Should the U.S. Follow Europe to Opt-In Commercial E-Mail?

Here in the United States, supporters of the recently passed Can-Spam Act like to blame the continuing slurry of unsolicited e-mail on offshore spammers, sleazy operators who send their unwelcome messages from countries that are not subject to U.S. laws. In Europe, however, where the Organization for Economic Development is currently hosting a conference about how best to fight spam, they are blaming us, and a legislative process that they believe has sold out to the demands of business. There are, unfortunately, good reasons for that blame. 
One is that, according to at least one reputable anti-spam technology company, 80 percent of Europe’s spam comes from North America. Another is that anti-spam laws in the United States are considerably weaker than those in the European Union. The biggest legal difference is that in Europe all commercial e-mail must be opt-in. Nothing can be sent unless the recipient has given consent to the sender. In the United States, the Direct Marketing Association lobbied for, and won, legislation that permits the sending of opt-out commercial e-mail. To the Federal Trade Commission at least, industry’s push for an opt-out mechanism has been persuasive. Yet it is well known that opting-out often opens a Pandora’s box of spam. That’s because many less-than-scrupulous spammers rely on an opt-out message to confirm that e-mail sent to particular address will be read, then distribute that address to marketing partners. Consequently, people who opt-out of the wrong e-mail often discover within hours that the volume of their spam has doubled. Or tripled. 
For that and other reasons, the Can-Spam Act appears not to be doing what it had promised to do. A poll taken last week on this website asked readers if they received more or less spam since the passage of Can-Spam. More than 1,200 people responded, and only 42 percent of them said they were getting less spam now than before the passage of the law. 
Another survey, reported this week at the anti-spam meeting in Brussels, delivered some more disturbing news. That poll, conducted by a pro-consumer organization called the Trans-Atlantic Consumer dialogue, found that 52 percent of the 20,000 Internet users who responded were now shopping online less than they used to because they feared that online shopping would generate spam. The loss of those potential consumers is, of course, only one of the ways that spam is bad for business. According to the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union, spam costs European and U.S. companies more than $11 billion a year in lost productivity. 
Some Europeans are perplexed. They wonder why U.S companies would lobby so hard to pass legislation that doesn’t reduce spam, and that consequently costs them time, money, and potential sales. Others are angry. They blame a good part of their own spam problem on America’s unwillingness to pass tough anti-spam laws. Many Europeans would like to see the United States follow their opt-in example, as Canada and Australia have done. Is that idea good for business? Or not? Tell us what you think. 
Sound Off is a weekly column about current IT-related issues. Web Editorial Director Art Jahnke (ajahnke@cio.com) always welcomes feedback.