{"id":486,"date":"2003-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-26T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2003\/11\/26\/senate-oks-anti-spam-bill\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:37:27","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:37:27","slug":"senate-oks-anti-spam-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2003\/11\/26\/senate-oks-anti-spam-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"Senate OKs Anti-Spam Bill"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Senate Tuesday gave final approval to the CAN SPAM Act, following last weekend&#8217;s overwhelming vote on the landmark federal anti-spam bill by the U.S. House of Representatives.  If signed into law by President Bush, the legislation would mark the first national attempt to put a crimp on junk mail.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The bill, which would override all existing state anti-spam laws, puts numerous restrictions on the marketing e-mail messages companies can send to users, levies fines and jail terms for offenders, and instructs the Federal Trade Commission to report to Congress on a plan to create a &#8216;do-not-spam&#8217; list, one similar to the that recently put into place by the FTC which prevents telemarketers from calling consumers who have added their names and phone numbers to the list.<\/p>\n<p>Criminal charges are also part and parcel of the CAN SPAM Act, with penalties ranging up to five years in prison for such practices as hacking into another person&#8217;s computer with the intent of sending spam from the hijacked machine, falsifying header information in bulk junk mail, and registering five or more e-mail accounts using false information then using those ill-gotten accounts to blow spam onto the Internet.<\/p>\n<p>More info: [url=http:\/\/www.securitypipeline.com\/news\/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DZDJ4BPE4AWPCQSNDBCSKHY?articleId=16400839]http:\/\/www.securitypipeline.com\/news\/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DZDJ4BPE4AWPCQSNDBCSKHY?articleId=16400839[\/url]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/486","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=486"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/486\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2973,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/486\/revisions\/2973"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}