has an anti-spam law where it is opt-in only. In the UK it comes into force sometime in December this year.

[Shannara]

$1 million is a week for a spammer. Up to one year is nothing. Maybe they should draft real punishments against Spammers, such as life in jail, and lose all monies.

[Kerry Jones]

$1 million is a week for a spammer. Up to one year is nothing. Maybe they should draft real punishments against Spammers, such as life in jail, and lose all monies.

No, because it already costs us $30,000 per year for an immate. Why should we add more to our system? Also I was wondering if this includes webhosting companies who don't know the person is question is spamming? Will this also affect only the US?

[Shannara]

Very very good point. It would cost tax payers money due to a lame spammer.

Ok, I'd rather propose all monies and properties removed from possession, and a nice death sentance after 2 violations

Or at least all monies given to the people this child (spammer) spammed? I'll vote for a death sentance.

[okihost]

Personally I think on the first offense they should ban them from any type of computer use for 5 years and if they do it again throw them in jail for 20 years.
(that is on top of fines etc)

I think in the next few years we are going to see some serious crackdowns on spammers, my best guess would be that some of these goverment officials and their children are starting to get the crap when they check email so finally it is 'worthy' of cracking down on.

[phisholay]

Originally posted by Shannara
I'll vote for a death sentance.

Ban the bastards for using the internet for some period of time. Thats worst than a death penalty. Imagine one day without an internet.

[phisholay]

Okihost host the samething on my mind...Yes, ban from using the internet.

[Shannara]

Originally posted by phisholay
Ban the bastards for using the internet for some period of time. Thats worst than a death penalty. Imagine one day without an internet.

Not to me, because they can easily "train" someone else to take his place, and the spammer would still get a cut of cash. A death sentance would insure that the bastard cannot teach his kids, nor anybody else how to do such a thing.

[Kerry Jones]

I think you are wrong about giving a spammer the death sentence. I believe this may be too strict. I do however think they should be put on a ISP blacklist where no ISP can sell them internet access. The problem is this problem should of been settled in the 1990s when it first started to appear online. This is what I think would be a fair sentence.

25 - 250,000
Up to 2 years in prison
$25,000 per e-mail

250,000 - 1,000,000
3 1/2 years in prison
$35,000 per e-mail

1,000,000 - 3,000,000
7 years in prison
$50,000 per e-mail

3,000,000+
15 year in prison
$100,000 per e-mail