Tough anti-spam legislation proposed Bill includes provisions for prison time
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau Saturday, June 21, 2003 Washington -- Showing that the public's complaints about the rising tide of spam e- mail may have finally produced momentum for action, the Senate is moving ahead on a bill designed to rein in the torrent. The bipartisan bill written by Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is one of a slew of proposals in Congress to fight spam -- unsolicited, unwanted commercial e-mail. Another bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Atherton, was introduced Wednesday by a bipartisan group in the House. Several bills, including the Burns-Wyden measure, call for potential prison time for some convicted spammers. "Something has got to be done to protect American consumers, and this is a good start," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said before his Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved the bill by voice vote Thursday. "Spammers disregard our laws and are winning the technological arms race with Internet service providers." Congress has been discussing spam since 1997, and the committee passed a bill before that died on the Senate floor. Now the issue has morphed into a much bigger problem -- the volume of spam has soared from about 7 percent of all e-mail in 2001 to more than 45 percent today. Thirty states, including California, already have anti-spam laws, but computer users, Internet service providers and the Federal Trade Commission say something must be done nationally to rein in unwanted e-mails sent to millions of addresses for such things as pornography, Viagra and phony get- rich schemes -- even for products to help fight spam. Advocates concede that a tough federal law still will have a limited impact without international action because spammers can easily move overseas. Internet civil libertarians worry that legislation could undermine Internet free speech. The Burns-Wyden bill, which was significantly toughened in recent days, would ban false or misleading subject lines in unsolicited e-mails, and allow recipients to tell senders not to send them more messages. It would also require senders to include a real return address, "clearly and conspicuously displayed," and prohibit such practices as "address harvesting" and "dictionary attacks" -- methods spammers use to acquire vast numbers of e-mail addresses. Penalties could include up to a year in prison. The bill also allows states' attorneys general, Internet service providers, and the FTC to bring civil actions and collect damages. The bill also instructs the FTC, which is setting up a national do-not-call registry for consumers who don't want to be bothered by telemarketers, to give Congress a plan for a similar no-spam registry six months after the telemarketing program is up and running. "We don't think this legislation is bullet-proof, but we think it's a chance for the government to go on the offensive," said Wyden. The House bill co-sponsored by Eshoo is similar, with provisions for consumers to opt out of getting e-mail. However, it requires senders to comply with the opt-out request within 10 days and prevents spammers from selling a consumer's e-mail address once that person has opted out. It also would require that spam for pornography allow recipients to send back an opt-out message without opening the message. The bill carries stiffer criminal penalties than the Burns-Wyden bill. The tidal wave of spam has persuaded even the Direct Marketing Association, a group that represents mass mailers, to back regulation. Until Thursday, the group was linked to a proposal by Republican House members Richard Burr of Missouri, Billy Tauzin of Louisiana and James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin to prohibit false or misleading subject headers in messages and require senders to have a valid return address. Their bill also contains opt-out provisions and bans the harvesting of e- mail addresses. But the opt-out would be good for only three years, and the bill frowns on anti-spam lawsuits. But the marketers all but admitted Thursday that their favored bill wasn't going anywhere. In a letter to McCain, marketers said that even though the Burns-Wyden bill had been toughened in recent days, they would now support it. "We believe that it is critical that the Congress pass anti-spam legislation this year. Therefore, we believe that the marketing industry can comply with the provisions of the bill," wrote Direct Marketing Association government affairs vice president Jerry Cerasale. Among the other bills before Congress is one from Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. Her unique wrinkle is a provision allowing consumers to turn in spammers to the FTC and collect a bounty of up to 20 percent of any civil fines collected. In another twist, the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced a bill Thursday calling for prison sentences of up to five years for repeat spammers. E-mail Edward Epstein at <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
