The CAN-SPAM Law - Anti Spam Legislation - Spamming - Spam - UCE - Email - Email Pyramid Schemes - Stop Spam

Menu

The CAN-SPAM Law

A new anti-spam law was passed by the United States and went into effect on January 1, 2004. Under this new law, CAN-SPAM, marketers must remove customers from their lists when requested, they must provide automated opt-out methods as well as complete contact information (address and phone) with alternate means of removal.

CAN-SPAM also bans common spamming practices such as false headers and email harvesting (the use of software that spiders websites to collect email addresses).

Subject lines must be truthful and contain a notice that the message is an ad. CAN-SPAM required truthful email header information (including the from line), accurate subject lines, an opt out tool that works 30 days after mailing, that opt-out requests happen within 10 days, that emails have a physical postal address in all messages, that the messages are labeled as advertisements, and that warnings are displayed for email with sexually oriented material.

On March 10, 2004, four of the nation's largest e-mail providers sued hundreds of online marketers under a new CAN SPAM legislation. The lawsuits, filed by EarthLink Inc., Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc., and America Online, mark the first time the law has been tested since going into effect in January 2004.

Six lawsuits were filed claiming the defendants obscured their identities and used other deceptive tactics to send out hundreds of millions of pitches for get-rich-quick schemes, pornography and other types of spam.

The defendants allegedly falsified return addresses, routed their messages through other computers to cover their tracks, and engaged in deceptive advertising. One group of defendants in Canada allegedly sent nearly 100 million messages to Yahoo customers in January alone and resold the e-mail addresses of those who responded.

CAN-SPAM required truthful email header information (including the from line), accurate subject lines, an opt out tool that works 30 days after mailing, that opt-out requests happen within 10 days, that emails have a physical postal address in all messages, that the messages are labeled as advertisements, and that warnings are displayed for email with sexually oriented material.

 

 

PRIVACY

ONLINE PRIVACY – IS SOMEONE PUTTING
“COOKIES” IN YOUR COOKIEJAR?

With its incredible functionality and convenience, the Internet has rapidly vaulted into the primary communication, information, and shopping tool for millions of Americans. We’re communicating with our friends and family through e-mail. Our SUV’s, groceries, and sporting equipment are purchased online. The answers to our children’s homework dilemmas are often just a click away. And yet, some of us do not realize the extent that our “digital DNA” is compromised when these transactions are made.

Recent revelations by Internet leviathans such as DoubleClick, Abacus and Amazon.com have rekindled consumer’s fears about their personal privacy and online security. DoubleClick, a provider of banner advertising for numerous sites on the World Wide Web, recently announced that it has the ability to track a person’s web surfing history and build a “surfer profile” to make their target ads more precise and effective. By using software programs called “cookies”, businesses can maintain a record of the sites users visit, allowing customers’ surfing habits to be tracked. These “cookies” are placed on consumers’ computers during their initial visit to a site or when items like personalized news services or shopping networks are used.

DoubleClick’s policy had been to keep these “surfer profiles” entirely anonymous. However, in November of 1999, DoubleClick announced that it planned to merge its “surfer profiles” with Abacus’s “purchase history profiles.” These “purchase history profiles” contain the names, addresses, and purchases of Internet consumers. The fusion of these enormous informational databases would allow for even more precise target advertising.

For businesses, the accessibility of this information would seem to be invaluable. Targeted advertising is an effective method of reaching consumers, resulting in a higher rate of success and more “bang for the buck.” And in the growing and competitive Internet market, targeted advertising is vital to maintaining success and profitability.

However, does the use of “surfer profiles” and “purchase history profiles” violate a consumers’ right to privacy? Is this inherent right violated when a person using the Internet on his PC is unaware that a “cookie” has been place on his browser and information he is providing about his address, occupation, salary, and family history is going to be used and potentially offered to the highest bidder? For some, this anonymous tracking and uncertainty of what will eventually happen to their “digital DNA” leads to the distrust of the Internet. This distrust does not serve either the consumer or the Internet well.

Recently, some states have attempted to draft legislation responding to the issue of online privacy. Legislation advocates envisioned that these various forms of legislation would be a positive step towards placing reasonable limitations on the collection and dissemination of personal information acquired by Internet web sites. Unfortunately, these attempts have been described as “patchwork” and “scattershot” solutions that will increase confusion and hurl a thriving e-commerce industry into complex litigation and bureaucratic nightmares.

Others have promoted the adoption of federal online privacy standards. Instead of the various “patchwork” solutions adopted by individual states, these federal standards would provide a single privacy standard. Two principal arguments are advanced in favor of this remedy. First, the costs of complying with one standard would be minimal when compared to the costs of complying with a potpourri of state standards. Second, the federal government would have the ability to pursue and penalize the violators.

On the other hand, will the adoption of new laws and regulations impede the Internet’s growth? After all, isn’t the Internet the last bastion of unregulated and freely accessible information, products, and services? Perhaps the private sector should be given the opportunity to self-regulate itself. Organizations have already been formed to develop a list of guidelines for online privacy. However, these organizations have been criticized for being too narrowly focused and slow to respond to the ever-changing Internet landscape.

Online privacy is a highly charged and complicated area of the law. In fact, shortly after the announcement of its proposed “surfer profile” and “purchase history profile” merger, DoubleClick came under increasing public scrutiny. As a result, DoubleClick announced that it was temporarily delaying the implementation of this endeavor until an acceptable online privacy agreement can be reached.

The Internet is changing and expanding our economy in ways not even imagined five years ago. However, consumers’ discomfort and distrust of the effectiveness of online privacy threatens to stifle this growth. Some type of online privacy standards need to be implemented. The focus these standards take will likely be determined in the near future. Ideally, these standards will protect the privacy of the online consumer and continue to promote the growth of the e-commerce industry.