The Unsolicited Telecommunications Advertisement Act is meant "to protect consumers against deceptive electronic communications, including e-mail," according to the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection Web site. Faxes and cell phone advertisements are also covered.
The law also prohibits using a third party's domain name without permission, or including a false or misleading subject line. It must also have a valid reply address and an opt-out option.
Beth Morgan (senior-mathematics) said even with this legislation, she still receives about 75 pieces of junk e-mail per day to her America Online account.
"I think it's ridiculous and obviously [the legislation] isn't working," she said.
Pennsylvania may not have solved the problem of preventing spam, but California legislators think they have found the answer.
Last week California Gov. Gray Davis supported a bill that outlaws sending junk e-mail to anyone in the state who has not explicitly requested it. Thirty-five states, including Pennsylvania, have laws in place, but the California law would become the most extensive against spam in any state.
Most state laws require the recipient to specifically request to no longer receive the junk e-mail messages before the sender can be prosecuted for it. But in California, legislators want the law to require that recipients must agree to receive the e-mail messages from each specific party.
State Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Centre, said technology is changing so rapidly that it's hard to keep up with it, and spam laws are difficult to police because industries will likely find ways around it.
"I don't see any perfect legislation to wipe out all junk e-mail," Benninghoff said.
He compared the problem of junk e-mail to the do-not-call list for telemarketers, which is simply causing companies to find alternative methods of soliciting customers.
Benninghoff said no matter what the laws dictate, there will never be a perfect solution to stop junk e-mail from crowding inboxes.
He added that the issue affects him 24 hours a day, and now about 50 percent of his e-mail messages are junk -- and it's a waste of his time.
"It has a negative impact on the workforce ... because it's a waste of time and therefore money, and it's going to be an increasing problem," Benninghoff said.
David Roush (senior-broadcast journalism and communication arts and sciences) said Pennsylvania could try to pass legislation similar to California's to curb spam, but it probably wouldn't have much of an effect.
"Junk e-mail is definitely a problem, but not one that has a quick or easy fix. And although it's annoying, my delete key isn't far away," he said. "It's been my experience that signing up for any sort of service on the Internet, for example receiving news updates on your cell phone, is directly linked to signing up for spam. Companies will just add more fine print, which most people are oblivious to, to gain people's consent."
Roush said he isn't quite sure if spamming should be a governmental issue because it's an everyday annoyance and the government can't always be responsible for every burden.
"They can go ahead and pass more legislation, but it won't have any effect," he said.
