Porno Spammers and Our Kids
by Lawrence J. Magid
Computer Currents
October 14, 1997
I have a problem and I'm hoping you can help me. You see, I've long been a strong advocate of free speech on the Internet. I've written countless articles opposing the Communications Decency Act. I've appeared on numerous radio and TV shows arguing in favor of free expression. I've argued that parents, not the government, should protect their children in cyberspace. Although I've always opposed their tactics, I've even argued that spammers have certain First Amendment rights.
But a new breed of porno spammers is giving me second thoughts. While I defend their right to post their smut, I don't support their right to shove it in my face. More important, I detest the fact that some are peddling smut to children. I'm not talking about kids stumbling onto porno sites while they surf the Internet; they're being confronted by it when they open their in-boxes.
EASY ACCESS-TOO EASY
Have you checked your email lately? My AOL in-box is loaded with spam, including several messages encouraging me to click on a link to go to an "adults-only" site. Annoyed as I am by these and other junk messages, I can handle the inconvenience. What really makes me mad is my 11-year-old son gets the same mail. It's bad enough to pester adults, but peddling pornography to children is stepping way over the line.
Some of the messages that find their way into my son's mailbox say "adults only" in the subject line, but that's hardly going to stop a curious child from reading. Other messages seem totally innocent. My son recently got an email message with the subject, "I Need Your Vote!" I encourage my kids to take an interest in politics, so I was delighted that he opened it. But the message from Horny Harry read, "I've put together a great list of free Adults Only* sites at www.hornyharry.com, but now I NEED YOUR HELP to get more of the best FREE Sports, News and Finance sites." I went to Harry's site, and he does indeed have links to some respectable sites, but he also has a large banner ad for adult sites. Click the banner and full frontal nudity is only two more clicks away. One of those clicks requires you to certify that you're 18 or older, but there's no one checking ID at the door.
It doesn't appear that Harry and the other porno-spammers are breaking any laws, according to Nancy Publicover, manager of the Interactive Service Association's online public education network (www.isa.net/project-open). Part of the problem, Publicover says, is spammers have no way of knowing if they're sending material to children, so they can't be accused of targeting kids.
DON'T JERK THAT KNEE
The best way to curtail porno-spammers is to go after spammers in general. According to Publicover, the Federal Trade Commission is looking into ways to counter spam. The FTC's jurisdiction probably doesn't include the ability to block mass mailings in general, but the FTC may be able to go after spammers who are guilty of other offenses, including making fraudulent offers or misrepresenting their identities.
Any discussion regarding spam control has to include government regulation. This is a touchy subject among Netizens, many of whom resist government regulation of the Internet. Well, you can't have it both ways. If we want the government to protect us from spammers and pornographers who target children, then we have to be open to some type of government regulation. The fact that the Com-munications Decency Act was an indecent proposal doesn't justify a knee-jerk opposition to all government efforts to protect citizens in cyberspace.
There are several anti-spam bills floating around Congress and state legislatures that would put some restrictions on spammers and perhaps curtail their ability to solicit children.
- Republican Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska introduced Senate Resolution 771, which would require junk emailers to put "advertisement" in the subject header so recipients could screen out such mail. The bill would also prevent spammers from misrepresenting their return addresses. Much of the junk mail I get appears to come from AOL, but when I examine the header information, I see it has been bounced through an anonymous remailer.
- Another interesting bill from Democratic Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey would "Prohibit senders from directing messages to anyone who has asked not to receive any more mail from that source, either by replying to a message or by providing prior notice that such messages are unwanted." This bill wouldn't help you with first-time spammers, of course, but it could lessen the junk flow.
- The Netizen Protection Act of 1997 (HR 1748) by Rep Christopher H. Smith, "will make unsolicited advertisements unlawful by amending the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 which banned unsolicited junk faxes."
The following links will provide analysis on these and other junk fax bills.
Coalition Against Unsolicited E-Mail
