- Top 10 Recession-Proof IT Jobs
- 7 Hot IT Jobs That Will Land You a Higher Salary
- Link Building Strategies and Tips for 2014
- Top 10 Accessories for Your iPad Air
NetworkWorld.com - NEW YORK - While it’s an important first step, the federal anti-spam law signed this week is unlikely to reduce spam noticeably, and companies will have to find other ways to fight it, a panel of experts agreed Wednesday.
Speaking at Network World’s “Spam Forum: The Future of E-mail” in New York, the panelists indicated that the legislation is nothing more than an initial swipe at a problem that is much bigger than the attempted solution (Hear the audio Webcast).
One issue is that the Federal Trade Commission, which has been charged with enforcing the law, has too much on its plate to effectively build many cases against criminal spammers, said Eileen Harrington, associate director for marketing practices at the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
“It really is a stretch for us,” she said. “Spam investigations are very resource-intensive.” The law gives the FTC new responsibility without new funding, and the organization has other high priorities, like tracking identity theft and enforcing the new National Do Not Call Registry.
As for state anti-spam efforts, the states are in worse shape, with extremely tight budgets, Harrington said.
Another issue is that the definition of spam is still quite fuzzy. The new law limits the definition to unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail, leaving out political bulk e-mail, for instance.
But to some, spam is any e-mail they don’t want.
“It doesn’t matter how government defines [spam],” because in the end, what customers want to receive is what counts, said Mary Youngblood, manager of ISP Earthlink’s Abuse Team. Earthlink gives its customers several different options for spam filtering, so they can choose their preferences.
Yet another issue is that the law allows “opt-out” marketing - that is, a company can send e-mail users unsolicited advertising until the users tell the company to stop.
“Everybody gets a bite at the apple,” said Ted Gavin, founding trustee, secretary and chief financial officer of the SpamCon Foundation, a non-profit group organized to preserve e-mail as a viable communications medium. “The problem is that it’s an expensive apple, and the person paying for it isn’t the one biting the apple; it’s the one holding the apple.”
On the plus side, the experts agreed that the law raises awareness of the spam scourge among law enforcement and starts to spell out how e-mail advertising might be done legally and ethically.
“It provides a framework for the good guys,” said David Silver, vice president of business development and strategy at Responsys, an e-mail marketing firm. “For legitimate marketers, [the federal law] is less confusing than the [state] laws that were evolving and changing.”
“Definition of the crime had to start someplace,” said Wilson D’Souza, vice president of the global collaboration and directory services team for Merrill Lynch.
The panelists agreed that specifying directory-harvest attacks as a crime, for instance, was impressive. Directory-harvest attacks are a spammers’ technique for gathering valid e-mail addresses. They work by bombarding e-mail servers with large numbers of messages aimed at fabricated addresses. When a message gets through, the spammer notes that the address used is active.