More intrusive than telemarketers who call at dinnertime or the junk
mail that floods our mailbox at home, Internet spam — unsolicited
commercial e-mail — is growing faster than some networks can handle.
OPINION
Many
of us exacerbate the problem by treating our e-mail addresses as public
information. We give them out to strangers, post them in chat rooms and
fill out forms on virtually any Web site that asks for it. If we treated
our e-mail addresses as we do our credit cards — as useful tools that
should be given out judiciously — we could begin to stem the tide.
However, like a credit card number, once an e-mail address is in the
wrong hands, the only way to prevent its misuse is to cancel the account —
proof that the Internet does not change everything.
Apply existing laws to Web
Direct marketing firms, credit card companies and credit bureaus
have monitored our activities for years. While we've become more tolerant
of these privacy violations over time, we would certainly cry foul if
Internet marketers collected similar information.
Although the Internet has dramatically increased the scale and speed at
which such data are collected, legislators should modify existing laws for
the Internet, rather than create new laws or a new category of laws. For
example, laws similar to those governing faxes should govern e-mail, and
Internet-privacy regulations should mirror privacy laws governing
traditional direct marketers. The effect would be that marketers who
violate these laws could face fines and/or lawsuits. Those deterrents
don't exist right now.
Some in Congress seek to intervene. A bill that cleared the House in
the Congress that just ended, for instance, placed the burden on Internet
service providers (ISPs) to monitor e-mail sent through their systems. At
first glance this seems to makes sense, because ISPs are in the best
position to monitor e-mail sent to their users. But the legislation also
erroneously assumes that ISPs can eradicate spam if they so choose. Sadly,
that's not the case.
And these kind of proposed laws pose privacy concerns of their own: Do
we really want Internet service providers deciding which e-mail gets
delivered and which does not? Wouldn't we rather set our own preferences?
Doesn't placing the burden on these companies simply trade one Big Brother
for another?
Junk mail in eye of beholder
In addition, none of the bills before Congress dealt with
e-mail, which while technically solicited, simply may be junk mail. As
with the direct-mail pieces we receive at home, junk mail is in the eye of
the beholder, but just because we once purchased a product or service from
a company doesn't mean we must accept every solicitation it sends. Privacy
advocates and direct marketers have had distinct and seemingly
irreconcilable differences of opinion on this subject, which has resulted
in a lack of progress on this issue.
Yes, the federal government should ensure consumer privacy through
every media channel, including the Internet. We don't, however, need an
entirely new series of laws to govern Internet privacy in general or
commercial e-mail in particular. Instead, modify existing privacy laws so
that marketers will operate on a level, well-defined playing field.
Internet marketers are not entitled to special circumstances, greater
rights or broader interpretations. Aggressive and consistent enforcement
of existing privacy laws, along with consumers' embrace of spam-blocking
technologies, will allow us to enjoy more of what the Internet offers
without sacrificing our basic rights to privacy and control.
Tonny Yu is president and CEO of Mailshell, an
e-mail-management and privacy firm.
