Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the step-in-the-right-direction dept.
mickers writes "news.com.au reports that in Australia, phone companies which allow SMS spam to be sent across their networks face fines of up to A$10 million under a new industry code.." Are people having a huge problem with SMS spam yet, or is this sort of action more pre-emptive?
This is nice and all...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...but why not instead take the action of banning the spammers and punishing them as well? Basically, put it in the contract when you let someone use your network that if they send spam, they'll face nasty fines and be subject to litigation?
Re:This is nice and all...
by
dhuv
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Most of the spam comes from countries where that law cannot/wouldnot reach.
Right on...
by
jdreed1024
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Are people
having a huge problem with SMS spam yet, or is this sort of action more pre-emptive?
Who cares? It's still a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it seems that in today's society we often have to wait until something is already a serious problem before doing anything about it. Yay Australia for taking this step.
I can't say we get a lot of SMS Spam... maybe 1 or 2 messages a week... but the main difference is that SMS Spam requires immediate attention, which makes is 10 times more annoying.
With email spam, you receive it at your leisure when you get the rest of your email. So you are essentially getting it when you are mentally prepared to.
SMS spam on the other hand interupts whatever it is you are doing because your phone beeps and demands attention. This means that if the message you get is spam, it is much more annoying because unlike getting a message from a friend, it is something completely worthless and nowhere near as interesting as what you were doing in the first place.
Don't be fooled
by
honestpuck
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well actually SMS spam is an incredibly minor problem in Australia. I don't even believe this is a pre-emptive measure.
I think that what we have here is a government doing it's usual thrashing around trying to convince people it understands technology and its problems and trying to convince us that its doing something about our problems without having to admit that it either doesn't want or cannot address the real issues like email spam, an incredibly low broadband take up rate and a badly performing virtual telecommunications monopoly in the shape of Telstra.
Of course a large part of the Australian electorate will be convinced. Hey, those cool dudes in the Government and its bureacracy are doing a great job -- look at the way they handled SMS spam.
Tony Williams
Re:SMS Spam from my provider
by
2sleep2type
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I would strongly agree with this. My provider was the worst offender. I say was as I got so annoyed by this and other customer service issues I moved provider. As other posters have commented there is a cost to send SMS which of course is near nill for providers and thatâ(TM)s why they are the most prolific.
I've noticed that there are a lot of competitions that are enter by SMS. I presume that this is harvesting of numbers for future campaigns. As people have entered the competion they are interested in your product and a âwarm leadâ(TM) worth the cost of SMSing. Iâ(TM)ve never entered any of these as I suspect that spam would follow.
Is there a market in lists of SMS numbers yet? That will be an indicator that this has taken off.
not always
by
Openadvocate
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Until recently you could send a email to my phone which I would recieve as a SMS(my adr. was phonenumber@sms.phonecompany.com). It has worked for about 4 years I think but was discontinued early this year. Mostly because they couldn't bill anyone for it and why give anyone something for free. Of course they could bill the reciever(me), but I could imagine the problems you could run into if someone was angry at you and decided to send you 10000 mails.
I have had a bad experience with SMS spam
by
lithium100
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I live in Australia and recently my girlfriend got a series of very unsolicited SMS's from an unknown number. The problem continued for several weeks until she decided to go to the police (due to their sexual nature). There was virtually nothing the police could do. Thankfully, the SMS's have now stopped but my girlfriend had no legal support at all.
There is certainly a need already for tighter controls on SMS usage - particularly unsolicited SMS (eg; SPAM). Fines are probably a good idea but tracking down and pinpointing sources of bad SMS could be a costly exercise.
I see SMS spam as a major problem that will likely get worse in the coming years!
Something to think about..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Many users on this site would say it's absurd to force P2P networks to restrict what travels through their network. They simply provide the service and it's up to the users to comply with the law or face the consequences, themselves. For this and various other reasons, the RIAA isn't thought of highly on this site. Fair enough.
