[IP] skeptics of anti-spam law demand an end to anonymity?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6455-2003Dec16.html
[]
<http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v2|3077|0|0|%2a|a;6841358;0-0;0;8018869;2321-160|600;4040776|4058672|1;;%3fhttp://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N2614.washingtonpost.com/B1137442.15;sz=120x600>
Click Here!
<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/wpni.technologyarticle/specials/spamdcopt=ist;dir=spamnode;dir=technology;dir=specials;dir=spam;page=article;kw=;pos=ad27;sz=160x600;tile=27;abr=!ie;ord=1071753391725?>
[]
washingtonpost.com
Anti-Spam Act Signed But Some Are Skeptical
By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 17, 2003; Page A18
President Bush yesterday signed the first national anti-spam legislation.
During the 15 minutes it took to conduct a signing ceremony in the Oval
Office, an estimated 99.8 million pieces of junk e-mail went to in-boxes in
the United States and around the world.
For those on the front lines of the spam wars, the new anti-spam act is a
law nearly everyone hopes will work, but some fear won't.
On one point, the anti-spam warriors agree: The flood of body-enhancement
scams, get-rich schemes and pornography will not go away soon.
"You can't just declare victory and go home," said Dave Baker, vice
president of public policy for Earthlink Inc., one of the nation's top
Internet service providers. "We think this a good piece of legislation. . .
. It's one more tool, but the fight continues every day."
The bill's sponsors hope to deter spammers by criminalizing their most
common techniques, such as faking the originating address of spam so the
e-mail cannot be traced and "scraping," or combing Web pages for e-mail
addresses to add to mailing lists.
The law, which takes effect Jan. 1, also requires marketers to give
recipients a clear opportunity to be free of future mailings. It directs
the Federal Trade Commission to study the possibility of creating a
national do-not-spam registry.
And the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing
Act of 2003 mandates that pornographic e-mail marketing be labeled.
Sens. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote a letter to
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy J. Muris encouraging the agency
to bring "a few major, high-profile enforcement cases right away."
"The clear message for big-time spammers would be that their abusive
behavior, which so far has had few if any consequences, now carries serious
risks," they wrote.
Howard Beales, who directs consumer enforcement at the FTC, said the law
can help. But "this isn't a magic solution," said Beales, whose office has
brought 60 spam cases rooted in anti-fraud law. "It's going to take
technological changes to get behind the anonymity that makes enforcement so
difficult."
Anti-spam activists agree but think the law will be counterproductive
because it allows marketers to send unsolicited e-mail at least once before
users have a chance to "opt out." They argue that unsolicited commercial
mail should be prohibited unless requested by users.
"The best that we might see is that the situation stays largely status
quo," said Ray Everett-Church, counsel for the Coalition Against
Unsolicited Commercial Email. "The worst is that legitimate businesses feel
they have the green light to spam."
Everett-Church and others are especially incensed that the new law will
wipe away state laws that take tougher approaches to the problem. For
instance, the federal law preempts portions of a California law that would
have required permission before any commercial e-mail could be sent.
"Getting a lifetime supply of spam from the president of the United States
is one heck of a holiday stocking stuffer," said Debra Bowen (D), a
California state senator who helped champion the California measure.
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), who pushed for changes to the bill that
made it tougher on all marketers, said the bill is a start. "I hope it
allows us to take back the Internet," she said.
H. Robert Wientzen, head of the Direct Marketing Association, said his
members are scrambling to understand the law's provisions so they can comply.
Alan Ralsky, often cited by anti-spam groups as the most notorious spammer
in the world, said he is, too.
"I will not violate the law," he said in an interview. He said he would
limit mailings to the roughly 70 million consumers who he says have bought
his products in the past.
And he will honor requests to be removed from future mailings. After that,
he wondered, will Internet account providers let his mail through rather
than block it?
"He's violated our anti-spam policies before, so why should we trust him in
the future?" said an America Online spokesman.
-------------------------------------
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/