Internet Firms Back New Anti-Spam Bill in Senate

In February, the Direct Marketing Association ' the industry's lobbying group ' withdrew its reservations and supported the bill, conceding that the rampant proliferation of spam now threatens legitimate e-mail marketing. The switch closely followed pledges from Internet companies, whose customers are fed up with spam, to push for strong anti-spam legislation.

Internet-company supporters of the Burns-Wyden bill include America Online, Yahoo Inc. and EarthLink Inc.

At least one Internet service provider, America Online, hopes the bill will ultimately become part of a larger legislative “package” with tougher measures. And one key consumer anti-spam group opposes the bill, arguing it will actually spawn more spam.

Dubbed the CAN-SPAM Act, the bill would require e-mail marketers to provide ways for consumers to opt out of their e-mail lists, rather than to criminalize all spamming. Many spammers hide behind false e-mail addresses or take consumer requests to be removed from lists as an invitation to send more spam.

The bill would also enable Internet service providers to take legal action to block illegal spam from their networks. The FTC would be able to impose civil fines on violators of the law and state attorneys general could take up lawsuits on behalf of victimized consumers.

“This bill will help to keep legitimate Internet traffic and e-commerce flowing by going after those unscrupulous individuals who use e-mail in annoying and misleading ways,” said Sen. Wyden in a statement.

But John Mozena, spokesman for CAUCE, or Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email – one of the country's leading grass-roots efforts against spamming – argues that a system based on opting out of e-mail lists is not likely to put a dent in spam. Even if spammers wanted to cooperate, he says they probably would not be able to keep up with the unsubscribe requests.

Spammers have proven a mischievous lot and are unlikely to obey the law, says Laura Atkins, president of the anti-spam group SpamCon Foundation. “I do not think it is actually going to have any effect,” she went on to say, noting that 70% of spam is already illegal under state anti-spam laws, according to the FTC; yet it keeps on coming.

Skeptics of the law have voiced concern that by defining the rules for legitimate spamming, it opens the door for a barrage of legal but unsolicited bulk e-mail. “That's taking spam out of the realm of the pornographers, the body-part enlargers and the relatives of dead Nigerian dictators” says Mr. Mozena.

Internet companies declined to comment on CAUCE's concern or call to make all unsolicited mailings illegal.

America Online says it supports the bill's provisions, but would also like to see federal legislation that includes tough criminal penalties for illegal spammers and Internet service provider rights to pursue them for monetary damages.

“Spammers shouldn't be behind computer screens doing spam. They should be behind bars,” says America Online spokesman Nicholas Graham, adding that such “teeth” will “disincentive the spamming process.”

America Online and EarthLink have both long pursued serial spammers under existing law. Graham cited the Virginia Computer Crimes Act as a model of the kind of tough legislation his company hopes to see at the federal level. To date, America Online has won all of the more than 100 lawsuits it has pursued against individuals and companies under that law.

Graham would not quantify the monetary burden spam places on the company, but says its main motive for backing anti-spam legislation is its members' ire. AOL customers send an average of 6.5 million spam reports a day and complain about spam more than anything else.

“If it's public enemy No. 1 for our members, it's [the] No. 1 priority for us,” he says.

AOL's views were mirrored by Yahoo and eBay.

“Spam, which can be malicious and illegal, is denigrating the online experience for hundreds of millions of Internet users,” says Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako.

Consumer frustrations have soared in the wake of skyrocketing spam. Anti-spam technology company Brightmail Inc., in San Francisco, has estimated spam now accounts for 40% of all e-mail. The firm counted 6.7 million unique spam messages in March, up from 3.8 million a year earlier.

Dave Baker, vice president for law and public policy at EarthLink, says up to half of the messages that reach its servers are spam. EarthLink filters out much of it before they can reach subscribers' inboxes and offers users additional filters for their personal computers.

“As an [ISP], spam costs us millions of dollars every year in terms of product development, manpower, legal costs and implementation of technical means to filter it out,” he says. “Spam is a pernicious problem, and this (legislation) gives ISPs and consumers another tool in the fight.”

Internet companies welcomed a new Senate bill aimed at protecting consumers from the miasma of spam, or unwanted junk e-mail.

