Slashdot Mirror


Norway Bans Spam

nordicfrost writes: "Everyone in Norway has aquired a law-given right to say "no" to spam. This is also happening in other countries like Germany. The spammers have to check that the people they send advertisements to aren't on the "opt-out" list, a list centrally operated by the government's National Data Register. This means that anyone sending me something I haven't requested, faces fines and up to six months of jail time." Recently a spammer got one of my addresses and is spamming me 10 times a day. Forged everything, random everything, many different messages, only a similiarities in the subject line to tie them together. At least I can filter it, but I'd love to see this ass get 6 months of jail time, especially if he's doing this to thousands of others.

15 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Re:cellphone, schmellphone... if you're so clever. by fmaxwell · · Score: 3
    what kind of a dumb-ass are you? If you tell your local post office to repackage ALL envelopes...

    Hey dumb fuck, my cell phone has an e-mail address. I don't have to forward anything. If e-mail is sent to that address, it appears on my phone. Because of spammers, I dare not give that address out -- but what right do spammers have to render useless a feature included with my cell phone service?

    You also act like the spammers have a right to waste my time by making me set up filters and compression so that I can access my own e-mail. Maybe your time is worthless, but mine is not.

    By the way, Mr. Wizard, do you know that your ISP is passing the costs of spam on to you and every other subscriber?

    (try using exim and its filter forward rules)

    I use VAMP (Very Advanced Mail Processor). Exim only runs under Unix/Linux and that's not what I use on my mail server/firewall/ftp server/etc. machine.

    P.S. If you are so skilled at filtering your e-mail, why doesn't your e-mail address appear with your posting?

  2. Spam is annoying, but by spectatorion · · Score: 4

    Spam is certainly very annoying, but is it sacrificing too much of our Internet Freedom to let governments fine and even jail people for spamming? I mean, everyone always talks about freedom on the Internet, keeping it unregulated, etc. Why should this be different? This is a huge regulation. Who is to say exactly what spam is? And what would prevent the state from jailing me for sending a friend an unsolicited email about a product i recently saw and thought he might like to buy? A little far-fetched, I admit, but this just seems like a dangerous road to go down. I say turn the filter on and keep government out of the Internet.

    1. Re:Spam is annoying, but by fmaxwell · · Score: 5
      I mean, everyone always talks about freedom on the Internet, keeping it unregulated, etc. Why should this be different?

      This is not "different." In fact, it is much like a denial of service attack in that it can paralyze smaller ISPs and companies when they serve as the inadvertent origin, relay, or forged "From:" domain for spam. It is also like many forms of computer fraud which are already illegal. Spammers go to great lengths to forge and mask sender information, routing information, and even web page addresses in their spam. While recipients are seldom left helpless by it, it drastically limits the way that they can use the Internet. Many will not use real addresses in Usenet postings, put a link to their e-mail address on web pages, or otherwise publically publish their e-mail address for fear of being deluged with spam.

      Take the case of someone who wishes to forward his e-mail to his/her cell-phone. Spam has basically made this impossible, as spammers send huge, complex HTML messages on a regular basis. Add to that the interruptions to the recipients day as the phone goes off for one spam after another and you have a situation where a person cannot receive their e-mail in the manner that they want.

      Lastly, it is theft. In the case of e-mail delivered to cell phones, it costs the recipient for each received message. When people pay for Internet use by the minute or byte, it costs them money for each piece of spam received. In this way, it is no different than the already illegal "junk faxes."

      We already have legislation to protect us from other computer crimes and adding spam to that list is long overdue.

    2. Re:Spam is annoying, but by dmuth · · Score: 3
      Spam is certainly very annoying, but is it sacrificing too much of our Internet Freedom to let governments fine and even jail people for spamming?
      Your "freedom" ends where my mailbox begins, got it? If you have something to say that you feel is so important, try using one of the following places to do so:
      • A freebie website from Geocities, etc.
      • An appropriate Usenet newsgroup
      • An appropriate IRC channel
      • An appropriate web based discussion board or mailing list
      E-mail is, and will continue to be a person to person medium, not a broadcast medium regardless what the DMA might tell you.
    3. Re:Spam is annoying, but by fmaxwell · · Score: 3
      There is more than enough organization and technology in place to prevent mass abuse of spam without government intervention.

