The dependence upon the Internet has led to new uses for old words. We surf without waves, mail without stamps and trojan programs provide infection, not protection.
The abuse most familiar to Internet users also has a borrowed name-spam. Companies soliciting everything from new jobs to boob jobs deluge our mailboxes against our wishes.
The United Kingdom has recently banned sending spam-on penalty of fines-to any individual without their permission in advance. In addition, the British law allows harmed individuals to file suit against spammers.
Spam accounts for half of all email traffic, according to Australian communications minister Richard Alston, quoted in the Taipei Times. Sorting through such spam is difficult because spam sometimes resembles e-mails from parents, friends or co-workers.
Deleting the flood of spam en masse is the fastest way to deal with it, but doing so increases the risk of losing important e-mail. Deleting spam mail one by one is safer but time consuming.
In 1996 AOL received 1.8 million spam mails a day from just one spammer, according to spam.abuse.net. “Assuming that it takes the typical AOL user only 10 seconds to identify and discard a message, that’s still 5,000 hours per day of connect time per day spent discarding their spam, just on AOL,” according to the site.
Spam costs more than just time, it also costs money. According to the Washington Post, San Francisco based consultants Ferris Research Inc. estimate $10 billion in outlays this year just to deal with spam. The New York Times reports the Radicati consulting firm estimate of worldwide spam cost as $20.8 billion.
Since Mississippi State students rely on their e-mail accounts for official communications with the university and faculty, spam interferes with the smooth functioning of the campus.
Spam filters allow the university or other organizations to restrict spam, but they require extra computing power (which costs money) and sometimes block important e-mails. Indiana University will spend $300,000 this year alone to buy resources needed to handle spam, according to the Times.
While Congress has been debating anti-spam legislation for years, no definitive anti-spam law exists in the United States. The United States should follow the United Kingdom’s footsteps and develop laws that restrict spamming.
Specifically, the laws should regulate spam with an “opt-in” policy. The United Kingdom’s new law is an example of an opt-in law.
An opt-in policy outlaws spamming unless the recipient has granted the spammer permission. By preventing spamming to random accounts or to mailing lists, opt-in policies guarantee the sanctity of a user’s account unless the user chooses to use it as an advertising medium.
An opt-out policy grants individuals the authority to order spammers to cease sending e-mails and protects the individual from further spam. Such a policy allows an individual to change his or her mind on receiving spam and, along with the opt-in policy, allows people to use their accounts as they choose.
Additionally, the laws should allow individuals to sue spammers who cause harm. When spam causes wasted time, productivity loss, etc., individuals must be allowed to sue for compensation.
Caution should be used when passing anti-spam legislation, however. Care must be taken to allow for unsolicited e-mails that are not spam. Otherwise, the utility of e-mail will be severely harmed.
Spam policies also must be developed worldwide because the Internet is not limited by national borders. Only through a concerted effort between the nations of the world will spam be returned to its proper place in the world-the name of everybody’s favorite canned meat.
Nathan Alday is a senior aerospace engineering major. He can be reached at [email protected].