| On January 1, a new Federal law went into affect that may serve to severely diminish the overload of junk e-mails – commonly called spam – from clogging our in-boxes. Americans have been suffering from an onslaught of junk e-mail, most of which were obtrusive, annoying solicitations for such dubious products as male enhancers, generic Viagra, and a host of unspeakable content. American business spends billions each year on junk e-mail filters, monitoring services and wasted bandwidth. Unlike almost any other form of solicitation, spam mail infuriates, frustrates and otherwise turns complacent individuals into outraged Net-surfers. I’m always amazed at how the mere mention of “spam” at a dinner party produces such impassioned conversations.
For your own use at the next covered dish gathering, the word spam as a name for junk e-mails was first used years ago in reference to a famous Monty Python skit in which a restaurant patron is increasingly more agitated as he finds that every dish is made of Spam, the meat product produced by Hormel. He finally explodes in utter frustration, yelling, “Spam, Spam, Spam,” repeatedly. Therefore, as a comment on the multiplying messages that began to bother users, the word spam became synonymous with junk e-mails.
Spam, despite Hormel’s best efforts to end its use in this connotation, has become the favorite venue for modern con artists and unethical business practices. The reason President Bush signed the anti-spam legislation last month was because the art and science of spamming had reached such a point that the cost of continuing to block spam messages was escalating beyond any reasonable levels. Coupled with the public success of the Federal Trade Commission’s “Do Not Call” Registry, Congress finally acted to put the weight of the federal government on top of spammers.
Spamming, for those who do it, can be a very lucrative business. With a few keystrokes, tens of millions of messages can be delivered to e-mail addresses all around the globe. No postage, no advertising media buys. Just small bits of data delivered almost instantly. If only 0.1% of a 100 million recipients buy a $29.95 box of growth hormone, the seller stands to gross almost $3 million.
With such a low cost, every business with whom we consult asks us about using e-mail to reach their established and potential customers. Used correctly and with proper disclosures, and provided that the business is offering a legitimate product or service, e-mail can be effective. Unfortunately, reputable companies have seen their messages lost or erased as they fall within a huge bundle of spam on a user’s computer screen.
Most of the spam sent out over the past few years is bogus. It contains offers to buy products which either don’t exist, won’t work, or will never be shipped to the buyer. Many offers are only designed to get the recipient to click the “Please Unsubscribe Me” link at the bottom. DON’T. Unless it’s a company you know, clicking that link will more times than not simply confirm to the spammer that your e-mail is legitimate, and therefore you will be their target for thousands of more messages. Spammers have masked their identities through a variety of clever and deceptive technical ways. They use mail servers in China, North Korea and elsewhere to “bounce” their messages, making it nearly impossible to track the source.
Federal law now requires that senders of “unsolicited e-mails” cannot mask their identities or the source of the e-mail transmission. Businesses must provide and honor un-subcribe requests. The law also prohibits the harvesting of e-mail addresses from Web sites.
The new anti-spam legislation puts penalties for using these techniques on those for whom the e-mail benefits: the business selling the product or service. Additionally there are penalties for those who actually send out the spam, although finding those crafty techno-geeks will be much more difficult. The unfortunate thing is that the federal law negates all state-level regulations that have recently been passed. What the states can’t do, however, is effectively go after spammers in other states. The U. S. Government can.
Are you now safe from spam? No! You still have to be vigilant. If a business can demonstrate they have your express permission to send you e-mail, they cannot be held criminally or civilly liable. We recently received a card in the mail asking us to call to receive a $25 gift certificate to a particular store chain. The fine print – and it was really fine print, requiring strong reading glasses – said that by accepting this gift certificate, the store chain had our express permission to “send us special offers via e-mail.” I would have loved to have a free $25 to shop with, but not at the price of allowing them to barrage me with e-mails. The fine print also said they could share my information with their marketing partners – basically anyone willing to pay them for the list.
If you do business with a subsidiary of a larger company, not only does that subsidiary automatically have a right to send you e-mails since they have an established business relationship with you, but so can their affiliate companies, which, with some organizations, can total in the dozens and hundreds. Anti-spam groups protested this loophole, but most are simply glad to see any legislation come from Congress which has been very slow to react to Internet abuses such as minor access to pornography and spam.
While the new law doesn’t go as far as many would like, however, it does provide for the FTC to investigate the feasibility of creating a “Do Not E-mail” registry. The FTC is initially reluctant, despite the success of the “Do Not Call” list, but many in Congress are suggesting that they may force the FTC to create the registry, regardless.
It remains to be seen how strongly the government will enforce this new law. They can’t prevent overseas businesses from sending us offers. As long as the offers are as tasteless and idiotic as the ones we have been getting, we can only hope those will fade as well from a lack of sales.
|
