Delivering a report on the effectiveness of the CAN-SPAM Act, two years after it was enacted, the FTC said Congress should now pass the US SAFE WEB Act, which would give the agency more powers to engage in cross-border enforcement.
The agency stopped short of calling for reforms to CAN-SPAM, which was largely regarded as toothless legislation when first passed, and instead calls for greater powers to help enforce its provisions.
The FTC, in a report presented to Congress last week, said US SAFE WEB would significantly improve the ability of the FTC to use CAN-SPAM to trace spammers and sellers whose operations are outside the borders of the US.
The new bill, which was passed by the Senate Commerce committee last week but which has yet to pass to a full Congressional vote, would also allow the FTC to pass intelligence on suspected spammers to foreign intelligence agencies.
Under the act, the FTC would not have to notify suspects of investigations if it was likely they would move offshore, would be allowed to share information with criminal investigators, and would have the job of tracing and seizing offshore assets made easier.
Like CAN-SPAM, and many other pieces of US legislation, US SAFE WEB has a barely English title designed to fit a silly acronym. In full, it is the Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers Beyond Borders Act of 2005.
The FTC’s calls came as the agency announced both its two-year review of CAN-SPAM’s effectiveness, and a handful of lawsuits against suspected spammers that were coordinated with Canada’s equivalent agency.
So has CAN-SPAM done any good? The very first conclusion that the FTC’s ‘Effectiveness and Enforcement of the CAN-SPAM Act’ document says that it has, but perhaps not for the reasons one would have hoped.
The CAN-SPAM Act has been effective in providing a roadmap for legitimate marketers to use in crafting their email campaigns, the document reads.
Lydia Parnes, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, did not try to claim that CAN-SPAM has been the main driver of the spam pandemic seeing its growth stunted, as many observers now believe it has.
At a press conference, she said there was good news and cautionary notes. The good news being that, from the private sector, technological advances mean less spam is getting through to our inboxes.
The Commission does not believe that CAN-SPAM’s effectiveness can be determined by measuring changes in the amount or types of spam since the Act’s passage because numerous variables, such as changes in anti-spam technologies and spammers’ tactics, are predominantly responsible for such changes, the FTC admitted.
The FTC review does state, however: The Act has also increased the ease or efficiency of enforcement against spammers, and carries an analysis of each provision of the Act, and how useful it has been in civil and criminal prosecutions.
One of the most useful provisions of CAN-SPAM from a law enforcement perspective, the report finds, is that which bans spammers from falsifying email header information to evade detection and mislead recipients.
It’s a wonderful, very simple hook to hang legal action on, according to one law enforcement agent quoted in the FTC report.