10 JULY 2002: HOW CORPORATE
AMERICA SUPPORTS SPAM.

From the New
York Times:

“Brightmail says the volume
of spam it encounters has almost tripled in the last nine months. The
company adds that 12 to 15 percent of total e-mail traffic is spam; a year
ago, that figure was closer to 7 percent. Brightmail, which maintains a
network of In boxes to attract spam, now records 140,000 spam attacks a
day, each potentially involving thousands of messages, if not millions.

Statistics like these are
supported by anecdotal evidence from computer users, who report that they
are seeing more unwanted e-mail every time they log on. Hounded by spam,
some computer users have simply abandoned e-mail addresses…

Ideally, consumer advocates
want the spam equivalent of the 1991 federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, which prohibited prerecorded telemarketing calls and junk faxes. The
trade commission was also given power to enforce the legislation.

A broad anti-spam law has
been approved in Europe. On May 30, the European Parliament passed a ban
on unsolicited commercial messaging. Electronic marketing can be aimed
only at consumers who have given prior consent.

In contrast, more than a
dozen spam-related bills have been introduced in Congress over the last
two years, and most of them have languished. Of the handful that have made
progress, the most recent is the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing act (a contorted title that yields the acronym
Can Spam), which was unanimously approved by the Senate Commerce Committee
last month. The Can Spam bill would, among other things, let the F.T.C.
impose civil fines up to $10 per unlawful message, require valid “remove
me” options on all e-mail and authorize state attorneys general to bring
lawsuits.

Now it must be voted upon
by the full Senate, and two other independent spam bills are moving slowly
through the House of Representatives. But interest groups are lobbying
to tone down the strongest aspects of spam legislation.

Those lobbyists are not
spammers. They are some of the country’s largest corporations and commercial
associations: Citicorp, Charles Schwab, Procter & Gamble, the National
Retail Federation, the Securities Industry Association and the American
Insurance Association. The groups argue that many of the bills would unfairly
restrict e-mail marketing and put electronic commerce at a disadvantage.

“We would like the bill narrowed
so only pornographic, fraudulent and deceptive spam are targeted,” said
John Savercool, the vice president of federal affairs for the American
Insurance Association. “We think that is where the consumer angst is.”

But Senator Conrad Burns
of Montana, a Republican sponsor of the Can Spam bill, says that consumer
frustration goes beyond pornography and fraud. “I get enough applications
for credit cards, offers to consolidate my debt and advertising for Viagra
in my mailbox,” he said. “I don’t need it on my computer too.”