Gunning for spam

UPDATED AT 12:57 PM EST Monday, Oct. 27, 2003

Enlarge your manhood.

Wrinkle reduction and smoothing.

Introduce yourself please.

We did NOT say "BANKRUPTCY."

Any of those subject headings ring a bell? The flood of unsolicited e-mail wastes time, clogs computer networks and misleads even the wariest recipients, who evade the promise that "your views are worth money" only to fall for the deceptive greeting "Hi there." An urgent appeal from a "friend" turns out to be a request for a bank account number from the cousin of a deposed dictator with millions of dollars he wants to share.

How bad is it? The U.S. Federal Trade Commission estimates that two-thirds of commercial e-mail messages are deceptive or fraudulent. Last Wednesday, the U.S. Senate moved to outlaw this tsunami of spam.

Its bill, passed unanimously, would make it an offence for anyone sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to use a fake return address or include a misleading subject heading. Senders would have to reveal their physical addresses and make it obvious they were selling or promoting something. It would be illegal for them to use e-mail addresses scooped from other Web sites. They would have to give the recipient an easy way to tell them not to send any more e-mail, and they would have to respect that request.

To become law, the measure needs the approval of the House of Representatives, which has been wrestling with its own draft bills and is unlikely to decide anything before January. The Bush administration has already said it will sign the result into law.

Even if this system were to work perfectly, balancing freedom of expression and the right to privacy, it would not cure the problem entirely. Much spam originates in other countries. There are also legitimate concerns about giving government greater control over the Internet, though much of the regulation it has in mind would improve service for the 100 million or so Americans who use e-mail and aren't in the business of sending spam.

The Senate's bill also proposes a "no-spam" list, similar to the popular "do not call" list already approved by Washington, in which Americans can put their names on a registry to prevent telemarketers from calling them. The bill would direct the Federal Trade Commission to report back within six months on the feasibility of a no-spam registry.

In Canada, where the government has not moved in this area, two politicians are trying to spur their colleagues to action.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague, in a private member's bill that received first reading on Oct. 22, wants to criminalize the sending of unsolicited e-mail except by those with a "pre-existing business relationship" or "an existing personal relationship." Perhaps sensing that so wide a net might run afoul of the Charter's free expression guarantee, he stipulates that nobody could be prosecuted without the Attorney-General's consent.

Conservative Senator Donald Oliver's more detailed private bill, which received first reading on Sept. 17, would authorize the creation of an Internet Consumer Protection Council to which all Internet service providers would have to belong, and which would set standards and procedures to reduce spam, including the option of a no-spam list. The idea of creating a protocol to protect unwary users is appealing. The risk is that the degree of government interference proposed -- if the Industry Minister didn't like what the service providers on the council were doing, he could fire anyone he wished and rewrite the rules himself -- might make the cure worse than the disease.

But both Mr. McTeague and Mr. Oliver are right to raise the issue in Parliament. The public should have some efficient way to protect itself from the cavalcade of messages saying "No pills, no pumps," "Award Notification" and "Rx: Valium, Xanaxx, Viagra . . ."