Antispam Legislation Lags

Public outrage against spam has become so palpable that even Congress has taken notice. Over the last nine months, politicians of all stripes have announced their cures for the spam epidemic.

Lawmakers are now mulling nine separate proposals to deal with the problem of unsolicited commercial e-mail.

Some of the bills would impose civil or criminal penalties for sending deceptive messages. Another would create a database of people who don't want to receive spam, and still another would issue rewards to those who turn in suspected spammers.

So far, not one is close to becoming law.

That's not what the legislators said early in the session. Early indications were that an antispam measure would pass this year. Several states, including California and Virginia, were tackling the issue on their own.

As the 108th Congress settles down to its most difficult annual task--passing appropriations bills to fund the federal government--odds for passage of an antispam measure this year are virtually nil. Any law that does come to a vote will be a hybrid, taking pieces from different bills. And none will likely be strong enough to please most antispammers.

Familiar Territory

We've been down this road before. The 107th Congress considered eight antispam bills; the 106th Congress pondered eleven. None came close to passage. This time most experts believe Congress will actually pass something. But when the lawmakers do it, and what they will pass, is up for grabs.

The CAN-SPAM Act, cosponsored by Senators Conrad Burns (R-Montana) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), has been proposed with slight modifications in each of the last three sessions. Among other provisions, it calls for civil penalties of up to $1 million for e-mail that's deliberately deceptive. The Burns-Wyden bill is the only one to have passed out of committee this year, and is now awaiting a Senate floor vote.

But such a vote isn't likely to happen anytime soon, says Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. If Burns-Wyden does come to a vote, Schwartz says, it will probably include language from the Criminal Spam Act of 2003, which carries penalties of up to five years in prison for sending fraudulent e-mail. Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) has also pledged to add his "Do Not Spam" registry to any pending legislation.

A more likely candidate for a floor vote will come in the House, where Representative Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) has strong support for his RID Spam Act, which is cosponsored by congressional powerbrokers Billy Tauzin (R-Louisiana) and John Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin). There it will probably be combined with language from the similar Anti-Spam Act of 2003. Both laws would outlaw deceptive messages, prohibit harvesting of e-mail addresses, and allow ISPs (but not individuals) to sue spammers for damages.

Even then, both houses would have to pass their own bills and come up with one version they can agree on, a process that could stretch well into next year.

No Sure Cure

For many antispammers, such delays are a good thing.

"None of the bills will solve the problem, and a few stand to make it far worse," says Andrew Barrett, executive director of the SpamCon Foundation.

"The problem is that much of the language in the various bills tries to redefine what spam is. It focuses on fraudulent content rather than permission from the intended recipient," Barrett says.

Schwartz says that while the CDT would favor a law requiring permission-based e-mail, attacking deceptive messages is a necessary first step in the war on spam.

"No one is under the illusion that legislation will stop spam in its tracks," Schwartz says. "The question is, can we stop it from growing? If we accomplish that, then we can look at ways to drastically reduce the amount of unwanted mail."

But for now, we'll just have to wait.