Spam: More than angioplasty in a can

There was a time when Spam was nothing more than a glutinous luncheon meat.

An amalgam of meat byproducts of uncertain origin, it nourished troops during World War II and later served as a quick meal, mostly for the destitute, including poor college students.

But with the rise of the Internet, the word has taken on a whole new significance for tens of millions of people who never cracked a can of the other stuff.

Spam is still a suspicious amalgam of mostly unknown byproducts, but in this case, it clogs in-boxes – as opposed to arteries.

Like its namesake, the content is highly questionable.

steady drumbeat

From get-rich-quick real estate deals to fly-by-night investment schemes and the latest diet fads, spam e-mail has become the biggest nuisance on the Internet- next to pop-up ads, of course.

More than once, I’ve gritted my teeth in frustration and wondered why there isn’t a law to rein in this unruly beast.

Apparently, I’m not alone.

Lawmakers in Congress have fielded a steady drumbeat of complaints from constituents, and two bills have been filed to crack down on Internet spam.

Talk about jumping on a bandwagon. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., had no trouble lining up 66 co-sponsors for her bill, the more draconian of the two.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., co-chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Internet Caucus and chairman of the House Republican High Technology Working Group, has filed the other.

Call it Wilson lite. It takes a more reasoned approach, principally cracking down on fraudulent e-mails and another big problem – hidden return addresses in spam e-mails.

You would think that the issue would be a no-brainer. But politics really does make strange bedfellows.

Since the bills were filed, an unusual coalition of business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Retail Federation, is fighting the measures.

As it turns out, the matter also is of critical importance to the financial services industry. Investors have strongly embraced the Internet, which is becoming a primary marketing tool for brokerage companies and financial planning firms, among others.

Last year, more than 200 online trading firms handled 19 million accounts and $1.1 trillion in invested assets. By 2003 that figure could rise to $3.1 trillion, according to the Securities Industry Association.

“Any restrictions on the use of the Internet should be very narrowly tailored to address a proven problem, not a perceived one,” SIA president Marc E. Lackritz told lawmakers at a recent hearing. “None of us likes spam, or unsolicited e-mail, but each of us probably defines it somewhat differently.”

Indeed, that’s the problem.

Critics fear that the legislation doesn’t do enough to distinguish between “good” e-mail and “bad.” But that’s only the beginning. The legislation also raises a host of other thorny issues.

The SIA claims it would inhibit the growth of the Internet, give Internet service providers too much power to set e-mail policies, and expose businesses to the threat of wide-ranging and potentially open-ended litigation.

Evil incarnate – not

Under the Wilson bill, businesses could face criminal penalties for sending unsolicited e-mail.

“The bad guys will just go offshore, out of the reach of legislation, and the effect of a spam law will simply be to create mischief and regulatory hoops for mainstream companies,” said Wayne Crews, director of technology studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank.

Much spam already originates from Pacific Rim nations, he noted.

“In the heated debate over the outpouring of unsolicited bulk e-mail, it’s important to remember that not every unsolicited message is evil incarnate,” he added.

In short, spam to one person may be an e-mailed newsletter or product offering to another. In the end, even a major nuisance seems to be preferable to laws that curb commercial free speech.

So, does anyone care for a spam sandwich?

Keith Girard is the editor of InvestmentNews.

Related Topics: Just Thinking