Antispam bills face tough challenges

G. Goth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MSECP.2003.1236226

2003-09-01

Abstract:8 PUBLISHED BY THE IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY 1540-7993/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE IEEE SECURITY & PRIVACY I f there is any doubt that the US Congress might have overreached itself in its attempts to craft an antispam law, perhaps the subtle differences between the two proposals before them will serve as proof that an agreement will come grudgingly—and that ISPs and end users might not see practical relief, anyway. Two of the bills receiving the most attention in the US House of Representatives are HR 2515 (AntiSpam Act of 2003), introduced by Heather Wilson (D.-New Mexico) and HR 2214 (Reduction in Distribution of Spam Act of 2003), introduced by Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin (R.-LA), James Sensenbrenner (R.-WI), and Richard Burr (R.-NC). Both bills contain an “opt-out” provision in which recipients of a commercial email message can remove their names from a business’s mailing list. However, the Wilson bill (HR 2515) is more popular among consumer advocates because the optout clause also covers the sender’s affiliates. The Tauzin bill (HR 2214), which the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) favors, would require a separate opt-out request for every sender, thereby causing end users and ISPs to spend more time eliminating messages they don’t want to see or route through their networks. Attorneys and policy advocates who have been following antispam efforts say that simultaneously trying to protect consumer rights and business interests in a way that will also stand up to judicial scrutiny might derail the passage of effective legislation. “There are so many proposals out there now that it’s likely something will pass,” says David Sorkin, a professor at John Marshal School of Law in Chicago. Sorkin has a Web site dedicated to spam legislation (www. spamlaws.com), and is troubled by the rush to create new laws. “I don’t know whether it’s going to do any good because I have a lot of problems with many of the bills,” he says. In their effort to satisfy constituents who want fast action, Sorkin says lawmakers have created “kitchen sink bills,” proposals with a very wide range of remedies— “everything but the kitchen sink”— that might prove ineffective. New Jersey-based attorney R. Jonas Geissler, who has written on the difficulty of defining commercial email, says the relative newness of electronic communication makes it critical that legislators not succumb to solutions that appear simple. “They understand some of the problems, but they’re trying to combine grappling with a social issue with what’s going to survive in the courts,” Geissler says. “Even with a great deal of consideration, it’s very difficult to tailor the law with precise words to ensure it won’t be overturned.” While most tech-savvy observers believe the creation of a “do-notspam” list similar to the existing “donot-call” list aimed at telemarketers faces insurmountable technical and enforcement hurdles, Sorkin actually thinks such a list is more effective than some of the other mainstays in most of the bills, such as requirements labeling commercial messages and prohibitions against forging header information. “A list isn’t the answer either, but it’s better than the advertising labels or saying spam is okay as long as you don’t forge the headers,” Sorkin says. “There’s a lot of problematic stuff in there. I could live with something that’s got a provision that can be morphed into a ban on spam—like if you’ve got a do-not-email list where you can put domain names on there, so every domain name can be put there, and you can’t spam anybody. I don’t care what else they say about fraud and labeling and all that, because it’s not going to legitimize something that’s already illegal. But most of those bills are a mess.” The Center for Democracy and Technology, a technology policy watchdog in Washington, D.C., has followed the spam issue closely for several years (www.cdt.org/speech/ spam/). CDT Associate Director Ari Schwartz says the likelihood of a law passing is just about a toss-up. “It’s looking less likely that something will come out of the Senate this year, but the House still wants to do something, and if they do, then there will be pressure on the Senate. Antispam Bills Face Tough Challenges