Slashdot Mirror
Two New Spam Laws in Japan
An anonymous reader submits: "The Daily Yomiuri, one of the major newpapers in Japan, reports
(in English) that two new laws aimed at spam have just come into effect.
In short, the laws require that spammers honor 'opt-out,' provide a valid return address, indicate
the commercial nature of the message in the title,
and never use randomly generated email addresses.
The laws were pressured into effect by NTT DoCoMo,
who complained that as much as 84% of all email
circulating on its system (i.e., cell phones) is
sent at random."
So my question is, are these moderate anti-spam laws really helping or hurting? I see them, in the long run, offering some legitimacy to spam. In that these laws are so weak, that they don't really curb spam, but because they are the only regulation on the topic, spammers will point their ISPs to these laws and demand service.
I'd say maybe the community should fight all laws but out-right bans on spam.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
As the article points out the government is setting up consultation centres to handle complaints. Redress from the courts, however, is nothing like what we see in Western cultures, let alone British, Australian, New Zealand, American or Canadian courts. In Japan, court cases are long, excessively-drawn-out affairs that do not generally reduce to simple answers. In fact, I'd hypothesise that many outside legal advisers would view the Japanese system as hopelessly hidebound.
I think that the social pressures extant in Japanese society probably could develop into more effective constraints -- about the only aspects of the law that I think would be useful are the 'naming-and-shaming' ones, as bad publicity will lead to a direct and measurable loss of business.
The thing is, DoCoMo might have had better luck in controlling this earlier by :
If the phone companies are resorting to calling for help, they must have really lost control of the situation, as they generally don't like to take this route.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
I submitted some unlikely e-mail addresses for removal at a spammer's site (webmaster@fbi.gov, anyone)and still got a 'Your e-mail address has been removed' message. Think anyone's dumb enough to sell a database with that address? Probably.
If they outlaw spam, then they would have to outlaw phone solicitors (phone salesmen), door to door solicitors as well. This was already argued in a US court. The court ruled that people do indeed have to right to go door to door, including Johovah's Witnesses. What's the difference between a salesman calling you on the phone to sell you something and spam? Don't hate me because I'm stupid.
lol That's the best!!!!!
I would love it if all Spam were required by law to come with ADV or SPAM in the subject line.
I should have picked out the nickname Demosthenes!Tecumseh.
Like they will spend the money to search out each and every violator who spams with a NON-valid e-mail address...
The law in the US distinguishes between different types of speech, and places limits on different types of speech.
Free speech does not allow you to yell "Fire" in a crowded place. If you try it, and you are prosecuted, you are going to loose if you attempt to claim that your actions were legal speech.
Generally, telemarketers, door to door solicitors, and spam are trying to sell you something - this is known as "commercial" speech, and is much more regulated than other sorts of speech on topics like religion or politics. This is why, ultimately, religious and political groups, appeal and usually win, restrictions on non-commercial speech - telemarketers don't. In Colorado, they just started a statewide no-call list. All telephone solicitors are required to purchase the list and NOT call the numbers on the list, fines of up to $10,000 per offense are possible. The big loophole however, is that charitable, political, and established business relationships are excluded. The limits on charitable and politcal groups were added, knowing that they would be struck out on appeal if they had been included.
In your door-to-door example, I believe that you have it backwards - the law was struck down because the religious group had a right to express their beliefs. If the law had been challenged by a salesman, it might/probably would have been different. Commercial speech is not afforded the same rights as protected forms of speech.
--- I would prefer a prehensile tail....
- None of the bills sited were ever passed
into law
- None of the bills cited said what the spammers
attributed to them
- None of the spam that I have seen citing the
failed bills were compliant
Rule 1: spammers lieToo bad the Yankees couldn't opt out of Pearl Harbor! And the Euros couldn't opt out of Hitler!
What bugs me about spam is the anonymous nature of the businesses. There is, for example, the practice of using false return addresses. What other business is allowed to lie about who they are?
Suppose that your bank's employes all used fictitious names, and the bank had a habit of closing doors and moving, but usually advertised a false address. How long would they get away with that?
That's what bugs me. The part that I can't understand is why does the legislature ignore our cries for relief? There's no money in it for them or the state, and I'm pretty sure they aren't hosting $1,000 a plate dinners for herbal Viagra merchants or the "add 2-4 inches" crowd.
Or is it that the members of the legislature still in the 20th century and don't even know about the problem?
As far as I am aware, internet access is considerably more expensive in Japan than it is in the U.S.A. and in the U.K, (where I am). Also, for E-Mail sent to cell phones, it is usual to pay per message received.
So, you can see why unsolicited E-Mail is a problem.