      Then why does it remain such a large problem?

      What if a friend signs you up to a mailing list?

      It should not be possible for someone to sign you up to a mailing list without you having to return a confirmation e-mail.

      What about mass political mailings that are of immense informative value?

      What is of "immense informative value" to you might be radical nut-speak to me. I don't want Rush Limbaugh, Ralph Nader, and Jerry Falwell deciding that I need to receive their e-mail because of its "immense informative value."

      What if a company is limited in their competitve tools to fight entrenched near-monopolistic companies and mass, unsolicited email messages is one of their only options?

      I hope that you are kidding with this one. Are you telling me that every company that releases an office suite to compete with Microsoft Office has a moral right to spam the net?

      Do we really want to vest this kind of regulatory control in a government that could potentially abuse it?

      I would much sooner entrust this control to democratically elected representatives than to trust in the judgement of the greedy, unethical people who now bombard us with spam.

      If there were no feasible way for the private sector to regulate itself, regulation might be worth considering. However, that is not the case. Upstream providers can filter mail, refuse to route packets from offending domains, use tools such as ORBS to block mail, etc. That's not even getting into personal efforts to deal with spam.

      If you operate a business, you cannot tolerate a mail system that blocks the ORBS-listed systems. Your customers don't care about the fact that the ISP that supplies their company Internet access also has an open relay used by some spammer in Taiwan. The technical solutions don't work.

      As to my "personal efforts", I have spent about $100 in e-mail filtering software (please, save the Linux/GNU/GPL/Open Software speech for another thread). I have spent countless hours dealing with spam, sending complaints, setting up filters, doing traceroutes, whois lookups, and IP block lookups. I can't distribute my cell phone e-mail address. I have to sift through filtered spam on a weekly basis to make sure that the filters did not inadvertently catch a message that was not spam.

      And, if all this fails, a person can use the civil courts as a last resort to arbitrate particularly offending cases.

      That's the whole reason spam works. If a spammer steals one penny from each of 1 million people to pay his advertising costs, he will have stolen $10,000, but no one person has suffered enough of a loss to take legal action.

      The Internet does not have to be the wild west. Laws that extend our basic sense of values into the digital domain are perfectly reasonable. Junk faxes are illegal for the same reason that spam should be -- much of the cost of the advertising is borne by the recipient. Why not make spam illegal?

  3. I hate spam as much as the next guy, BUT... by Bonker · · Score: 3

    All the free speech concerns aside, this stilly has some pretty scary implications. What constitutes spam? Is it unsolicited commercial email? Is it harrasment? Or will this turn out to be abused in much the same way the (very necessary) sexual harrasment laws have been?

    Does anyone have an Eigo translation of this article so that we can get the specifcs? The fishy don't do Norweigan.

    "Sir, you're under arrest for spamming your coworkers."

    "But they *asked* me to send them 'The Big List of Blonde Jokes'! Honest, officer!"

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  4. Translation is wrong in the article. by viktor · · Score: 3
    When translating the article, "opt-in" and "opt-out" have been mixed up.

    Opt-out means that I have to send my address to a register in order not to receive spam. Sweden has this system, and it does not work well.

    Norway has chosen an opt-in system, which means that I have to actively request the advertisement from the spammer. If they can't show that I've requested the mail, they are acting against the law.

    The translation mentions opt-out, which is wrong.

    Norway's new law also covers advertisements sent via SMS, the instant messaging service in the GSM mobile telephone net.

    /Viktor...

  5. I'm Sure the Chinese Will Love This.... by John+Murdoch · · Score: 4

    Hi!

    Everybody hates spam. Everybody thinks spam is a pain in the neck. Everybody thinks spam should go away. And those inclined to expect the government to do everything for them will--not surprisingly--tend to expect the government to protect them from spam.

    Which may be a good thing, except for one little detail. If the government is going to protect you from "spam", the government is going to define what "spam" means. And you may not be happy with that definition--because as sure as the fact that the sun is coming up tomorrow, any government is going to figure out a way to protect itself with its definition of spam.

