| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
|
J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 135, No 3, 296.
© 2004 American Dental Association |
WILL SPAM BE CANNED?
Better known as the CAN-SPAM Act, the new measure outlaws common spamming practices, including disguising or falsifying routing information such as the sender’s address and using misleading subject lines. In addition, the act requires that all unsolicited commercial messages include a mechanism for refusing future communications and that messages containing sexually explicit content be labeled as such.
There’s little doubt that most people consider spam a nuisance. A recent study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which explores the impact of the Internet on society, found that 70 percent of e-mail users interviewed said the proliferation of spam has made being online "unpleasant or annoying." More than three-quarters are bothered by the deceptive, dishonest, offensive and obscene content of much of the spam they receive, while a little under one-third said 80 percent or more of the messages they receive are unsolicited.
So the CAN-SPAM Act is just the weapon we need to rid ourselves of this bane, right? Perhaps not.
"This legislation fails the most fundamental test of any anti-spam law, in that it neglects to actually tell any marketers not to spam," said a statement from the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, or CAUCE, a grass-roots organization concerned with regulating junk e-mail.
At issue for groups like CAUCE and other critics of the law is the fact that the measure targets only deceptive e-mail advertising, not unsolicited e-mail in general. While spammers who use bogus return addresses and misleading subject lines can face fines of up to $250 per message sent, businesses that avoid such deceptions remain free to bombard e-mail in boxes with unsolicited messages until each user tells them to stop by "opting out" of future communications.
And while the law directs the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, to study the feasibility of establishing a "Do Not E-mail" registry similar to the "Do Not Call" telephone list launched last year, it is at the FTC’s discretion to implement such a registry. FTC chairman Timothy Muris has questioned the efficacy of such a measure, noting that the fly-by-night nature of many spamming operations would make enforcement onerous.
In the absence of such a list, spam recipients are left with no choice but to opt out of each unsolicited communication they receive. Considering there were approximately 23 million businesses in the United States in 2002 (according to the U.S. Small Business Administration), any of which may be interested in using e-mail as a marketing tool, that could add up to a lot of opting out.
"This law does not stop a single spam from being sent," said CAUCE chairman Scott Hazen Mueller. "It only makes that spam slightly more truthful. It also gives a federal stamp of approval for every legitimate marketer in the U.S. to start using unsolicited e-mail as a marketing tool."
Last December, President Bush signed into law the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, aimed at stemming the flow of unsolicited commercial e-mail, or spam, that now accounts for more than one-half of all e-mail traffic, according to some estimates.
PHONE, 1-312-440-2500, For ADA’s members-only toll-free line, see your membership card
FAX 1-312-440-7494
ONLINE www.ada.org
211 E. Chicago Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
