Dear Mark,
America Online (AOL) averages 7 million complaints daily about spam
that reaches customers. The Internet Fraud Complaint Center (IFCC)
estimated 350,000 to 490,000 Americans fall victim to online frauds
each year. This ought to give you an idea of the quantity of emails
reaching Americans.
In his article 'The Economics of Spam: the Spam Business Isn't Always
What You'd Think', dated 18/07/2003, Joe St Sauver, Ph.D., wrote that
"Some spammers have a business model that lets them make money as long
as people simply visit their website. You don’t need to sign up for a
spammer’s online porn site, for example, because just visiting their
publicly available website will be enough to ensure that the spammer
gets advertising revenue from banner ads displayed on those pages."
Which is why spammers keep sending spam, despite that fact that people
may not be necessarily buying their products/services.
Certain kinds of spam, according to the survey, anger users more than
others. More than 90% of users are angered by pornographic spam; while
mortgage and loan-related spam annoys 79%; investments 68%, and real
estate 61%.
No one knows how much a prolific spammer makes, but Tim Cranton, a
senior corporate attorney for Microsoft, said it can be profitable and
people can easily make $100,000 a year. "Given that 100 responses for
every 10 million messages can generate a profit, spammers have no
financial incentive to stop the massive junk mailings", Ira
Rubinstein, associate general counsel for Mircosoft, told a
congressional committee. - News & Observer 7/20/2003.
Spamming has U.S. Internet users so upset that most would support
making spamming illegal, according to research by The Harris Poll. It
found that 80 percent of Internet users say they find spamming very
annoying, "a huge increase from the 49 percent who felt this way two
and a half years ago." The Poll says "an overwhelming 74 percent to 12
percent majority of those online favors making mass spamming illegal."
According to an article written by Brian Morrissey dated 17/07/2003,
the broad public support for legislation has spurred Washington into
action. No less than half a dozen spam bills are currently under
consideration in Congress, with at least one measure expected passed
by the end of the year.
The Farmingdale Observer, dated 18/07/2003, states:
Senator Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr. (8th Senate District) announced
recently that the Senate has passed a comprehensive legislative
package aimed at fighting unwanted cellular phone messages and
computer e-mail known as 'spam'.
According to Fuschillo, the Anti-Spam Act of 2003 contains provisions
to combat spam by making it easier for computer users to unsubscribe
themselves from spam e-mail lists. Commercial e-mails would now be
required to contain a line enabling spam recipients to unsubscribe
from the sender's list, significantly reducing the amount of unwanted
messages crowding their inbox. Other states have already enacted
similar legislation.
Fuschillo stated that violators of any provision of the Anti-Spam Act
would be subject to a fine of up to $500 per violation.
Websites that employ pop-up ads (ads which open a separate window in
your browser) must contain a process to disable the ads on that site.
Other parts of the legislative package require commercial e-mails with
sexually-oriented content to contain a label in the subject line
("ADV; ADLT") to indicate the message is unsuitable for minors. The
legislation would also improve penalties on spam senders who include
false or misleading information in their messages; a study by the
Federal Trade Commission concluded that up to 66 percent of spam
messages included false or deceptive information such as a misleading
subject line or false claims made in the text of the e-mail.
Another provision sponsored by Senator Kemp Hannon establishes a state
Internet privacy law which would ensure that website operators who
tell the public that they have privacy policies when collecting
personal information to adhere to those privacy policies.
The state would also have the ability to enforce privacy protection
rules, and could fine e-vendors who violate promises not to share or
sell personal information, up to $1,000 per violation.
Under Utah's 14-month-old Unsolicited E-Mail Act, fines of $10 per
unwanted e-mail up to a maximum of $25,000 per day can be awarded. If
the spate of new complaints is certified as a class action, potential
damages could easily be in the multiple millions of dollars. - The
Salt Lake Tribune, 18/07/2003.
An article written by David Adams of the Age, dated 22/07/2003 states:
"It is expected Australia will become the first country within the
Asia-Pacific region to adopt 'opt-in' legislation if passed by Federal
Parliament. It is anticipated the legislation will mean commercial
emails can only be sent with prior consent unless there is an existing
customer-business relationship."
"It's a large mystery, to some extent, how the spam industry works,"
said Paula Selis, senior counsel with the Washington state Attorney
General's Office. "There are various layers to the industry. The
ultimate sender of spam could be 10 times removed from the actual
content provider."
Since spam is so difficult to track, it can be hard to tell where the
unwanted e-mail comes from.
Sometimes spammers hijack so-called zombie accounts, in which a
business that bought space from an Internet provider went out of
business without closing the account. Some internet service providers
agree not to shut down the spammers' account in exchange for payments
by signing so-called pink contracts with the spammers.
References:
http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/bulletins/i-005c.shtml
http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/advertising/article/0,,5941_2236631,00.html
http://cc.uoregon.edu/cnews/summer2003/spameconomics.html
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2002/12/30/daily50.html
http://www.antonnews.com/farmingdaleobserver/2003/07/18/opinion/
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07182003/utah/76385.asp
http://newsobserver.com/24hour/technology/story/947639p-6616673c.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/21/1058639713292.html
http://www.activestate.com/Products/PureMessage/SpamBlockingWhatMatters.pdf
http://www.theworldjournal.com/2003/fightspam.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=322715&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=162693 |
