Tech Insider: David Wolfgang-Kimball

"You have mail!"

Once upon a time, this sound was good news, something to look forward to when you connected to the Internet. In the last few years, however, that sound means as often as not that you have a mailbox full of unsolicited marketing opportunities, ads for XXX sex sites, and semi-literate promotions. In other words, Spam.

The problem is certainly not new. In the early 90s, the first major impact of Spam was to make Usenet newsgroups virtually unreadable. Now, thanks to sites like dejanews, which have made Usenet Spam filtering their number one priority, we can once again glean valuable information from the Internet's largest bulletin board without having to wade through pages of cross-posted junk.

BOMBARDED BY SPAM
Most Internet Service Providers have at least one full-time employee dedicated to keeping Spam from coming into or going out of their networks, and some providers, like AOL, have entire legal teams devoted to prosecuting email abuse. The issue is so prevalent, in fact, that the word "abuse" has come to mean one thing on the Internet--misuse of email. If you have a Spam complaint, chances are if you send it to abuse@Your-ISP-Here, you will reach the person who might be able to do something about it.

IS IT SPAM OR IS IT SPEECH?
There is no clear solution to stop the spread of Spam. Some advocate legislation prohibiting unsolicited bulk email, while others worry about the First Amendment ramifications associated with such plans. Nor is the current body of law consistent enough to draw any precedents--while junk faxing is illegal, we all get commercial solicitations via snail mail and over our telephones. There is no clear legal trend. Those who favor legislation point out that unlike faxing, snail mail, or telephones, the cost of Spam is borne by the recipient, rather than the sender. Your ISP pays the costs associated with sending and receiving Spam, and they pass those costs on to you. The sender pays next to nothing. On the other hand, it can be argued that by banning Spam, one would be squelching a Spammer's right to free speech, a right most Netizens hold very dear indeed.

PROPOSED CURBS ON SPAM
The last few months have seen a few changes in the Spam world. On May 12, 1998, the US Senate passed a Spam-regulating rider to a telecommunications bill. This rider specifies that bulk emailers must identify themselves with legitimate email addresses, phone numbers, and addresses, and that they must honor requests by recipients to be removed from the Spam lists. If the House and the President agree, violators would be subject to a $15,000 fine and any costs borne by ISPs in carrying the offending mailing. While some look at this bill as a positive first step that curbs Spam without trampling on free speech rights, others are not so sanguine about it. The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE) believes that the bill is a half-measure that does more harm than good. Their position is that the Senate has kowtowed to big marketing interests by allowing Spammers one free, legitimated shot at Spamming. If every Spamming entity takes this opportunity, not only would it increase the flood of Spam, but also it would be next to impossible for recipients to remove themselves from each and every list.

Some of the states have gotten into the act, too. Washington passed a watered-down bill that contains most of the same provisions as the Senate bill. The original version of the bill would have banned Spam outright, but lobbying interests such as Microsoft and the Direct Marketing Association succeeded in narrowing the bill's scope. Meanwhile, the California Assembly is considering AB 1629, one of the few bills supported by CAUCE. This bill is most likely to raise free speech issues, as it allows ISPs to virtually ban Spam on their networks by prosecuting any violation of the ISP's posted Spam policy.

So the debate rages on. The peculiar alliances this battle has created--free speech advocates and marketers on one side, Spam-hating Netizens who otherwise value free speech on the other side--will continue to wage this war over email, using moral, marketing, and First Amendment issues as their weapons. In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to hit DELETE.

More columns by David Wolfgang-Kimball