[ OUR OPINION ]
Just war declared
against spammersARMED with a new federal law, major Internet service providers have declared war on senders of unsolicited junk e-mail. Lawsuits filed by the four companies also rely heavily on state laws where they are headquartered, a signal to Hawaii legislators to join the ranks of states that have laws banning spam.
THE ISSUE
Major Internet service providers have filed lawsuits against leading senders of junk e-mail.
America Online, Earthlink, Yahoo and Microsoft filed the lawsuits mainly against "John Does" because most defendants cannot be identified from the hundreds of millions of e-mail messages that have cluttered the Internet. The filings provide the companies the power to subpoena bank, telephone and other records that could be useful in tracking them down.
The federal law bans e-mail under false or misleading subject headings. It also makes disguising the source of any e-mail illegal. Spammers generally use false return addresses or route their messages through Internet servers in foreign countries. One lawsuit targets Ontario companies that already have sent nearly 94 million e-mail messages this year pitching mortgage insurance and travel service.
Critics of the Can Spam Act, which took effect Jan. 1, predicted it would not greatly help the fight against unwanted e-mail. Among other things, it pre-empts several state laws that allowed individual consumers to sue spammers. Still, the lawsuits cite state laws against computer fraud, trespassing on Internet networks and distributing software that can conceal a spammer's identity.
"State law continues to be the core of our legal action," said Les Seagraves, Earthlink's chief privacy officer. Hawaii has no such anti-spam law, and the effectiveness of state laws in these legal actions should provide guidance to our legislators about how to best fashion a spam ban.
Software designed to block nuisance e-mail has improved in recent years, blocking as much as 95 percent of it, according to Microsoft's Bill Gates. However, spammers have responded by simply increasing the volume.
Unwanted commercial e-mail has mushroomed from 8 percent of all e-mail in 2001 to 42 percent in February 2003 to 62 percent last month, according to Brightmail Inc., an anti-spam software company. Virtually all of it is illegal. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that two-thirds of junk e-mail contains false and misleading information, and most of the remainder is pornographic.
BACK TO TOP |
Tam should know
ethical boundariesHonolulu City Councilman Rod Tam's notion that his violation of ethics laws is a matter of perception may explain why he could not see that what he was doing was improper. However, characterizing the citations against him as a result of his not being "part of the old boys" smears the city Ethics Commission without foundation.
THE ISSUE
The city Ethics Commission has found the Council member in violation of ethics laws.
Tam should quit flirting along the edges of propriety. As one who has held public office for more than 20 years, he ought to know better, especially since he has been rebuked before. As a newer member of an elected body that in recent years has earned a tatty reputation, he should be acutely aware of ethical boundaries.
The commission determined that Tam had violated the law when he represented his business clients in seeking city permits for their projects. In one instance, he was paid $3,100 for steering through a clothing company's remodeling permits. In another, he helped get approvals for a customer of his termite-treatment service, for which he says he wasn't paid. Even so, he agreed to get the permits as part of the service sale.
Tam contends that he was not wearing his Council hat when he sought the permits and that as a part-time elected official he has to earn a living. However, in recognition of the undue influence an official or employee may have, the City Charter expressly prohibits his acting "in behalf of private interests before any agency."
When serving in the state Senate, Tam was accused by the state Ethics Commission of misusing his legislative position to promote his candidacy for the Council. Tam maintains that in both cases, he was singled out for inquiries because he is not connected with the old-boy network.
The remark suggests -- without basis -- that the commissions are corrupt or are being used for nefarious purposes. If Tam can substantiate this, he should present his evidence. Otherwise, his comment comes off as a poor excuse.
In marking out the violations, the ethics panel decided against recommending that the Council discipline Tam but urged him not to continue such representations. If it had chosen more severe punishment, however, the commission could request action only by the Council since it has no real authority of its own. Tam's case brings up another reason why a bill before the Council that would give the commission some muscle ought to become law.