So if the P2P networks aren't responsible for traffic over their networks, why should cellular companies be? When it's the RIAA telling P2P networks to stop file sharing of copyrighted music , that's considered a bad thing. But when the same thing is pushed to stop spam, that's a good thing? Make up your mind. The companies owning the networks just provide the service to send messages. Go after the spammers, not the provider.
Re:Something to think about..
by
Analysis+Paralysis
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
P2P networks are like web sites - they offer content which you elect to download or visit. Spam is "push" content which is delivered to you regardless of your preferences - this is the major difference.
As for targetting cellular phone companies, they can wield far greater control over their networks than ISPs can over the Internet - and can eliminate the threat of SMS spam simply by ensuring that any and every sender pays a "per message" fee.
Why, we dont pay for it
by
Zeddicus_Z
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, considering no-one in Australia actually pays for *incoming* SMS (or incoming calls for that matter), i cant see what the problem is. Sure, if we were like some other countries where we payed for both outgoing and incoming sms/calls/data, it would need to be banned. But really, when the incoming SMS costs you nothing to receive, and the phone companies get their compensation for those millions of messages from the spam originator, whats the problem? Other than sheer annoyance that is.
-- Janie took my gun...
Re:Why, we dont pay for it
by
jdreed1024
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...whats the problem? Other than sheer annoyance that is.
That's precisely the problem. The "it doesn't cost you anything" argument is just the same as the "just hit delete" argument that e-mail spammers give. Annoyance shouldn't be permitted simply because it's free. It doesn't cost you anything to receive crank phone calls on your land line. But that's still illegal.
-- There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Re:can YOU turn off SMS?
by
Simon+Lyngshede
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you find one, let me know will you? Phones are not for written messages.
About the whole spam think. Why is it that people won't look to Denmark. We have the solution. Spam in any form is banned and have been for many years. You are not allowed to call people, knock on their door, sending mail and sms, with the purpose of selling them something. This is all covered by one law, originally made to stop door to door sallsmen.
People have already been find for email spam and a trial on sms spam is in progress.
Re:SMS Spam from my provider
by
Stuart+Gibson
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If your phone beeping is a probable cause for an accident you either shouldn't be driving or shouldn't have a phone, maybe even both.
What's the next plan - suing ice cream vans, or fire services because of the distracting noise?
Goblin
-- It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
It is pre-emptive.
by
Rip!ey
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Are people having a huge problem with SMS spam yet, or is this sort of action more pre-emptive?
I'm an Australian. This has been reported in local news as well as on-line news. It is entirely pre-emptive. They are moving now to prevent the problems that people face with e-mail spam from crossing into a new domain.
Another potential problem with the new crop of mobile phones (those with inbuilt cameras) is also recieving attention, with likely bans from carrying them in some places. An example of this would be the change rooms at the local public pools. I'll leave it to the imagination as to why.
Pay per message
by
bagofbeans
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Payment per message simply legitimises the spam.
Also, nothing to stop a provider doing deal to pass the spam for free for institutions such as CC providers in return for some benefit.
If you're going to something postive, insist that the recipient cannot be charged for receiving SMS.
Slashdot Mirror
...but why not instead take the action of banning the spammers and punishing them as well? Basically, put it in the contract when you let someone use your network that if they send spam, they'll face nasty fines and be subject to litigation?
Who cares? It's still a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it seems that in today's society we often have to wait until something is already a serious problem before doing anything about it. Yay Australia for taking this step.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
I can't say we get a lot of SMS Spam... maybe 1 or 2 messages a week... but the main difference is that SMS Spam requires immediate attention, which makes is 10 times more annoying.
With email spam, you receive it at your leisure when you get the rest of your email. So you are essentially getting it when you are mentally prepared to.
SMS spam on the other hand interupts whatever it is you are doing because your phone beeps and demands attention. This means that if the message you get is spam, it is much more annoying because unlike getting a message from a friend, it is something completely worthless and nowhere near as interesting as what you were doing in the first place.
