Did you know that seven pieces of anti-SPAM legislation were introduced in the US Congress/Senate since January 2003?

1. The Wireless Telephone Spam Protection Act (H.R. 122) ­ Introduced in January by Rep Rush D. Holt (D-NJ).

2. The Computer Owners' Bill of Rights (S. 563) ­ Introduced by Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) in March 2003.

3. The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act - Reintroduced (after minor reworking) by Senators Conrad R. Burns (R-MT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) in April 2003.

4. The Reduction in Distribution of Spam Act of 2003 (H.R. 2214) - Introduced in May 2003 by Rep. Richard Burr, R-NC.

5. The REDUCE Spam Act of 2003 (H.R. 1933) ­ Introduced in May, 2003 by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).

6. The Ban on Deceptive Unsolicited Bulk Electronic Mail Act of 2003 (S. 1052) ­ Also introduced in May, 2003 by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL).

7. The Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing Act (S. 1231) ­ Introduced this last week (June, 11 2003) by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).

Apparently US lawmakers think SPAM is bad. As well they should. Spam is bad. Like telemarketers and junk mailers have done, spammers have taken a good thing and ruined it for everyone. Before spam, email was wonderful. You could contact anyone, anywhere in the world almost instantly. Email enabled people to telecommute. Email brought friends and family together. Email was a computer operation even the biggest luddite could master.

"If spam were a disease it would be an epidemic."

Now email is polluted. It seems for every one legitimate email we get, we receive three spam emails at the same time. While lawmakers juggle legislation around in an attempt to catch up to the problem, spammers continue to assault the inboxes of the world with their server-choking bytes of bullshit.

What’s worse is that spammers are so insidious in their attempts to get us to open up their communiqués. They’ll add a fake RE: to the subject line. They’ll mask the return address to an unreachable one. They’ll threaten, plead and even pretend to be someone we know all in the name of mass marketing. On top of that there’s the chance that the spammer is really a hacker or con-artist. If spam were a disease it would be an epidemic. The governments of the world are justified in their intention to reduce spam.

What concerns me is how the adult Internet is singled out in all this legislation. The CAN SPAM ACT is an acronym for Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing. The REDUCE ACT (an acronym for Restrict and Eliminate the Delivery of Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail) suggests subject lines contain either ADV. to stand for an advertisement or ADV:ADLT which would represent an adult site spam.

The Reduction in Distribution of Spam Act would require the subject line contain an advertising identifier but only suggests a standardized identifier for adult spam. Finally, the newest has the unsubtle title: Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing Act. An acronym for SPAM. How cute.

The SPAM act would make these things happen:

The creation of a national no-spam registry, monitored and maintained by the Federal Trade Commission. Spamming any person or email address on that list would then be illegal.

All spam would have to contain the identifier ADV: in their subject line. False or misleading headers and subject lines as well as harvested addresses would be illegal.

All email advertisers would have to include their physical address in each and every spam they send out to the populace.

The FTC would have the power to prohibit SPAM containing explicit content from being sent to minors, whether or not the minors are in the no-spam registry.

A national no-spam registry sounds cool. I don’t have a problem with spammers having to identify themselves or the purpose of their email. Making email harvesting illegal is a swell idea but I’m dying to see how they think they can implement such a task.

The portion of the SPAM act I have the biggest problem swallowing is that whole “prohibition of explicit commercial messages to minors” bit. How’s that gonna happen? To prohibit means to stop something before it occurs. Does this mean the FTC is going to go sniff out and stop potential explicit spammers who prey on children? Does it mean that porn spammers who mail to little Johnny are guiltier than loan company spammers?

What alarms me most about all these old newbies trying to regulate the Internet is their zeal. The Internet should be regulated. Adult content on the net needs ordinance as well. There’s nothing wrong with making sure that Internet crime is punished.

The problem is the issue is a lot more complicated than any government or country wants to admit. The Internet may have started in the US but the World Wide Web belongs to the world. To truly, fairly, effectively regulate the Internet the laws must be worldwide.

The US Senate and Congress can pass all the bills and acts they want. The President can sign countless pieces of web-related legislation into law. The fact remains that US laws are not enforceable in Russia, Japan, India or Mexico.

If a Vietnamese webmaster harvests a hundred thousand email addresses and then spams their beast site to that list, how is the US government going to stop them and punish them? Do they threaten economic sanctions? Do they block US access to Vietnamese servers? The US can regulate Internet morality and legality all they want but it won’t stop the problems. Senators, Congressmen and Presidents can create a thousand laws but it won’t stop the net because the net is bigger than a single super power.

If they really want to stop Spam, if they really want to protect “the kids”, US lawmakers need to find a worldwide solution.