Congress passes bill to control spam

By Jim Landers
The Dallas Morning News

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

WASHINGTON — Congress sent President Bush a bill yesterday to curb the explosive growth of unsolicited e-mail advertisements, but some say the bill could actually increase the amount of spam consumers receive.

President Bush is expected to sign the bill, whose official name is the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act" (Can-Spam). Indeed the White House revamped its e-mail system because of a flood of so-called spam.

Republican and Democratic supporters said it would let consumers opt out of unwanted e-mail ads, which 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 might 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 OptInRealBig.com, a Denver 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 that allow individuals to sue spammers who use deceptive practices or violate "opt-out" requests.

The Can-Spam bill cleared the House yesterday by unanimous consent. The Senate passed the bill before the Thanksgiving recess. The bill would supplant tougher anti-spam laws passed in about 35 states, including a California law that takes effect Jan. 1.

The legislation would prohibit senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail from disguising their identity by using a false return address or misleading subject line. It also would prohibit senders from harvesting addresses off Web sites and require such e-mail to include a mechanism so recipients could indicate they did not want future mass mailings.

The bill also would require e-mail ads to have an "ADV" or "ADV.Adult" description in their subject line. The ads must have a return address to allow consumers to opt out or demand that no further e-mail is sent.

The bill sets fines of $250 an 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 up to $6 million.

Congress was spurred to act in part by business complaints that spam is slowing worker productivity. The rising flood of unwanted e-mail is costing companies between $10 billion and $87 billion a year, according to a variety of anti-spam firms.

The legislation directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to study the feasibility of a "do-not-spam" registry where consumers could get on a list that bars all unsolicited e-mail, much as the FTC's "do-not-call" list shields consumers from telemarketers.

More than 54 million telephone users had their numbers put on the federal do-not-call registry.

FTC Chairman Timothy Muris has said he would discourage consumers from putting their e-mail addresses 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 yesterday predicting spam would account for 70 percent of all e-mail by April 2004.

The company's chief technology officer agreed the new bill could make things worse before they get better.

"As a global company that scans 30 million e-mails a day for 7,500 companies worldwide, we believe this legislation is another tool in the arms race against spam," said MessageLabs' Mark Sonners. "Yet, if signed into law as is, there is a chance it will actually increase already growing volumes of spam and adversely affect consumers and businesses."

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.

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.

Green said U.S. legislation has to be enacted before law-enforcement officials could approach other nations about taking corresponding action.

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company