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