- Impact
- 26
WASHINGTON -- A new law that President Bush signed Tuesday will outlaw shady techniques used by some of the Internet's most prolific e-mailers, but the government still hasn't decided if it will create a do-not-spam registry of e-mail users.
"Spam, or unsolicited e-mails, are annoying to consumers and costly to our economy," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said after Bush signed the bill.
The law will prohibit senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail from disguising their identities by using false return addresses or misleading subject lines, and it will prohibit senders from harvesting addresses off Web sites.
"This will help address the problems associated with the rapid growth and abuse of spam by establishing a framework of technological, administrative, civil and criminal tools, and by providing consumers with options to reduce the volume of unwanted e-mail," McClellan said.
The law was applauded by representatives of Internet providers Earthlink and America Online who attended the bill-signing ceremony, along with several lawmakers.
"Combined with enforcement under state anti-spam laws, as well as damage lawsuits by Internet service providers, we hope to turn the tide against outlaw spammers," AOL Chairman Jon Miller said.
Under the law, the Federal Trade Commission is required to study the idea of setting up a do-not-spam registry modeled after the national do-not-call list of people who don't want to get telephone solicitations. The FTC, which must deliver a plan to Congress within six months, has expressed doubts that a registry is feasible, but lawmakers, including Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., are adamant about getting one established.
"We will be vigilant to make sure that the no-spam registry is adopted by the FTC and if they refuse, we believe Congress will move the legislation forward," Schumer said.
Some critics of the new law are angry because the federal law nullifies stronger anti-spam legislation passed in California and other states. They also say the federal law does not keep e-mail users in America from receiving spam from other nations.
The California law would have required businesses to get an Internet user's permission before sending them any e-mail advertisement, said California State Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, who helped write it.
"If Congress really had an interest in putting spammers out of business, it would have used California's new law as a model, put a bounty on the head of every single spammer and let as many people as possible go after them, just like we do with junk faxers."
Marketers who peddle goods and services through e-mail ads said they supported parts of the law because it distinguishes legitimate commercial e-mail from unlawful spam and imposes criminal penalties, including jail time, on spammers. However, the Direct Marketing Association, a trade group for businesses interested in interactive and database marketing, said it remains concerned about the creation of a government-run do-not-e-mail registry.
"Spam, or unsolicited e-mails, are annoying to consumers and costly to our economy," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said after Bush signed the bill.
The law will prohibit senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail from disguising their identities by using false return addresses or misleading subject lines, and it will prohibit senders from harvesting addresses off Web sites.
"This will help address the problems associated with the rapid growth and abuse of spam by establishing a framework of technological, administrative, civil and criminal tools, and by providing consumers with options to reduce the volume of unwanted e-mail," McClellan said.
The law was applauded by representatives of Internet providers Earthlink and America Online who attended the bill-signing ceremony, along with several lawmakers.
"Combined with enforcement under state anti-spam laws, as well as damage lawsuits by Internet service providers, we hope to turn the tide against outlaw spammers," AOL Chairman Jon Miller said.
Under the law, the Federal Trade Commission is required to study the idea of setting up a do-not-spam registry modeled after the national do-not-call list of people who don't want to get telephone solicitations. The FTC, which must deliver a plan to Congress within six months, has expressed doubts that a registry is feasible, but lawmakers, including Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., are adamant about getting one established.
"We will be vigilant to make sure that the no-spam registry is adopted by the FTC and if they refuse, we believe Congress will move the legislation forward," Schumer said.
Some critics of the new law are angry because the federal law nullifies stronger anti-spam legislation passed in California and other states. They also say the federal law does not keep e-mail users in America from receiving spam from other nations.
The California law would have required businesses to get an Internet user's permission before sending them any e-mail advertisement, said California State Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, who helped write it.
"If Congress really had an interest in putting spammers out of business, it would have used California's new law as a model, put a bounty on the head of every single spammer and let as many people as possible go after them, just like we do with junk faxers."
Marketers who peddle goods and services through e-mail ads said they supported parts of the law because it distinguishes legitimate commercial e-mail from unlawful spam and imposes criminal penalties, including jail time, on spammers. However, the Direct Marketing Association, a trade group for businesses interested in interactive and database marketing, said it remains concerned about the creation of a government-run do-not-e-mail registry.
