Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review April 22, 2003 / 20 Nisan, 5763

Jonathan Turley

Turley
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


Congress Must Send Spammers a Message


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | If the Internet had existed when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai, there might have been an 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not spam thy neighbor."

In fact, some faithful might have asked Moses whether the 10th might be better directed at spamming than coveting. Unlike some harmless fantasy featuring the neighbor's wife or goods, spamming imposes huge costs on the system and society.

America Online recently sued 12 individuals and companies that are clogging its subscribers with unwanted, unsolicited e-mail. AOL has reason to worry; those spammers alone are reportedly responsible for more than 1 billion such messages, and this new form of pollution threatens one of the greatest technological advances of this generation.

The five AOL lawsuits, filed in federal court in Alexandria, Va., may lead to important insight into the workings of these shadowy operators. But, without congressional action, they may do little to stem the tide of spam.

Despite anti-spam software, spam is expanding exponentially. In 2001, according to one industry study, spam represented roughly 8% of all Internet e-mail. By last year, that percentage was at more than 40%. For some users, it can be as high as 90%.

Spam now costs American businesses about $9 billion a year in lost productivity and screening. Many users currently receive the equivalent of a discount catalog of junk mail with a single legitimate message buried within it. Few people have the time or inclination to sort through hundreds of spam messages to find the one e-mail that is not marketing discount Viagra or a Russian wife.

As a result, some people are abandoning e-mail and returning to conventional mail and telephone communications. This is already occurring in countries such as Japan, where people are giving up cell-phone services because 90% of text messages are now spam.

As the AOL lawsuit illustrates, spammers have changed subject lines, routed e-mails through foreign servers, adopted fictitious names and taken other deceptive measures to get through to computer users. One growing subset of spammers are called spoofers, who use subject lines that feign familiarity to trick users into opening spam messages.

When legislation has been threatened, spammers have cloaked themselves in the 1st Amendment, insisting that any prohibition on spam would violate guarantees of free speech.

In the last year, however, both the practical and legal positions of spam have changed. Spam now is a real threat to the medium of Internet communications. In this sense, it is like virtual pollution. The Internet is a common resource that will be lost unless we protect it.

This is a situation analogous to Garrett Hardin's classic economic model, "The Tragedy of the Commons." Under this model, a group of people live around a commons green in which any individual can introduce cattle to graze. So each person brings more and more cattle until, finally, the commons area is destroyed.

The Internet is a type of virtual commons that is being destroyed by a small number of people who individually are acting rationally to maximize profits. Their collective actions, however, will ultimately kill the resource they are exploiting. Likewise, the first federal environmental statutes were enacted in the 1960s after a failure of private property interests and state laws in stemming pollution in common resources like air and water.

This is one area where a useful distinction can be drawn between commercial and political or religious speech. Commercial speech is protected, but it is not given the same range of protection as political or religious speech. Congress could prohibit forms of spam and impose criminal penalties on the worst of them: pornographic images that pop up without a user opening the e-mail, exposing children to the images.

Barring political spam ads would raise constitutional questions, but there is little need to do that: With spam less popular than the Ebola virus, savvy politicians aren't likely to use it.

For commercial spammers, however, the 98% rejection rate still allows a hefty profit on the 2% return. The U.S. government has sued a porn site spammer in Illinois who made $1 million a year on such a margin. The suit accuses the spammer of using innocuous subject lines like "Wanna Hear a Joke" to get users to open a link to his porn site.

One solution would be federal legislation that prohibits forms of spam and imposes heavy financial penalties on both spam operators and the advertised businesses. The European Union chose this course in May. In the U.S., lobbyists have effectively killed bills banning forms of spam in the last two sessions. Members of Congress need to be prodded to ban this virtual pollution.

Just remember to use the telephone; their e-mail inboxes are full.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.



JWR contributor Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University. . Comment by clicking here.

04/16/03: End Apartheid in the State Prisons
04/07/03: NBC's sacking of Peter Arnett over a critical analysis plays well in Baghdad
03/07/03: Rights on the Rack: Alleged torture in terror war imperils U.S. standards of humanity
02/25/03: How democracy could clear our snowy streets
02/11/03: Sanity and Justice Slipping Away
01/28/03: Quit horsing around, senator
01/14/03: Public Payroll: a Family Affair; Nepotism in Washington poses a threat to institutional integrity
01/09/03: DARPA and democracy
12/24/02: The 13th juror
12/19/02: Back to the admissions morass
12/10/02: Pro-Choice at Expense of Free Speech; NOW case against abortion protester may backfire
12/02/02: A cruel bait and switch for vets
11/15/02: Junk justice
11/07/02: OUR second-class soldiers
10/30/02: 'Quirin' revisited: The dark history of a military tribunal
10/22/02: Un-American Arrests: Mass detainments of the innocent may be the ultimate form of crowd control, but the tactic is unconstitutional
10/16/02: Reverse pawn shops? Broke state officials across the country have been looking for businesses to buy their assets at a fraction of their worth to pay for budget shortfalls
10/08/02: A legal tattoo hullabaloo
10/02/02: Gagged justice sets dangerous precedent
09/25/02: The Great Salmon Rose Caper
09/17/02: Reparations: A Scam Cloaked in Racial Pain
09/12/02: This country's hidden strength
09/04/02: 1st Amendment protects even the ugliest among us
08/28/02: A secret court goes public
08/20/02: I defended Ashcroft during his nomination; he's become a constitutional menace
08/07/02: San Francisco embracing states-rights
07/31/02: Who needs Jenny Craig when you can have Johnnie Cochran?
07/22/02: The meaning of justice and the madness of Zacarias Moussauoi
07/16/02: The President vs. the Presidency
07/08/02: How one woman's whims dictates the rights of millions
07/02/02: Just say 'no' to extracurricular activities
06/24/02: Missing Ted Bundy
06/14/02: DESTROYING A FAMILY TO SAVE IT
06/10/02: A comedy of eros06/14/02: 05/31/02: Beyond the 'reformed FBI' hype
05/23/02: Do we really need a Federal Marriage Amendment?
05/19/02: No "battlefield detainee" should leave home without a U.S. birth certificate
05/10/02: The perfect constitutional storm
04/26/02: 'Slave of Allah' wounds justice
04/12/02: The importance of being nameless
04/05/02: The adjusted value of justice
03/18/02: How Clinton got off: A law professor's take
03/11/02: Profiling and the terrorist lottery
03/05/02: Yes, Sharpton, there was a failure of justice
02/28/02: The Lay of the land
02/14/02: Living in constitutional denial
02/05/02: Legal Lesson for Afghanistan: War's Not a Slip-and-Fall Case
01/25/02: Sever "Jihad Johnny"'s ties to his homeland
01/21/02: "Out of sight, out of mind," but they're still prisoners
01/14/02: Your papers, please!
01/07/02: Prescription for disaster
12/18/01: Madison and the Mujahedeen
12/07/01: In the U.S., espionage crime is easy to understand but difficult to prove
11/19/01: What type of 'creature' would defend bin Laden?
11/19/01: Could bin Laden be acquitted in a trial?
10/28/01: The ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living
10/25/01: Al-Qaida produces killers, not thinkers
09/28/01: The Boxer rebellion and the war against terrorism
08/31/01: Bring back the silent Condit
08/27/01: Working out the body politic

© 2002, Jonathan Turley