The U.S. House of Representatives passed an anti-spam bill today:
- Online marketers who flood e-mail in boxes with pornography and get-rich-quick schemes would face multimillion dollar fines and jail time under the measure. It passed by a vote of 392-5 at dawn on Saturday, following an all-night session of the House that was largely devoted to a separate Medicare bill.
The Senate unanimously passed a similar anti-spam bill last month, but it must assent to the House changes before the measure can become law. The Senate is expected to do so in the coming days.
....Spam now makes up more than half of all e-mail, according to several surveys, and even online marketers have come to support some restrictions.
Lawmakers said spam has become a top constituent concern, and they also faced hundreds of unwanted messages daily.
Spam "cripples computer networks and makes regular e-mail checking a seemingly endless hassle," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin.
....The House bill, which would override state anti-spam laws, would allow businesses to send unsolicited e-mail to Internet users until they are asked to stop, an approach that some anti-spam activists say would only lead to more spam.
It would outlaw spammers' attempts to cover their tracks by requiring marketers to identify themselves clearly and avoid misleading subject lines or return addresses. Pornographic messages would have to be clearly labeled as such to allow users to more easily filter them out.
....The bill also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to set up a "Do Not Spam" registry of Internet users who wish to receive no unsolicited e-mail at all, similar to the Federal Trade Commission's popular "Do Not Call" list. [Reuters]
Article comments
1 - Hal Pawluk
"The House bill, which would override state anti-spam laws, would allow businesses to send unsolicited e-mail to Internet users until they are asked to stop"
This part has been the basic fallacy in all the bills. They look good, but actually give 100 million companies permission to send me e-mail, and I would have to respond to each and every one.
Where this one differs is the FCC authorization for a "Do Not Spam" registry.
If they actually fund the registry, this is great news. Otherwise it's just another law they can use to tell voters they did something, but with no results.
Maybe I'm just jaundiced by prior experience, so I'll hope for the best on this one.
But I am going to write my Senators and House Representative and tell them to do the right thing - put some money where their mouths are :-)
2 - Hal Pawluk
PS: The part about over-riding state laws is another booger in the works.
You find this rider in much of the legislation coming out of DC the last couple of years, and it almost invariable means a slackening of requirements for businesses, certainly here in California.
I wouldn't mind if they applied this approach to to taxes, but their arrogation of power to give campaign contributors a break on spam, pollution, etc. is more than annoying.
3 - BB
Considering the fact that smart spammers can conceal their true identity with bogus e-mail addresses, I have to ask how much teeth can such a bill have if it can't be enforced? I'm only playing the devil's advocate here because I am personally for anything that will reduce the problem. But it seems to me the problem is similar to the plight of copyright protection. Faster than they can come up with a scheme the hackers will find a way to crack it. I suppose what I am trying to say is I am all for the government trying to crack down (sorry for the pun) on the problem but I question it's viability given the weakness of technology. Call me cynical, but...
4 - Hal Pawluk
The law may not do much, but could provide some relief. Companies selling products that are delivered from the US will be vulnerable to the fines.
I'm afraid, though, that you're right and this is more like the problem of music theft through peer-to-peer sharing than it is to telemarketing and the DNC list.