Hands off my spam

By Ann E. Huggett

In a new attempt to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, the European Union is trying to regulate America's spam. In a February meeting in Brussels sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, EU regulators called for greater control over U.S. advertisements sent via e-mail.

Today's Internet is overseen largely by the United States. And it functions pretty well without any outside help. So Americans have a right to be wary of ceding control to Europe.

Do we really want some rules-obsessed bureaucrat in Brussels determining who can and cannot send us messages? Sure, no one likes getting unsolicited e-mails. But isn't that what the delete button is for? And spam-filtering services are free and widely available for the young, innocent or easily aggravated.

But evidently European bureaucrats think Americans are incapable of filtering our own e-mail boxes. They want us to adopt the EU law, which says consumers must sign up in order to receive spam. Currently, America has an opt-out system in which we must first request to be removed from the mailing lists of spam we receive.

What's particularly bothersome, however, is that OECD and EU members are framing this anti-advertising debate in such high-minded terms as "protecting the integrity of the Internet." OECD deputy secretary-general Herwig Schlogl claims that "spam threatens to erode consumer confidence online, which in turn would undermine the digital economy." That's ridiculous. A few unsolicited e-mails are hardly going to implode the world's online economy.

As to consumer confidence, many small businesses have been built on inexpensive spam advertising. And their advertisements have helped their customers make informed choices about products.

European advocates also argue that regulating America's spam is a matter of "improving cross-border cooperation on network security and law enforcement." While spam is annoying, it is hardly a security threat. And no one is compelled to open unsolicited mail.

In normal circumstances, ordinary Americans are able to handle their e-mail just fine without government interference. Just as we know not to get into cars alone with strangers, most people know not to open any attachments from unknown senders, as these files can contain viruses.

Moreover, virus-carrying e-mails belong in a completely different category from advertising spam. Hackers who breach Internet firewalls, launch virus attacks or distribute fraudulent advertisements are already criminals.

Stopping them is a matter of law enforcement, not stricter regulations.

And even if new regulations could help, the EU's spam law isn't targeted at cyber-criminals. Rather, it targets legitimate, law-abiding advertisers. In fact, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission contends that Europe's opt-in law would harm small businesses and put an unfair burden of proof on them to verify that recipients had actually asked to be included in their e-advertising lists.

Fortunately, with modern technology, there are better, less intrusive ways to prevent big spam abusers who are pushing the limits of the law. This month, a leading free-market think tank, the Pacific Research Institute, unveiled a solution that relies on market forces to curtail spam.

PRI suggests America adopt a pay-to-enter plan that would use e-stamps.

This is how it works, according to PRI: "In order for an e-mail to enter a user's in box, the sender would have to attach an electronic stamp issued by Internet service providers or bought at a separate Web site. Under an ideal e-stamps program, users would be able to set the price of the stamps themselves and issue free-of-charge stamps to family and friends so that communication among people who know each other can continue unfettered."

Like ordinary postage, these e-stamps could be deducted as business expenses. If e-stamps became the rule, the cost to spammers would surge while legitimate businesses would still be able to take advantage of this effective form of advertising.

Using a market-driven solution like e-stamps to limit spam is infinitely preferable to having the Europeans force us into a strict, one-size-fits-all system. E-stamps may seem a ways off, but Goodmail Systems, a Silicon Valley company, has already developed an e-stamp plan, and Yahoo is interested in trying out the system.

A few years down the road, e-stamps could easily become the norm. Wouldn't that be great? Then the European Union could try to seize control of them too.

Ann Huggett is a senior analyst at Digital Freedom Network, a human rights, freedom advocacy and education organization in Newark, N.J.