Posted on: Thursday, June 13, 2002
One way or another, let's can the spam
Spam is more than unsolicited Internet advertising. The junk mail thriving at breakneck speed in our electronic mailboxes includes scams, hoaxes and viruses.
As far as we're concerned, spam is virtual harassment and it's got to be canned.
Sure, there's temporary relief. You can delete it, filter it out via keywords or sign up with a screening service. Or you can complain to your Internet Service Provider, which likely is spending a growing part of your monthly fee to fight spam.
But those tricky spammers are usually one step ahead of those attempting to block their pesky pitches. And if they keep it up, users will abandon e-mail out of frustration that they can't find the legitimate mail amid all the spam. Why, the entire e-mail system could crumble under the sheer volume of spam.
In the private sector, rampant spam is spawning an industry of anti-spam firms that hunt down the senders of unwanted messages through a network of decoy e-mail accounts.
As for government intervention, it's unclear if legislation will curb the spam epidemic. Some two dozen states — Hawai'i is not included — have passed anti-spam laws that essentially make it illegal to send unsolicited commercial e-mails that use a third party's address or domain name without permission. Some states require that any spam include opt-out requests that must be honored.
Under those laws, Internet Service Providers are encouraged to sue violators, but they rarely if ever do. The reason? There are so many spammers that it would take too long and cost too much to track them down.
Congress has been attempting to craft an anti-spam bill for some years now. Efforts have focused on financial incentives to encourage litigation.
Christopher Fasano, a New York law student, has published a study that suggests the most successful legal claims are those that treat spammers as trespassers under common law.
He cites the case Compuserve Inc. v. Cyber Promotions in which the court found the defendant liable because its mass electronic mailings demanded the disk space and drained the process power of Compuserve's computer equipment, thereby limiting access to subscribers.
The court found Cyber Promotions had thus damaged Compuserve's reputation and goodwill. Hotmail and AOL have also successfully pursued trespass claims against spammers.
But not everyone has the time and bucks to sue spammers. There must be a way that we can bring together the brightest legal minds, legislators, reformed spammers, hackers and cybercops to craft some forceful anti-spam legislation.
Because if we don't squelch spam, it'll certainly squelch our tolerance for e-mail.
