[IP] Self-Policing Added to Spam Bill
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: fyi, related to the spam discussion
To: dfarber@xxxxxxxxxx
From: Jonathan Krim <KrimJ@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:47:29 -0400
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26599-2003Sep17.html
Self-Policing Added to Spam Bill
By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 18, 2003; Page E01
One of the primary bills in Congress to crack down on spam e-mail contains
a new provision that would shield bulk e-mailers from penalties if they
agree to police themselves, raising new questions about the extent to which
industry is influencing the legislation.
According to a revised draft of a bill being circulated to members of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee, bulk mailers could form a
self-regulatory group that would maintain anti-spam standards of conduct
similar to those in the bill. Any member of the organization -- which would
have to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission -- would be exempt from
legal penalties that otherwise would apply to nonmembers.
The idea of a self-governing organization has been supported by several of
the big Internet e-mail account providers, most particularly Microsoft
Corp. The theory is that the group would employ an independent third party
that could issue an electronic seal of approval for "legitimate" senders of
commercial e-mail, thereby making it easier for computer users to filter
out mail from unsavory or fraudulent spammers.
Microsoft has been working with America Online Inc., Yahoo Inc. and
EarthLink Inc., all of which market to their members, on such a system.
"It's certainly something we've pushed for," said Microsoft spokesman Sean
Sundwall, though he declined to say whether the company had any direct
conversations with the bill's sponsors. The direct-marketing industry
already has a similar program in place for its members. Representatives of
the Direct Marketing Association did not return calls for comment.
But some consumer groups, anti-spam organizations, state prosecutors and
legislators were taken aback by the idea of making it law by adding it to a
bill sponsored by Reps. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.)
and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.).
"They are writing the law so that it places them where they think they
belong: above it," said Jason Catlett, head of Junkbusters Inc., an
anti-spam group
Ken Johnson, a Tauzin spokesman, responded that the self-regulation plan
improves the bill because it creates a grievance process for individual
consumers who might otherwise have trouble getting the attention of law
enforcement authorities when marketers are continuing to target them.
"The FTC does not have the resources to pursue individual, minor
complaints," Johnson said. The proposal establishes a complaint mechanism
that the self-policing group must follow.
The new provision is the latest twist for the bill, which is likely to be
the major piece of spam legislation to emerge from the House because of the
sponsors' powerful positions: Sensenbrenner is the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee; Tauzin, of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Revelations in May that lobbyists from the marketing, retailing and
Internet provider industries played a key role in drafting the original
bill forced its sponsors to reshape it after it was criticized as being weak.
Since then, negotiations have been ongoing with legislators who want a
tougher bill, led in part by Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), who has a
competing bill that has the bipartisan co-sponsorship of 67 representatives.
Congressional negotiators had been finding some common ground, sources
said, adding a Wilson-backed provision that requires the labeling of
pornographic content in e-mail. But the inclusion of the self-regulation
idea has undermined that progress and put the bill in "purgatory,"
according to one congressional staffer.
"It's a step backward," said a Wilson spokesperson. "It continues to
protect spammers at the expense of consumers."
The bill requires bulk mailers to honor consumer requests to stop receiving
unsolicited e-mail and makes it illegal for spammers to disguise their
whereabouts. It also makes illegal the practice of electronic "harvesting"
of e-mail addresses, in which special software is used to find e-mail
addresses on Web pages, copy them and add them to bulk mailing lists.
Even before the addition of the self-regulation provision, anti-spam
activists said the bill was full of loopholes. Some consumer groups and
state lawmakers are especially concerned that the bill would supplant
stronger state anti-spam laws and prevent individual consumers from suing
spammers. Supporters argue that federal rules are the only way to ensure
that legitimate marketers have clear rules that don't change from state to
state.
In many respects, the House bill -- minus the self-regulation plan --
mirrors a Senate bill that has passed through committee, though it is
unclear when it will be considered by the full Senate. The bill, sponsored
by Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), is supported by the
marketing and Internet provider industries.
Another Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), would
create a national do-not-spam list similar to the recently instituted
do-not-call list for telemarketers. But the FTC so far has opposed the
idea, and no similar bill has been introduced in the House.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/