Spam - 16: Senate Passes Anti-Spam Bill

Dateline 05/18/98

"A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular."   Adlai Stevenson

On Tuesday, May 12, 1998, US Senate passed S. 1618 by a vote of 99-0.

   Very exciting.

   Said bill, also called "Consumer Antislamming Act" and mainly dealing with the practice of phone companies switching their consumers' service provider, also contains a part pertaining to unsolicited commercial email or spam.

What's in the bill?

The relevant sections are aimed at controlling spam. But what measures does it provide to do that?

   First and foremost, the bill outlaws header forging; the penalties for sending email with false origin or routing information can be as much as USD 15,000. Spammers (or "email marketers") must provide full contact information including their address.

   The amendment also endorses the idea of opt-out lists. Bulk email must contain instructions on how to get off the mailing list. Spammers of course have to honour removal requests.

Will it help?

The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial (CAUCE) says the bill is a step back rather than a success for the anti-spam community and Net users. I can agree that the bill will be effectively ineffective in fighting spam, but I'm not sure it will make matters worse.

Opt-In is in

   On of the problems of S. 1618 certainly is its focus on opt-out lists. This concept is essentially fraudulent-prone. Where from do all the email addresses for the lists you have to opt out of come? What will hinder spammers to create ever new lists? And, in any case, as CAUCE points out, each bulk emailer gets "one free bite"; at least.

   Email marketing with opt-in lists would certainly make both marketers and marketees happier.

Money matters

The bill does not deal at all with one of the core issues of spam: money. The bizarre situation where mainly the person getting the spam is paying for it is not even questioned.

Legal spam

CAUCE also argues that the bill would legitimize spam. Good to hear that it is currently illegal.

   The legitimation would encourage companies that had been deterred by the court rulings (which were mostly due to header forging, no?) to use bulk email as an advertising medium.

   I think what makes "companies" not use spam is its 'unlawfulness' in terms of Net acceptance. The bill won't change that (I hope).