Anti-spam panel: Proposed laws aren't enough

WASHINGTON -- Two proposals aiming to curb unwanted commercial e-mail currently being discussed in the U.S. Congress won't go far enough toward eliminating spam, several members of a panel of antispam advocates said Friday at a forum at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Most of the group of eight panelists agreed that federal anti-spam legislation is needed in the U.S., but all disagreed with a proposal recently offered by Representative Zoe Lofgren and most said they didn't support a bill offered by Senators Conrad Burns and Ron Wyden. What's needed instead, said David Kramer, of the Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati law firm, is a national law that requires e-mail marketers to get opt-in permission and allows private citizens to sue spammers, much like a junk fax law passed by Congress in 1991.

"Where there is the reward to the consumer for serving the public interest by going out and taking action, if only for $1,500, in his or her own name ... you will see individuals going to court and making those claims," Kramer said.

Faring better with the panel was a proposal by Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, that would create a national "no-spam" list, much like a national do-not-call telemarketing list. Supporters of such a bill said it would at least give e-mail users or enforcement agencies a place to start court action against spammers.

But John Patrick, chairman of the Global Internet Project, said a national no-spam list would be difficult to maintain and wouldn't address spam coming from outside U.S. borders. He urged lawmakers to give technological solutions a chance to work.

"If I'm a spammer in Tajikistan, why do I care about any state or (U.S.) federal law?" he asked. "We're really kidding ourselves here if we think we can go to small claims court to sue the spammer in Tajikistan."

Although Kramer called for a law allowing private lawsuits, he and others panned a proposal by Lofgren, a California Democrat, which would offer a bounty to some people who report spam offenders and require commercial e-mail to have an "ADV" label. The labeling requirement will be ignored by spammers and penalize legitimate marketers because e-mail users or Internet service providers would filter out messages with the "ADV" label, critics said.

And the bounty isn't necessary, because e-mail users are already reporting spam by the thousands to the FTC and Internet service providers, said Ray Everett-Church, counsel for the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email. But the bigger issue is what happens after those complaints are made. "The problem isn't finding the spammers, it's getting law enforcement to act," he said. "It's a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist."