President Bush signs law to can spam.

Ferris Research says spare will cost U.S. businesses at least $10 billion in 2003. Nucleus Research estimates that companies lose $874 per employee annually in lost productivity alone due to spam. Spam now accounts for 40 to 60 percent of most organizations' e-mail traffic. But help is on the way.

President Bush recently signed legislation aimed at reducing deceptive and unsolicited commercial e-mails, commonly known as "spam." The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 ("CAN SPAM") outlaws the shadiest techniques used by the Internet's most prolific e-mailers and imposes tough limits on senders of spam.

The bill will

* prohibit spammers from disguising their identities by using false return addresses

* bar senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail from harvesting e-mail addresses from Internet sites

* require unsolicited e-mail to provide a way for recipients to opt-out of future e-mail

* authorize, but not require, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish a "do-not-spam" list similar to its "do-not-call" registry for telemarketers

A key amendment to the bill subjects offenders to fines of $10 per e-mail, up to $1.5 million, and imprisonment of up to five years. Senders of messages that advertise fraudulent schemes, child pornography, or result in identity theft will receive the harshest punishment. Another amendment would make it a crime to send unsolicited e-mail that contains sexually explicit content unless it is labeled as such.

The amendment gives the FTC six months to determine whether or not the creation of a do-not-spam registry is feasible and enforceable. The agency would have an additional three months to implement the list.

Also targeted is spare sent to mobile phones. The bill directs the Federal Communications Commission to come up with rules that will make it harder for spammers to send unsolicited text messages to cell phone subscribers.

Critics say the legislation will be difficult to enforce and doesn't go far enough to protect consumers. The bill pre-empts tougher anti-spam measures already passed in some states, including a California law that was to take effect January 1. Some believe federal legislation should more closely mirror California's effort, which requires online marketers to obtain a consumer's permission before sending him or her any e-mails and allows individuals to sue spammers for up to $1,000 per unwanted e-mail message.

The do-not-spare registry also has generated criticism. Experts have pointed out that technical differences between telephone and Internet communications would make a do-not-spam list much more difficult to enforce than the do-not-call list. Senders of spare are able to disguise their identities and locations, making it difficult to trace violators and hold them accountable. The Direct Marketing Association contends that a do-not-spam list would restrict the use of e-mail by law-abiding companies while having little or no effect on spammers with ill intent.

Many senators maintain that past efforts undertaken by states to curtail spam have failed because law enforcement officials have not devoted the time and resources necessary to pursue spammers, something they hope will change with the passage of a federal law.

Fortunately, the United States is not alone in its attempt to reduce spare. In October 2003, British officials met with U.S. lawmakers and law enforcement officers to discuss cross-border efforts to curb spam. Last year, the U.K. ratified a European Union anti-spam law that would prevent businesses from e-mailing customers without their explicit permission. All EU member nations must adopt and comply with the privacy law, which went into effect October 31, 2003.

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]