    Remember "Junk Fax"?
    Back when fax machines first appeared it didn't take office supply companies, delis, and a horde of other advertisers to figure out that they could send you virtual flyers with a local phone call--substantially cheaper than paying for postage.

    Lots of people objected to junk fax. Lots of legislators climbed on the bandwagon--junk fax came to be viewed by politicians as an easy target: nobody was in favor of (euphemism) "unsolicited commercial fax."

    Then a funny thing happened--except that it wasn't funny at all if you are old enough to remember watching it on CNN. Students in the People's Republic of China staged a demonstration in Tianamien Square in Beijing that quickly became a serious challenge to the authority of the Communist Party. At first the authorities dismissed this as an annoyance--but as the protest continued, the government got more and more scared. The government ultimately crushed the protest with tanks and machine guns--no one in the West knows yet how many students were killed.

    What was significant about the "uprising" was that the Chinese government was right about one thing: the PRC kept insisting that the protest was being directed by "outside agitators". They were right--Chinese dissidents, in the U.S. as graduate students, were directing the protests across China from an office in suburban Boston--via fax. The PRC finally figured it out, and blocked phone traffic from the Boston area--but they never figured out concepts like call-forwarding, etc. The students were able to communicate with very little restriction right up until the end.

    In the aftermath, the Communists decided that "the people" needed protection from "unsolicited fax". They required every fax machine to be registered. They enacted laws spelling out draconian punishments for unregistered fax usage. They tried their damndest to prevent anybody ever doing this again.

    Now the Internet is here.
    And try as the Chinese Communists might, they're having a tough time preventing people from getting information. The PRC has worked diligently to block access to foreign news sites, foreign chat sites, etc.--especially anything published in Chinese. I'm certain that one dimension of the PRC's reported enthusiasm for Linux is that they can be certain that the U.S. doesn't have a trap door in their computers--and that they can install a trap door of their own. (Somehow, I'm sure the PRC will--what a surprise!--forget to distribute the source code of their distros.)

    But they can't block e-mail.
    I have mail in my in-box from a young Chinese man. He and his wife are deeply fond of my mother--she and my late stepfather helped them escape from China in the immediate aftermath of Tianemien Square. They are still actively in touch with friends and relatives back in China--by email. And if the need ever arises, they can maintain those communication links: through open relays; through "anonymizer" relays; through throwaway accounts--in short, using exactly the same techniques as the spammers.

    We live in a free society--with the advent of the Internet our freedom of expression and (if only virtual) assembly are practically limitless. It doesn't work that way everywhere in the world. There are places in the world where defaming the Imam earns you a fatwa--a price on your head. There are places in the world where refusing to pledge allegiance to the Dear Leader and embrace the "scientific truths" of Kim-Il-Sungism means that your family doesn't get food rations, and is left to starve. There are places in the world where billions of people are "protected" from "unsolicited fax" and other such dangers.

    Those places all have governments that would be more than happy to "protect" their citizens from "spam."

    Yup. Spam is an annoyance. By golly, I have to press that Delete key four, sometimes five times a day. And I'm sure that having the government decide what email I can see, and making sure that I only see "unsolicited" mail from people they approve of, will make my life so much more enjoyable. So much more buoyant--so much more vibrant--so much more liberating. At least, right up to the point where I want to send or receive messages the government doesn't approve of.

    Thanks, but...
    For me and my household--we'll just use SpamCop, and the Delete key.

    1. Re:I'm Sure the Chinese Will Love This.... by Tackhead · · Score: 4
      >But they [the Chinese gov't] can't block e-mail.

      In my more paranoid days, I agree with a thesis I saw on news.admin.net-abuse.email.

      Briefly, the thesis is that the best way for the PRC's government to control email use is to get themselves firewalled by the rest of the world.

      It would explain the complete negligence I've seen on the part of the admins of open mail relays in .cn. The more spam that comes from .cn, the more likely that "the rest of the world" will simply add any .cn host to their DENY lists.

      It won't stop you from telling your Chinese friend what's going on... but it will stop him from mailing you. And that's a big win from the point of view of the PRC government.

