Spam Legislation

[/ dave /]

In light of everything else that's going on at the moment the following may
seem less-than-compelling, but it's worth pointing out that the number of
unsolicited spam messages one currently receives from multi-level marketers
and penis-lengthening schemes will pale in comparison to the the flood likely
to ensue in the US (and elsewhere, no doubt) if Bob Barr and the corporate
interests get their way vis-a-vis derailing the legislation in the attached
article. 

While the proposed law itself may have shortcomings, it's worth pointing out
that if all that's required to make spam "legal" in the US is a non-bogus
return or reply-to address (as the competing, big-business-friendly
legislation would have it), companies can merely set up an inbox that 
filters/trashes response emails from annoyed recipients and continue to spam
at will, effectively rendering "private" email obsolete as boxes fill up with
commercial messages. This prediction may seem dire, but it seems pretty
obvious that the only reason "respectable" companies haven't plunged into the
game as yet is due to the uncertain legal status of spam.

The Chamber of Commerce and business interests really seem to be salivating at
the prospects for "legitimate uses of e-mail for marketing purposes," (quoting
Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte from the attached, who sponsored the competing
business-friendly bill), and this should offer some clues as the potential
results if they get their way.

I agree with the likely skeptics here and elsewhere that legislation in this
area is extremely dicey, but I think letting the corporate interests win this
round will, hearkening to Chuck0's sig quote, "change everything." It seems
prudent to try and plug the dike while we still can.

--

/  dave  /


House committee attempts to derail anti-spam bill

May 11, 2001
Web posted at: 10:59 a.m. EDT (1459 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A bill designed to reduce unsolicited
commercial e-mail ran into trouble in a House committee
Thursday, as business leaders and lawmakers declared their
opposition to the legislation. 

Almost every legislator and witness present for the House Judiciary
Committee hearing said they had problems with the bill, which
previously passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 

At Thursday's hearing, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Georgia, urged the business
leaders to work harder against the bill. "I would suggest a full-court
press," Barr said, calling the legislation "broad and heavy-handed." 

"We are engaged and active in trying to slow this train down," replied
Securities Industry Association representative Marc Lackritz.  "I think
you all need to be a bit bolder," Barr said. "I'd take off the gloves." 

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-New Mexico, includes
a $500 penalty for companies for each unsolicited e-mail -- known as
spam -- that they send. 

The Judiciary Committee got to look at the bill because it includes
several legal provisions, including one giving recipients the right to
sue companies that spam them. The committee can amend the
legislation before sending it to the House floor, but cannot kill it. 

Committee members and industry witnesses said they supported
a competing bill that would penalize spammers only if they used a
bogus return address. 

"Legislation should be narrowly targeted to provide law enforcement
with the tools they need to combat abuses without opening the
floodgates to frivolous litigation or interfering with legitimate uses of
e-mail for marketing purposes," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Bob
Goodlatte, R-Virginia. 

Goodlatte, noting that Wilson's bill passed the House last year with
only one dissenting vote, said opponents need to convince her to
change her proposal. The bill was passed late in the session and
without debate, and the Senate never took up similar legislation. 

"I think that all roads here lead through Ms. Wilson's office,"
Goodlatte said. "We need to find a way to accommodate your
concerns while realizing that something is going to be done on
this issue, and soon." 

"I don't know that language could be drafted that might be
satisfactory, but we're willing to look at anything," said Rick Lane
of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/05/11/congress.spam.ap/index.html