Spam Ban
Unsolicited commercial junk e-mail, or “spam,” is a huge problem. Especially the porn; I have to shoo my kids out of the room when I check my e-mail. But junk legislation offered up to presumably solve the problem can make things worse.
Last week, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., proposed a law that would impose subject-line labeling requirements for commercial e-mail (it would have to say “ADV”); forbid concealing one’s identity; mandate an “unsubscribe” mechanism; ban the use of software capable of collecting e-mails from the Internet; set up stiff noncompliance fines; and establish an expensive (and likely hackable and thus worse-than-useless) Do-Not-Spam list at the Federal Trade Commission. Of course, politicians exempt themselves as possible offenders under anti-spam legislation, remaining free to send us junk campaign material.
The downside to an Internet in which you can contact anyone is that anyone can contact you. Spammers pay no postage or long-distance charges. The solution is to shift those costs back to the spammer; the question is whether to do that legislatively or technologically.
Plainly, peddling fraudulent merchandise or impersonating somebody else (such as a person or organization like AOL) in the e-mail’s header information should be punished, as should breaking an agreement made with an Internet service provider that prohibits bulk mailing.
But in the debate over the outpouring of spam, it’s important to avoid unintentionally stifling beneficial e-commerce. Regulating communications isn’t something to be done lightly. If a law merely sends the most egregious spammers offshore to continue hammering us, that may simply create legal and regulatory hassles for small businesses trying to make a go of legitimate e-commerce or for mainstream companies that are not spammers. Commercial e-mail, even if unsolicited, may be welcome if the sender is a business selling legal and legitimate products in a non-abusive manner.
As the market works to shift costs of commercial e-mail back to the sender, we must guard against legislative confusion in approaches like Schumer’s: How might the definition of “spam” expand beyond “unsolicited” and “commercial” e-mail?
What about unsolicited political or nonprofit bulk e-mailings, press releases, resume blasts and charitable solicitations? What about newsletters that contain embedded ads? Or what about one’s personal e-mail signature line with a link back to one’s employer? That’s a subtle solicitation, whether we admit it or not. At the very least, unwise legislation would create serious headaches for noncommercial e-mailers like nonprofit groups. Would pop-up ads become suspect in the aftermath of spam legislation? They’re not e-mail, but they are unsolicited and commercial.
Finally, legal bans on false e-mail return addresses, as well as bans on software capable of hiding such information, have worrisome implications for free speech and anonymity for individuals – and will be ignored by spammers anyway. Well-meaning individuals can use “spamware” to create the contemporary version of the anonymous flyers that have played such an important role in our history. Individuals should retain the ability to safeguard their anonymity even with (or perhaps especially with) a mass communications tool like e-mail. In an era in which so many people are concerned about online privacy, a law that impedes a technology that can protect such privacy would be curious indeed.
Smarter approaches to the spam epidemic include better e-mail filtering, such as setting the owner’s screen to receive only from recognized and approved e-mail addresses. That’s particularly appropriate for children’s e-mail accounts. Emerging “handshake” or “challenge and response” systems capable of totally blocking spam show promise: Because the most offensive spam is sent by automatic bulk-mailing programs that aren’t capable of receiving a reply, spam no longer appears in the inbox.
Identifiers or “seals” for trusted commercial e-mail could be another means of helping ISPs block unwanted e-mail. A new consortium – including AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo – to establish “certified” e-mail would bolster this approach.
Given the perfectly understandable desire to stop unsolicited e-mail, it is all too easy for Congress to undermine legitimate commerce, communications and free speech. And crippling Internet commerce would be especially pointless if spam continued pouring in from overseas. A better target is junk press conferences, like the one at which Schumer announced his bill. $25,000 fine, at least.
