Slashdot Mirror
Why Isn't SPAM Regulated Like Fax?
byronne asks: "It seems like spam has escalated so much lately that it seems to actually become a quantifiable bandwidth waster. The less bandwidth available, the less productivity due to spam-dedicated bandwidth is lost. Being primarily a phone system transmitted medium, why can't unsolicited junk email be regulated and controlled like junk fax? Just a simple question that I haven't seen anybody ask or relate together." SPAM is becoming more and more of a problem with today's e-mail. I used to find e-mail a valuable tool for communication, but even with filters, folders and SPAM software, I spend more time culling my inbox than I do reading mail (and if I see one more mail with "allhallowmas" in the title, I'm going to go postal!). Is regulation the answer? Many people fear such a move, but might it be time to give it some serious thought?
Here in Germany, junk mails (e-mails, that is) are considered the same as junk faxes legally. It doesn't help much, though: Either you can't trace the spammers, or they're sitting in some obscure Caribbean country where your legislation has no power.
From http://www.markwelch.com/faxlaw.htm (referencing 47USC227):
Under United States law, it is unlawful "to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement" to any "equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper." The law allows individuals to sue the sender of such illegal "junk fax" or (arguably) "junk email" for $500 per copy. Most states will permit such actions to be filed in Small Claims Court.
Telemarketing has been a fact, but recent regulations have improved. You can now have your phone number added to a database which all US telemarketers must check before calling you. If they call you when if you are in that database, or if they call back after you have explicitly requested that they not call you back, they can be fined $500 for each violation (or some such fee). Perhaps not many people know of this database, but it does work and several telemarketers have been successfully sued for their violations. I still stand by my statements that regulations don't have to be incomprehensible, nor hinder normal use. I am unfamiliar with the "screening services" you mention, but I don't think anyone has to buy these to accomplish a reduction in telemarketing calls.
Telemarketing is less prevalent than spam though, because there has to actually be a live person on the other end (usually) to make it really work. But I see your point that e-mail is a different issue. It is international in scope and forgible in content.
The phone regulations work because the infrastructure is there to support it. E-mail does not have this infrastructure: phone calls are traceable, and centrally controllable while e-mail is potentially UNtraceable and not centralized.
Then perhaps what we need is a better infrastructure? A series of "trusted" servers perhaps, with required configurations? Some overseeing body to reject a server deemed irresponsible? That would also mean a centralized location for complaints... a big plan but perhaps necessary.
Another idea is to go after those who benefit. At some point there is a name or URL to visit or write. If they aren't the spammers, then they can provide who is or be shut down anyway. I know this approach has been taken by some mail administrators, but won't work unless it's applied consistently.
This all sounds like turning e-mail into the phone company, but I don't have another workable solution right now. Hmmmm.... more ideas, anyone?
--dv
Insert witty saying or aphorism here.