skeptics of anti-spam law demand an end to anonymity?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

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 interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/