I think that what we have here is a government doing it's usual thrashing around trying to convince people it understands technology and its problems and trying to convince us that its doing something about our problems without having to admit that it either doesn't want or cannot address the real issues like email spam, an incredibly low broadband take up rate and a badly performing virtual telecommunications monopoly in the shape of Telstra.
Of course a large part of the Australian electorate will be convinced. Hey, those cool dudes in the Government and its bureacracy are doing a great job -- look at the way they handled SMS spam.
Tony Williams
I've noticed that there are a lot of competitions that are enter by SMS. I presume that this is harvesting of numbers for future campaigns. As people have entered the competion they are interested in your product and a âwarm leadâ(TM) worth the cost of SMSing. Iâ(TM)ve never entered any of these as I suspect that spam would follow.
Is there a market in lists of SMS numbers yet? That will be an indicator that this has taken off.
Until recently you could send a email to my phone which I would recieve as a SMS(my adr. was phonenumber@sms.phonecompany.com). It has worked for about 4 years I think but was discontinued early this year. Mostly because they couldn't bill anyone for it and why give anyone something for free. Of course they could bill the reciever(me), but I could imagine the problems you could run into if someone was angry at you and decided to send you 10000 mails.
my sig
Easier to close the gate on a wild horse before it escapes rather than after.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
I live in Australia and recently my girlfriend got a series of very unsolicited SMS's from an unknown number. The problem continued for several weeks until she decided to go to the police (due to their sexual nature). There was virtually nothing the police could do. Thankfully, the SMS's have now stopped but my girlfriend had no legal support at all.
There is certainly a need already for tighter controls on SMS usage - particularly unsolicited SMS (eg; SPAM). Fines are probably a good idea but tracking down and pinpointing sources of bad SMS could be a costly exercise.
I see SMS spam as a major problem that will likely get worse in the coming years!
Many users on this site would say it's absurd to force P2P networks to restrict what travels through their network. They simply provide the service and it's up to the users to comply with the law or face the consequences, themselves. For this and various other reasons, the RIAA isn't thought of highly on this site. Fair enough.
So if the P2P networks aren't responsible for traffic over their networks, why should cellular companies be? When it's the RIAA telling P2P networks to stop file sharing of copyrighted music , that's considered a bad thing. But when the same thing is pushed to stop spam, that's a good thing? Make up your mind. The companies owning the networks just provide the service to send messages. Go after the spammers, not the provider.
Well, considering no-one in Australia actually pays for *incoming* SMS (or incoming calls for that matter), i cant see what the problem is. Sure, if we were like some other countries where we payed for both outgoing and incoming sms/calls/data, it would need to be banned. But really, when the incoming SMS costs you nothing to receive, and the phone companies get their compensation for those millions of messages from the spam originator, whats the problem? Other than sheer annoyance that is.
Janie took my gun...
If you find one, let me know will you? Phones are not for written messages.
About the whole spam think. Why is it that people won't look to Denmark. We have the solution. Spam in any form is banned and have been for many years. You are not allowed to call people, knock on their door, sending mail and sms, with the purpose of selling them something. This is all covered by one law, originally made to stop door to door sallsmen.
People have already been find for email spam and a trial on sms spam is in progress.
If your phone beeping is a probable cause for an accident you either shouldn't be driving or shouldn't have a phone, maybe even both.
What's the next plan - suing ice cream vans, or fire services because of the distracting noise?
Goblin
It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
Are people having a huge problem with SMS spam yet, or is this sort of action more pre-emptive?
I'm an Australian. This has been reported in local news as well as on-line news. It is entirely pre-emptive. They are moving now to prevent the problems that people face with e-mail spam from crossing into a new domain.
Another potential problem with the new crop of mobile phones (those with inbuilt cameras) is also recieving attention, with likely bans from carrying them in some places. An example of this would be the change rooms at the local public pools. I'll leave it to the imagination as to why.
Payment per message simply legitimises the spam.
Also, nothing to stop a provider doing deal to pass the spam for free for institutions such as CC providers in return for some benefit.
If you're going to something postive, insist that the recipient cannot be charged for receiving SMS.