Controversial Spam Bill Takes Step Forward

Welcome Guest. | Log In| Register | Membership Benefits

August 06, 1998 (5:06 PM EDT)

By John Borland,

A U.S. House subcommittee Thursday approved a measure that Net spam opponents say could legitimize bulk e-mail online.

The focus of the federal bill is "slamming," the practice of changing consumers' long distance telephone services without their permission. But a controversial amendment to the bill targets e-mail advertisements, making it illegal for bulk mailers to hide their identities, and threatening penalties of up to $15,000 for spammers that use fake return addresses.

Despite that apparent anti-spam slant, activists fighting commercial e-mail say the bill could, in fact, increase the number of advertisements flowing into online mailboxes.

"It says that if you meet these conditions, [spam] is legal. And the conditions are fairly trivial," said John Mozena, co-founder and vice president of the Coalition Against Unsolicited E-Mail (CAUCE). Already some advertisers are including messages saying their bulk mail complies with the bill, even though it hasn't yet become law, Mozena said.

In its current form, the bill would require bulk mailers to identify their messages as advertisements, give the name, address, and e-mail address of the advertiser, and give recipients an easy way to take themselves off the mailing list. These requirements apply only to the body of the messages, while anti-spammers say ads should be identified in the header of e-mail letters.

The bill would also pre-empt any state spam bill passed after July 1, which angers state-level policy-makers. California is close to passing a bill that would give ISPs the power to sue spammers that violate posted e-mail policies. If the federal bill passes, this measure would be rendered toothless.

To date, Nevada and Washington are the only states to have passed bills regulating bulk e-mail. Both measures took effect earlier this summer.

Mozena said his group had originally pressed federal policy-makers for a law banning spam altogether, but turned to states after meeting with resistance from United States policy-makers. "We would prefer a good federal law to a number of different state laws," he said. "But bad federal legislation such as this is worse than no legislation at all, especially if it pre-empts state laws."

CAUCE will continue to lobby against the bill's amendment as it moves to the House floor, he said.

The bill passed the subcommittee on a voice vote, and will likely be voted on by the full Commerce committee when the House returns from its August recess.

Reuters contributed to this report