[Politech] Why Fed antispam law is not a paper tiger, by Jim Halpert [sp]

From: Declan McCullagh (declan@private)
Date: Wed Nov 26 2003 - 06:10:20 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "[Politech] First charge in Canada for WiFi "theft of telecommunications""

    ---
    
    From: "Halpert, Jim - DC" <jim.halpert@private>
    To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan@private>
    Subject: RE: [Politech] Why Fed antispam law is useless, by James Maule [s
    	p]
    Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:05:36 -0500
    
    
    Declan:
    
    I helped with drafting the criminal provisions of this bill and they are not
    a paper tiger.
    
    U.S. spammers who use falsification techniques (falsified headers, viruses,
    proxy abuse, falsified email account or domain name registration or zombie
    netblock abuse), do so at risk of 3-year felony penalties -- more if they
    use more than one of these techniques.
    
    As for the person in the U.S. who hires the foreign spammer to advertise a
    website for them will face direct criminal liability under new Section 1037
    of the federal criminal code if the spam involves falsification -- as most
    spam does -- and can be sued civilly by ISPs, the FTC and state AGs under
    the civil provisions of the bill.
    
    Some difficulties proving the criminal violation, of course, but
    "nastygrams" should be very helpful for proving civil violations.
    
    					-- Jim Halpert
    
    _______________________________________________
    Politech mailing list
    Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Nov 26 2003 - 06:52:55 PST