Tucson, Arizona Tuesday, 9 December 2003
| * Penalties called for in the bill are likely to be difficult to enforce.
$250 per e-mail for sending repeat messages to addresses that opt out of future ads. $6 million Spammers could be sued for up to $6 million if they break the rules. 54 million telephone users have had their numbers put on the federal "Do Not Call" registry. |
Some experts believe curbs on e-mail won't be effective
By Jim Landers
THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS
WASHINGTON - Congress sent President Bush a bill Monday to curb the explosive growth of unsolicited e-mail advertisements, but some say the bill could actually increase the amount of spam that consumers receive.
Republican and Democratic supporters said it would let consumers opt out of unwanted e-mail ads, which now account for more than half of e-mail traffic. But Internet security companies and one of the biggest e-mail advertising firms said the bill may backfire.
"All the major companies are booking ads now because they're real excited
about the new law," said Scott Richter, chief executive officer of OptInReal
Big.com, a Denver-based e-mail advertising delivery firm that says it has a
list of 45 million e-mail addresses. "It's not going to do anything."
Richter said ad orders were surging because the federal bill would pre-empt state laws in Texas, California and elsewhere that allow individuals to sue spammers who use deceptive practices or violate "opt-out" requests.
The CAN-SPAM bill cleared the House Monday by unanimous consent. The Senate passed the bill before the Thanksgiving recess.
Bush is expected to sign the bill, whose official name is the "Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act."
The bill sets fines of $250 per e-mail for sending repeat messages to addresses that opt out of future ads. Along with federal agencies, Internet service providers and state attorneys general could sue spammers who break the new rules for damages of as much as $6 million.
The bill makes moot the anti-spam laws of 35 states.
The bill requires e-mail ads to have an "ADV" or "ADV.Adult" description in their subject lines. The ads must have a return address to allow consumers to opt out or demand that no further e-mails are sent.
Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., a sponsor of the legislation, said the bill would bring consumers relief.
"For the first time during the Internet era, American consumers will have the ability to say no to spam," he said.
Congress was spurred to act in part by business complaints that spam is slowing worker productivity. The rising flood of unwanted e-mails is costing companies anywhere between $10 billion and $87 billion a year, according to a variety of anti-spam firms.
The legislation directs the Federal Trade Commission to study the feasibility of a "Do Not Spam" registry where consumers could get on a list that bars all unsolicited e-mails, much as the FTC's popular "Do Not Call" list shields consumers from telemarketers.
More than 54 million telephone users have had their numbers put on the federal "Do Not Call" registry.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored the anti-spam registry language, said during Senate debate last month that it would become "the best tool" for prosecutors to use against spammers.
"For the first time, there's some light at the end of the tunnel," he said.
FTC Chairman Timothy Muris has said he would discourage consumers from putting their e-mails on such a registry, because most spammers already operate outside the law, and a registry in the hands of the wrong people could become an invitation to spam.
Howard Beales, director of the FTC's consumer protection bureau, said the agency would run the study and report back to Congress, as the bill requires.
"If we had to write the report today, we'd say we don't think it's enforceable, and the administrative and technical problems with it are extremely severe," Beales said.
MessageLabs, a London-based Internet security firm, released a forecast Monday predicting spam would comprise 70 percent of all e-mail by April.
The bill for the first time provides the Justice Department with the means to bring criminal charges against senders of deceptive and pornographic spam, a provision Beales applauded.
The FTC has sued more than 60 individuals for fraudulent spam but usually recovers little in damages, he said.
"In our civil enforcement, we find empty pockets more than not," he said.
Richter said even criminal penalties would do little to deter such individuals.
"Spammers are still going to spam. If we can't catch a terrorist with $50 million in reward money, how are we going to stop a spammer using a dial-up connection in Turkey?" he asked.
Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said U.S. legislation has to be enacted before law enforcement officials could approach other nations about taking corresponding action.
California's anti-spam law was considered the toughest in the nation because it allowed individuals to sue for damages and because it called for an "opt-in" approach that required consumer consent to e-mail advertising before e-mail ads could be sent.
Green said the "opt-in" approach was left out of the bill because supporters felt it was likely to fail a court challenge on freedom-of-speech grounds.