By Rebecca Roberts
E-mail has so fundamentally changed communication in the last decade that it’s hard to imagine life without it. One wonders if it would be possible to give it up. But because of overwhelming problems with unsolicited e-mail — known as spam — that’s just the leap some people are taking.
In an essay in the Globe and Mail last month a professor at the University of Victoria wrote that he’s become so frustrated with his own inability, and the inability of his Internet service provider, to end the onslaught of spam, that he’s cut himself off from e-mail entirely.
If the problems with spam continue, more people might take this route.
So far technical solutions to the problem have failed — e-mail filters and firewalls have only reduced the amount of spam people receive. This has led many to believe that anti-spam legislation is the answer. Spam is more than just a mere annoyance — it’s destructive in many ways.
Internet service providers are forced to spend money on staff and software to fight spam, and the cost is downloaded to the consumer.
The amount of spam a person is likely to receive on an average day is staggering — many report receiving 50 or more unsolicited e-mails a day. Spam fills up accounts quickly, so that people are no longer able to receive legitimate e-mails.
Spam also spreads offensive and hateful information to anyone with an e-mail account, including children.
In a study conducted by Applied Research, more than 80 per cent of kids aged seven to18 reported receiving spam that offended them. Forty-seven per cent reported receiving links to x-rated sites.
To deal with all these problems, some countries have opted to create anti-spam legislation.
The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives each recently passed a bill designed to limit spam.
The new U.S. bills employ various measures to make it difficult for anyone to send unsolicited e-mail, and establish tough penalties for those who don’t comply with the rules.
So far Canada has not committed to implementing anti-spam legislation.
The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission ruled in 1999 that they would not regulate the Internet, though that ruling might be reviewed in two or three years’ time. Industry Canada and the Justice Department have concluded that the Canadian government is doing enough to limit spam. They argue that spam can be fought with the current privacy legislation, with access to civil action against spammers, and with technical solutions.
Yet the spam problem still exists, and there’s no sign of it going away.
Neil Schwartzman, Chair of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email Canada, says he thinks that there’s been too much reliance on technical solutions, such as e-mail filters.
“Historically it’s failed and there’s no reason to suggest it will succeed in the future.”
He argues that the fight against spam requires a fundamental restructuring of e-mail.
“We need to educate users and we need to educate marketers on the proper use of e-mail.”
Ed Cartwright, spokesperson for the Canadian Marketing Association, says CMA members want anti-spam legislation. They also want that legislation to be harmonized with legislation in other countries so that it’s more effective.
Schwartzman says that if governments of the world can’t work together to end the sale of humans into prostitution, for instance, then they’re not likely to work together to end spam. Even if it doesn’t solve the worldwide spam problem, Canadian legislation should be able to solve some internal problems.
Both Schwartzman and Cartwright admit that legislation isn’t the only answer but is a step in the right direction.
Cartwright says the CMA’s members want anti-spam legislation because unsolicited e-mail is undermining legitimate marketing programs.
Schwartzman doesn’t think many people will stop using e-mail.
“Will email die? No. Will it fundamentally change? Absolutely.”
Spam is a problem and governments can have some success in limiting it. But its elimination would require a fundamental restructuring of the system. That restructuring would also eliminate the benefits of e-mail.
Most people won’t want that.