Magna Carta News
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Oklahoma Spam law introduced.
Oklahoma House of Representatives
February 3, 2004
By MIKE W. RAY
House Media Division Director
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A bill filed in the state House of Representatives is intended to make it convenient for e-mail recipients to respond easily to transmissions of unsolicited "spam." Additionally, a pair of House bills would stiffen state laws against "identity theft."
House Bill 2215 would require any unsolicited commercial e-mail message to include an automatic return mechanism which would enable the recipient to send a reply without having to retype the sender's e-mail address.
The proposal is an expansion of last year's House Bill 1691, which requires senders of unsolicited "spam" to remove e-mail recipients from an electronic mail message list upon request.
HB 1691, in turn, amended Senate Bill 660, which made it a crime to, among other things, falsify e-mail transmission information, send e-mail that has false or misleading information in the subject line, or send sexually explicit material or advertising without including "ADV-ADULT" in the subject line.
Rep. Chris Hastings is the author of HB 2215. The Tulsa Republican said he is just one of thousands of Oklahomans who are "inundated daily with a flurry of obnoxious, unsolicited e-mail sales pitches."
Misappropriating someone else's identity is the subject of House Bill 2287 by Rep. Kevin Cox, D-Oklahoma City, and of House Bill 2503 by Rep. Fred Perry, R-Tulsa, vice chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Both measures would make it a crime to "use personal identifying information" of another individual, living or dead, "to avoid summons, arrest, prosecution, or to impede a criminal investigation."
HBs 2287 and 2503 define "personal identifying information" to mean name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license number, bank account numbers, credit/debit card numbers, personal identification numbers (PINs), electronic identification codes, automated or electronic signatures, biometric data, fingerprints, passwords, or "any other numbers or information that can be used to access the financial resources of a person, obtain identification, act as identification, or obtain goods or services."
Identity theft in Oklahoma is "spiraling upward," said Cox, who was the House sponsor of the original identity-theft legislation enacted in this state. Identity theft "steals a person's identity and a person's life," he asserted. "It drives many people into bankruptcy and wrecks their credit."
State laws enacted in 1999 and 2001 deem identity theft to be a felony crime that can be punished with a two-year prison sentence and/or a $10,000 fine.
HBs 2287 and 2503 both stipulate that identity theft would be considered to have been committed in any locality where the person whose identifying information was stolen resides, or in which any part of the offense took place, "regardless of whether the defendant was ever actually in such locality."
The two bills also would empower courts to require an identity thief to make restitution to any person or estate "whose personal identifying information was appropriated." Restitution could include actual expenses incurred in correcting "inaccuracies or errors in a consumer report or other personal identifying information..."
House Bill 2215 was assigned to the Science and Technology Committee, while House Bills 2287 and 2503 were assigned to the Criminal Justice Committee.
-30-
Oklahoma House of Representatives
February 3, 2004
By MIKE W. RAY
House Media Division Director
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A bill filed in the state House of Representatives is intended to make it convenient for e-mail recipients to respond easily to transmissions of unsolicited "spam." Additionally, a pair of House bills would stiffen state laws against "identity theft."
House Bill 2215 would require any unsolicited commercial e-mail message to include an automatic return mechanism which would enable the recipient to send a reply without having to retype the sender's e-mail address.
The proposal is an expansion of last year's House Bill 1691, which requires senders of unsolicited "spam" to remove e-mail recipients from an electronic mail message list upon request.
HB 1691, in turn, amended Senate Bill 660, which made it a crime to, among other things, falsify e-mail transmission information, send e-mail that has false or misleading information in the subject line, or send sexually explicit material or advertising without including "ADV-ADULT" in the subject line.
Rep. Chris Hastings is the author of HB 2215. The Tulsa Republican said he is just one of thousands of Oklahomans who are "inundated daily with a flurry of obnoxious, unsolicited e-mail sales pitches."
Misappropriating someone else's identity is the subject of House Bill 2287 by Rep. Kevin Cox, D-Oklahoma City, and of House Bill 2503 by Rep. Fred Perry, R-Tulsa, vice chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Both measures would make it a crime to "use personal identifying information" of another individual, living or dead, "to avoid summons, arrest, prosecution, or to impede a criminal investigation."
HBs 2287 and 2503 define "personal identifying information" to mean name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license number, bank account numbers, credit/debit card numbers, personal identification numbers (PINs), electronic identification codes, automated or electronic signatures, biometric data, fingerprints, passwords, or "any other numbers or information that can be used to access the financial resources of a person, obtain identification, act as identification, or obtain goods or services."
Identity theft in Oklahoma is "spiraling upward," said Cox, who was the House sponsor of the original identity-theft legislation enacted in this state. Identity theft "steals a person's identity and a person's life," he asserted. "It drives many people into bankruptcy and wrecks their credit."
State laws enacted in 1999 and 2001 deem identity theft to be a felony crime that can be punished with a two-year prison sentence and/or a $10,000 fine.
HBs 2287 and 2503 both stipulate that identity theft would be considered to have been committed in any locality where the person whose identifying information was stolen resides, or in which any part of the offense took place, "regardless of whether the defendant was ever actually in such locality."
The two bills also would empower courts to require an identity thief to make restitution to any person or estate "whose personal identifying information was appropriated." Restitution could include actual expenses incurred in correcting "inaccuracies or errors in a consumer report or other personal identifying information..."
House Bill 2215 was assigned to the Science and Technology Committee, while House Bills 2287 and 2503 were assigned to the Criminal Justice Committee.
-30-