      (Me? I bounce Chinese-relayed spam with "550 - Free Tibet" or "550 - Falun Gong thanks you", followed by a random set of characters. Makes the relay operator sweat, confuses the PRC gov't. Win-win.)

  6. Re:My Norwegian is a little rusty... by Werail · · Score: 5

    Full translation, the wording may not be perfect, but it's a long article and I'm not going to bother reading it yet another time.
    Stop the e-mail adds.
    By: Jon Martin Larsen

    From now on, in Norway, nobody are allowed to send advertisement to your e-mail, unless you let them. Of course, it requires more than an EU adjusted law to stop the flow advertisement on the internet.

    RECIEVES SPAM: Jan Ingvoldstad (28) are a student doing his main subject in computer science, and he recieves between thirty and fifty spam mails per week. Last weekend he got 17 such messages.

    Make sure you trust who you give your e-mail address to. If you participate in newsgroup, mailing lists or competitions og gaming sites, then you are specially vulnerable.

    The unsolicited mail which are sent to your e-mail are refered to as Spam. It has gotten it's name from an old Monthy Python sketch, where a bunch of viking constantly interrupts and sings Spam, spam, spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam.

    The spam is distributed by more or less unscrupulous businesspeople which hopes to sell services and product. And their way of doing it is to fill your e-mail.

    In many countries this is allready illegal, and from the 1st of march will Norway have one of the strictest regulations in this area. Other countries are Denmark, Finland, Germany, Austria and Italy. A new marketing law which is more suited to EU becomes operative and makes it illegal to send advertisments through e-mail or SMS (Short Messaging Service) unless the consumers has given their explicit permission up front.

    Anyone that breaks the prohibition, will explain onesself to the consumers ombudsman. the sentences in the new marketing laws are also a lot stricter. You now risk getting large fines or up to six months in jail. Or both.

    Norwegian companies and companies who markets themselves in Norway can be held responsible if they send you spam, provided you haven't explicitly requested it up front. "The consumer gets more power." concludes chief information officer Anne Nyeggen in the Data Inspectorate. "The new marketing law overlaps and surpasses the personal information law(NOTE: In Norway, it's hard getting personal information and you also need clearance for keeping databases) when it comes down to rights, and it results in a much stronger protection against advertisments and sales through e-mail and SMS."

    "We think this is a kind of marketing that enters into the private areas, and thusly we think the recipients should give their permission in advance", says Harald Hilton. He is counceler in the consumer branch of the Children and family departement.

    Some companies are allready following the lines of the new law. These are mainly compaines that operates partly or completely on the internet. One example is the new telephone directory on the net. You have to register to recieve information, and the e-mail address are your user name. The service is closed to accomodate the demands from the Data Inspectorate demands about protecting private information and to hinder abuse.

    This means you have to identify yourself to get access. Telenor Media have been given permission to verify your identity by requesting your social security number and checking this against the national register. You are also explicitly asked if you want your e-mail to be available to others, both for private and for businesses. You are also specifically queried about if you wish to recieve unsolicited e-mails.

    But Norwegian law does not govern the internet. When you are surfing the net, you have to watch out. If you find you are being massively spammed, it might be because you were careless.

    When you are surfing on the net, you can easily be tempted by offers and links. You're surfing along, maybe downloading an image and you click on another link.

    Don't be surprised if someone has a small data mining script on one of the pages. Such a program would attempt to gain access to your e-mail address through your browser. The address is stored, then sold, and sold and sold to everyone that wants it. And that's how you get offers from the strangest places about all kinds of weird things.

  7. Use of the "SPAM" topic icon by yerricde · · Score: 3
    According to SPAM® and the Internet from SPAM.com:
    We do not object to use of this slang term to describe UCE, although we do object to the use of our product image in association with that term. Also, if the term is to be used, it should be used in all lower-case letters to distinguish it from our trademark SPAM, which should be used with all uppercase letters.
    Rob, please change the topic icon before you get sued.
    Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  8. Sneakemail by citizenc · · Score: 4
    Sneakemail is a free service that you can use to generate disposable email addresses.

    From their website:
    These "sneak email" addresses are aliases of your real address, which is kept hidden.

    You can enter these Sneakemail addresses into web forms or use them to contact e-businesses without the risk of your real address being abused or bought and sold.

