|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From... Senate hears FTC's position on spamJune 18, 1998 by Brian McWilliams
FTC commissioner Sheila Anthony told members of the subcommittee on communication that the agency receives more than 1500 reports of spam every day. While the FTC is concerned about the burden junk e-mail places on computer users and Internet service providers, Anthony said the agency is zeroing in on spammers who try to use e-mail to defraud consumers. "Our concern at the Commission is its widespread use to disseminate false and misleading claims about products and services," Anthony said. "The Commission believes the proliferation of deceptive bulk [e-mail] on the Internet poses a threat to consumer confidence in online commerce." Anthony compared junk e-mail ads to 900-number, pay-per-call technology, both of which have been exploited by unscrupulous marketers. Congress passed laws to give the FTC power to regulate 900 numbers, and Anthony said the same may be required for spam.
She added, "We still believe that economic issues related to the growth of economic commerce should be left to industry, consumers, and the marketplace to resolve. But for problems involving deception and fraud, the Commission is committed to law enforcement as a necessary response." Also at the Senate hearings on spam Wednesday was Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski, co-author of a spam "truth in sending" amendment passed last month. Murkowski's bill would make it illegal for spammers to forge the return address of their messages, but it stops short of outlawing spam. Murkowski said, "For some in the Internet community our solution doesn't go far enough--they propose an outright ban on unsolicited e-mail. I think such a ban would establish a dangerous precedent, and would erode the protection of the First Amendment. The government should not dictate what a consumer sees in his or her e-mail box. We've been down that road before with the Communications Decency Act." But anything short of a ban would legitimize spam and continue shifting cost to recipients, according to testimony today by Ray Everett-Church of CAUCE, the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email. "I do not exaggerate when I say that junk e-mail has the potential to harm our economy in ways that terrorists can only dream about," said Everett-Church. "The Coalition feels that any legislation that would legalize the sending of any form of junk e-mail is nothing short of legalizing a type of theft." CAUCE supports an amendment sponsored by Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, that would treat e-mail the same as junk faxes, enabling spam recipients to sue the spammer for $500 for each piece of spam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Back to the top © 2000 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines. |