Bush Signs Anti-Spam Bill

On Dec. 16, President George W. Bush signed the “can spam” legislation passed earlier in the month by Congress. The legislation provides for jail time and hefty fines for serious violators and calls for the creation of a “do not spam” registry.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said after Bush signed the bill: “Spam, or unsolicited e-mails are annoying to consumers and costly to our economy. This will help address the problems associated with the rapid growth and abuse of spam by establishing a framework of technological, administrative civil and criminal tools, and by providing consumers with options to reduce the volume of unwanted e-mail.”

Along with requiring an “opt-out” option for those receiving e-mail solicitations, the bill requires online marketers to identify themselves as such, and prohibits the use of false or misleading sender addresses and subject lines. Pornographic messages would also have to be identified as such.

The legislation would “end all of that nonsense and bring peace of mind back to everyone who sends and receives e-mail,” said Rep. W.J. “Billy” Tauzin (R-LA) the Energy and Commerce Committee's chairman.

The legislation would supercede 35 state anti-spam laws, some of which are more stringent.

Some studies estimate that spam makes up more than half of all e-mail. A Pew Internet & American Life Project study, conducted in October, concludes that, “spam is beginning to undermine the integrity of e-mail and to degrade the online experience.” Some key findings from that survey:

• 25% of e-mail users say the ever-increasing volume of spam has reduced their overall use of e-mail;
• 60% of that group says spam has reduced their e-mail use in a big way.
• 75% of e-mail users are bothered that they can't stop the flow of spam.
• 80% of e-mail users are bothered by deceptive or dishonest content of spam.
• 76% of e-mail users are bothered by offensive or obscene content of spam.

(Spam: How it is hurting email and degrading life on the Internet, Pew Internet & American Life Project, October 22, 2003. For the full report, go to http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=102.)

Says Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM): “Now we can go back to looking forward to opening our inboxes in the morning because we'll have notes from our friends rather than herbal supplements and mortgage offers.”

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Internet service provider America Online have also officially supported the legislation.

While the bills are similar, they do differ – differences that both houses of Congress hope to resolve by the end of the year if not earlier. A stronger California anti-spam law is set to go into effect Jan. 1, 2004, and Congress wants to supercede that and other state statutes.

Online marketers support a national law, saying that it would be difficult if not impossible, to follow different laws in each state to which they wish to market. In a statement to its members on the Direct Marketing Association (DMA)'s Web site referring to both bills, DMA President & CEO H. Robert Wientzen, says that, “We are actively supporting the approaches taken by these proposals.” (The Association is also on record as saying that a Do Not Spam list wouldn't work).

The measure has come under some criticism for not being strong enough. Opponents content that lobbyists have caused the legislation to be softened, pointing to the inability for consumers to sue spammers.

“It's not going to solve all the problems, but it's the first real step,” says Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). “The public is demanding something. It's going to happen. We're going to get it done.”

On Dec. 16, President George W. Bush signed the “can spam” legislation passed earlier in the month by Congress. The legislation provides for jail time and hefty fines for serious violators and calls for the creation of a “do not spam” registry.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said after Bush signed the bill: “Spam, or unsolicited e-mails are annoying to consumers and costly to our economy. This will help address the problems associated with the rapid growth and abuse of spam by establishing a framework of technological, administrative civil and criminal tools, and by providing consumers with options to reduce the volume of unwanted e-mail.”

Along with requiring an “opt-out” option for those receiving e-mail solicitations, the bill requires online marketers to identify themselves as such, and prohibits the use of false or misleading sender addresses and subject lines. Pornographic messages would also have to be identified as such.

The legislation would “end all of that nonsense and bring peace of mind back to everyone who sends and receives e-mail,” said Rep. W.J. “Billy” Tauzin (R-LA) the Energy and Commerce Committee's chairman.

The legislation would supercede 35 state anti-spam laws, some of which are more stringent.

Some studies estimate that spam makes up more than half of all e-mail. A Pew Internet & American Life Project study, conducted in October, concludes that, “spam is beginning to undermine the integrity of e-mail and to degrade the online experience.” Some key findings from that survey:

• 25% of e-mail users say the ever-increasing volume of spam has reduced their overall use of e-mail;
• 60% of that group says spam has reduced their e-mail use in a big way.
• 75% of e-mail users are bothered that they can't stop the flow of spam.
• 80% of e-mail users are bothered by deceptive or dishonest content of spam.
• 76% of e-mail users are bothered by offensive or obscene content of spam.

(Spam: How it is hurting email and degrading life on the Internet, Pew Internet & American Life Project, October 22, 2003. For the full report, go to http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=102.)

Says Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM): “Now we can go back to looking forward to opening our inboxes in the morning because we'll have notes from our friends rather than herbal supplements and mortgage offers.”

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Internet service provider America Online have also officially supported the legislation.

While the bills are similar, they do differ – differences that both houses of Congress hope to resolve by the end of the year if not earlier. A stronger California anti-spam law is set to go into effect Jan. 1, 2004, and Congress wants to supercede that and other state statutes.

Online marketers support a national law, saying that it would be difficult if not impossible, to follow different laws in each state to which they wish to market. In a statement to its members on the Direct Marketing Association (DMA)'s Web site referring to both bills, DMA President & CEO H. Robert Wientzen, says that, “We are actively supporting the approaches taken by these proposals.” (The Association is also on record as saying that a Do Not Spam list wouldn't work).

The measure has come under some criticism for not being strong enough. Opponents content that lobbyists have caused the legislation to be softened, pointing to the inability for consumers to sue spammers.

“It's not going to solve all the problems, but it's the first real step,” says Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). “The public is demanding something. It's going to happen. We're going to get it done.”