|
The
Can Spam Act was passed in 2003 and was one of the first
laws to control spam. There is much controversy surrounding
this law; many people believe it is a victory for e-mail
users who are worried about risky spam, and others feel
that it is a green light to certain spammers who want
to foist aggressive advertisments on consumers.
The
law is quite strict about illegal activities, but seems
to allow loopholes for regular commercial business whose
spam many e-mail users also find annoying. Still others
greet the law as a first step in bringing the battle against
spam into the public sphere.
The
Can Spam Act stands for Controlling Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing Act. Those who must follow this
law are all those who send commercial e-mail that promotes
a service or product. Sending mass advertising is permitted
as long as the information is not false or misleading
and doesn't involve any illegality.
The
agencies with the jurisdiction to enforce the Can Spam
Act are the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and the DOJ
(Department of Justice). These agencies can enforce criminal
sanctions against those who violate this law. Federal
and State agencies can also serve as watchdogs and to
take care of spam problems.
Under
the Can Spam Act, businesses are not allowed to use misleading
information in their headers, and cannot use false headers
as "hooks" to lure someone to open an e-mail
that contains information that is different from that
suggested by the header. The e-mail must give the recipient
the opportunity to state that he or she does not want
to receive any more e-mail promotions from that company.
Once the recipient has ordered the sender to stop sending
e-mails, the sender is given 10 business days to cease
from sending e-mails to that person. Under the Can Spam
Act, it is illegal to sell e-mail addresses to others.
Activities
that are strictly prohibited under the Can Spam Act include:
using other computers as spam zombies, selling e-mail
addresses from those who do not want to be contacted,
labeling sexually explicit material as something else
with a deceptive header or subject line, and harvesting
the net for private information about individuals, including
e-mails. These activities can lead to a $11,000 fine or
jail time.
Many
people were heartened by this law, while others were disappointed.
The reactions were often opposite of those expected. Many
spammers who simply promote their business with mass,
unsolicited e-mails, but do not create spam zombies or
engage in illegal activities, applauded the law as a legitimization
of their business practices.
Many
Californians who wanted to make all spamming illegal in
their state were disappointed by the laws' leniency regarded
unsolicited marketing. However, even those who were disappointed
saw it as a first step toward spam regulation.
Some
wonder about the effectiveness of the Can Spam Act, and
indeed, about the viability of attempting to regulate
the net at all. Many people receive so many spam e-mails
that they do not have the energy to report every case
that appears.
Similarly,
agencies are usually swamped with complaints, and can
only deal with the most serious cases. Therefore, some
believe that this is the reason the law only deals with
dangerous spammers rather than with annoying ones. So,
at least for now, it looks like spamming is here to stay.
|