The bill, introduced by Sens. Conrad Burns (R.-MT) and Ron Wyden (D.-OR), targets unscrupulous Internet marketers by setting ground rules that define illegal spam and provides legal recourse for Internet-service providers, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general looking to halt spammers.

Last session a similar bill, tabled due to national-security issues, was strongly opposed by the marketing industry.

In February, the Direct Marketing Association ' the industry's lobbying group ' withdrew its reservations and supported the bill, conceding that the rampant proliferation of spam now threatens legitimate e-mail marketing. The switch closely followed pledges from Internet companies, whose customers are fed up with spam, to push for strong anti-spam legislation.

Internet-company supporters of the Burns-Wyden bill include America Online, Yahoo Inc. and EarthLink Inc.

At least one Internet service provider, America Online, hopes the bill will ultimately become part of a larger legislative “package” with tougher measures. And one key consumer anti-spam group opposes the bill, arguing it will actually spawn more spam.

Dubbed the CAN-SPAM Act, the bill would require e-mail marketers to provide ways for consumers to opt out of their e-mail lists, rather than to criminalize all spamming. Many spammers hide behind false e-mail addresses or take consumer requests to be removed from lists as an invitation to send more spam.

The bill would also enable Internet service providers to take legal action to block illegal spam from their networks. The FTC would be able to impose civil fines on violators of the law and state attorneys general could take up lawsuits on behalf of victimized consumers.

“This bill will help to keep legitimate Internet traffic and e-commerce flowing by going after those unscrupulous individuals who use e-mail in annoying and misleading ways,” said Sen. Wyden in a statement.

But John Mozena, spokesman for CAUCE, or Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email – one of the country's leading grass-roots efforts against spamming – argues that a system based on opting out of e-mail lists is not likely to put a dent in spam. Even if spammers wanted to cooperate, he says they probably would not be able to keep up with the unsubscribe requests.

Spammers have proven a mischievous lot and are unlikely to obey the law, says Laura Atkins, president of the anti-spam group SpamCon Foundation. “I do not think it is actually going to have any effect,” she went on to say, noting that 70% of spam is already illegal under state anti-spam laws, according to the FTC; yet it keeps on coming.

Skeptics of the law have voiced concern that by defining the rules for legitimate spamming, it opens the door for a barrage of legal but unsolicited bulk e-mail. “That's taking spam out of the realm of the pornographers, the body-part enlargers and the relatives of dead Nigerian dictators” says Mr. Mozena.

Internet companies declined to comment on CAUCE's concern or call to make all unsolicited mailings illegal.

America Online says it supports the bill's provisions, but would also like to see federal legislation that includes tough criminal penalties for illegal spammers and Internet service provider rights to pursue them for monetary damages.

“Spammers shouldn't be behind computer screens doing spam. They should be behind bars,” says America Online spokesman Nicholas Graham, adding that such “teeth” will “disincentive the spamming process.”

America Online and EarthLink have both long pursued serial spammers under existing law. Graham cited the Virginia Computer Crimes Act as a model of the kind of tough legislation his company hopes to see at the federal level. To date, America Online has won all of the more than 100 lawsuits it has pursued against individuals and companies under that law.

Graham would not quantify the monetary burden spam places on the company, but says its main motive for backing anti-spam legislation is its members' ire. AOL customers send an average of 6.5 million spam reports a day and complain about spam more than anything else.

“If it's public enemy No. 1 for our members, it's [the] No. 1 priority for us,” he says.

AOL's views were mirrored by Yahoo and eBay.

“Spam, which can be malicious and illegal, is denigrating the online experience for hundreds of millions of Internet users,” says Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako.

Consumer frustrations have soared in the wake of skyrocketing spam. Anti-spam technology company Brightmail Inc., in San Francisco, has estimated spam now accounts for 40% of all e-mail. The firm counted 6.7 million unique spam messages in March, up from 3.8 million a year earlier.

Dave Baker, vice president for law and public policy at EarthLink, says up to half of the messages that reach its servers are spam. EarthLink filters out much of it before they can reach subscribers' inboxes and offers users additional filters for their personal computers.

“As an [ISP], spam costs us millions of dollars every year in terms of product development, manpower, legal costs and implementation of technical means to filter it out,” he says. “Spam is a pernicious problem, and this (legislation) gives ISPs and consumers another tool in the fight.”