In 2003, George Bush signed into law the CAN-SPAM Act, designed to reduce the amount of unwanted emails, spam, being sent to internet users. The act laid out a variety of requirements that bulk mailers must follow to maintain immunity from prosecution, like the inclusion of an opt-out mechanism as well as things like a subject line indicating the email"s advertising nature.
The act was criticised at the time, with one group commenting that the act "fails the most fundamental test of any anti-spam law, in that it neglects to actually tell any marketers not to spam. Instead, it gives each marketer in the United States one free shot at each consumer"s e-mail inbox."
Has it been effective? This reporter"s inbox would indicate otherwise, as would statistics from a variety of online service providers. Since the Act became law this time last year, spam email as risen to approximately 80% of all email sent online, up from between 50 and 60%. One of the problems is the law has sent spammers off-shore, to countries like China, where they can escape prosecution. Equally, spamming is still making people rich - very rich.
One spammer currently being prosecuted by Microsoft, Levon Gillespie, said that he wouldn"t be stopping his bulk mail practise. "There"s way too much money involved... and if there"s money to be made, people are going to go out and get it." However, the law"s chief sponsor, Senator Conrad Burns, told the NY Times that it was too soon to judge the success or failure of the act.
The spam problem still exists today and is worse than ever; there is still no solid solution to the problem. A system that raises the costs to spammers is the solution; it reduces profits in a market where only a minority of the users purchase products. Said system must also maintain e-mail"s "ease of use" and relatively low cost (read : no cost) and this is where the difficulty lies.