    Consider each Sneakemail address as an informal agreement between you and an online business or organization.

    You agree to allow them to contact you through this address, and they in turn, by accepting and using this address, agree not to abuse this privilege by sending you unwanted solicitations or to give or sell your address to others.

    The best way to understand Sneakemail, if you don't know the technology involved, is with a telephone analogy.

    Imagine you discovered that, due to a technical error, the phone company freely gave you a new phone number whenever you asked and didn't revoke the previous number. If you kept asking you would accumulate a bunch of phone numbers that all went to your one phone line. You realized that, if you could find a phone that showed the number somebody was using to call you (reverse-caller-id?) you could do something very useful.

    Every time you needed to fill out a credit card application, or a store clerk asks for your phone number, you would give out a unique phone number obtained just for that purpose. That way, if you start getting calls from telemarketers at that particular number you could call up the phone company and tell them to disconnect it. Not only do you succeed in stopping the annoying calls, but you know who gave them your number.

    Sneakemail works just like an unlimited supply of phone numbers and a "reverse-caller-id" phone, except, of course, the phone numbers are sneakemail addresses, which you can create freely, and the special phone is your inbox.
    http://www.sneakemail.com - Neat.

    ------------
    CitizenC
  9. It *is* an EU regulation by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 3

    This is an implementation of an EU regulation. Norway is not a proper EU member, but is a member of the broader EFTA group, and tend to implement EU regulations even more than most EU member.

  10. It is *not opt-out, it is opt-in. by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 3

    The submission text is misleading, you have to explicitly opt-in in order to get spam.

    Denmark has a similar law, allthough it only covers UCE, not UBE, since it is part of the marketing law. We also have an opt-out system for snailmail, including a central list for direct snailmail.

  11. Identifying Marks by AirSupply · · Score: 3
    To the extent that I've used RADIUS protocol, the "reverse caller ID" thing is called DNIS (Dialed Number Incoming String, or something like that), although this might be a vendor-specific term. It's also called "Called-Station-ID", as opposed to "Calling-Station-ID" which is what we call "Caller ID" in common parlance. Needless to say, the ISP I work for actually uses these numbers to determine different classes of service. In principle, it allows you to give a busy signal to one number whilst allowing another number access, because you can actually get access to this info before you tell the other end whether you are willing to accept the call.

    That would be great to have at home, wouldn't it? You get a range of 100 telephone numbers, and you can assign them how you like. Based on the incoming number (and the caller ID too, if you like) you can give an engaged signal, direct to a screening service, have the phone ring with one of several identifying tones, etc. The possibilities are endless! Pity it's only available on ISDN-like connections, and usualy only the really high bandwidth ones. Still, sooner or later...

    But this whole "identifying marks" thing is something you can use in a broad sense. I'm one of the privileged many (many on Slashdot at least) that can create new email addresses at whim because I have one or more domain names and administrative control over the mail for that domain. But how about physical mail addresses?

    I use a PO Box, of course, but that doesn't stop companies sending me junk. But what I make a policy of doing now is tainting every postal address I'm obliged to give out. The address for a PO Box is very short, and it usually gives me one spare line to fill in with irrelevant data. I use this to fill in a "care of" address. Thus, if I'm obliged to give my postal address to buy-a-cd-online.com because my employer gave me credit there as a Christmas gift, I tell them that I'm "Air Supply, c/o C.D.Overmeyer, PO Box blah blah etc". The "C.D.Overmeyer" guff is enough to remind me who I gave that address to, and to write "return to sender" on unpoened envelopes to that address if they start spamming me postally.

    As an aside, the most annoying junk mail I get in my PO Box is the stuff that the Post Office puts there, having accepted money from someone else to do so. I think if I'm paying for the box I should be able to say no to this, but I've yet to take it up with the staff. In the meantime, I hurl said junk back through the PO Box onto their floor. Why should I put their junk in the bin for them? Always aim for the bottom line. If everyone did it, they might at least ask us all whether we wanted the junk in the first place instead of stuffing it straight in.

    I hate spam, in all its forms.

    --

    AirSupply: go ahead, cut me off.