Acting on behalf of his rural constituency, Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced new anti-spam legislation Wednesday that would put the onus on commercial emailers and ISPs to act responsibly - or else.
In contrast to a House bill by Representative Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) that would ban spam, Murkowski's Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Choice Act of 1997 would require senders to label commercial email and include complete physical and virtual addresses.
"Smith's bill deals with an outright ban of commercial email," said Murkowski aide Joe Keeley. "We're not interested in having the government tell you what you can and cannot receive in your mailbox."
Murkowski argues that his constituents in remote Alaska pay high long-distance connection fees that make it costly to download spam. His bill would make ISPs do what America Online's Preferred Mail filter already does for its users: prevent the email from getting there in the first place.
The legislation would require spammers to put the word "advertisement" in the subject line of all emails, as well as include legitimate addresses and contact information. In addition, ISPs would be required to screen out commercial messages at users' requests (ISPs would be expected to have screening technology implemented within two years). Additionally, spammers would be required to remove users from their list if so requested, or be fined up to US$11,000. The Federal Trade Commission would enforce the legislation with the help of state attorneys general.
Smith's proposed legislation, on the other hand, would be an opt-in solution as an amendment to the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act outlawing junk faxes. The bill would ban unsolicited bulk commercial emails - which Murkowski fears would be a First Amendment violation.
One commercial emailer said one of the Murkowski bill's basic features - what amounts to a new category of mail by use of the advertising label - was a positive step.
"A bulk email class would just be fantastic," says Gary Cooper, president of bulk email company Softcell, who says his company was using the subject line BLK two years ago to help those who wanted to filter out their email. "We're all for it as long as it doesn't curtail free enterprise on the Net."
Opponents of spamming legislation believe that Murkowski's bill is as unsound as Smith's, and that government should keep away from the problem.
"I don't think either approach is practical," said Stanton McCandlish, program director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's local legislation in a global medium. Spammers will just move offshore."
Additionally, the foundation is concerned that putting a new burden on ISPs to serve as spam police is harming the services' business interests.
In the belief that the matter can be solved without government intervention, the EFF and other Net organizations are working with spammers and ISPs to set guidelines for commercial mailings and technical fixes to the problem. McCandlish points to the Aristotle name-removal program, which Sanford Wallace's Cyber Promotions has endorsed, as one success story already.
"These things working in concert may fix the problem, but legislation could derail this by sending spammers into a panic," McCandlish said. "It's good that Congress is actually paying attention to consumer-protection issues on the Internet, but this legislation is jumping the gun."
