Slashdot Mirror
Australia To Fast-Track Anti-Spam Bill
Crypto Gnome writes "News Interactive is reporting that anti-spam legislation is being fast-forwarded by the Australian Federal Government. The proposed law will ban sending commercial emails without the recipient's prior consent and ban the use of email harvesting or list-generating software. Naturally, this will only directly impact local Australian spammers, but they're also hoping this will set a precedent for the International community." Banning list-generation software seems a bit heavy-handed, doesn't it?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wonder if this will work at slowing down Wayne Mansfield's spamming operations. Even after the very much public law suit with Joe McNicol he is still churning out the crap. The latest ones are going under the name of BusinessGrow - yondefa@yahoo.com.au.
Its rather nice that he uses the same phrase in each spam email "Business Seminars Australia - since 1987", guess what procmail is setup to look out for...
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
Yeah, it might be that there's no valid use for list-generating software, but the problem's the spam, not the software. Anybody who knows a bit about programming can write a new list-generating software. Thus you can't ban the software, as you can be sure that there'll be a site who offers the same banned software for download. The only way is to punish them for actually using it, not for having it. 'cause software ought to be free and not regulated away because someone could misuse it. just like a kitchen knife could be used for cutting bread as well as for killing someone
I'd like to point out the Danish anti-spam law which has been effective for about a year now. It's very very effective. The ombudsman has created a webpage where you can report spam. If he receives "enough" complaints about the same spammer, he sues them for you. Yes - that's correct. All you have to do is send in the evidence. Of course, this only works if the recipient has a clue, otherwise they'd spend way too much time researching dead ends. But our ombudsman is pretty cool, and he already sued danish big time spammer Fonn. The result you ask? The spammer had to pay $15 for each piece of spam. Needless to say, they haven't been spamming since.
1. Almost all retail broadband accounts are volume capped and charged at ludicrously high rates if you go over the cap. This adds impetuous to the government to do something about spam due to the public knowing that they are paying for this stuff directly (even if technically it would make a very small percentage of their bill).
2. The Australian legal system isn't too corrupted yet and it is very unlikely that the DPP would use this law against anyone unless the list gathered (by software or otherwise) was actually used for sending spam. If you are a conspiracy theorist - the government will get you anyway, there are plenty of other laws for them to use. This helps the government get at all areas of the problem and no excuses like: "sorry judge, I don't send the spam I just collect the address's and my mate in is actually sending the spam".
Australian Government to ban spam
The Australian Government will move to ban electronic junk mail (spam) and enforce this ban through the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) in legislation that will be introduced to Parliament later this year, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, announced today.
Senator Alston said that Cabinet had yesterday agreed to anti-spam legislation including fines, along with a raft of other measures aimed at reducing the influx of spam into Australian e-mail inboxes.
Spam is a menace to home and business e-mail users and is a major scourge of productivity. Spam e-mails are the mosquitoes of the Internet - numerous, annoying and often carrying nasty viruses.
Australia will soon be applying a large dose of 'spam repellent' and sending a strong message to spammers that indiscriminate and unsolicited bulk e-mailing will not be tolerated. The adoption of an opt-in regime will make Australia world's-best practice on spam and put Australia in a strong position to participate in international efforts.
The Australian Government is committed to taking a strong stand against spam and has moved quickly to respond to the report by the National Office for the Information Economy The spam problem and how it can be countered released in April this year. This report provided a blueprint to take action against the problem to provide the maximum possible protection against spam.
While the report made it clear that there is no silver bullet against spam, there are many roles that all parties can play in a multi-layered approach. The anti-spam measures that the Australian Government will introduce include:
* National legislation, to be enforced by the ACA, banning the sending of commercial electronic messaging without the prior consent of end-users unless there is an existing customer-business relationship (an opt-in regime);
* Civil sanctions for unlawful conduct including financial penalties, an infringement notice scheme and the ability to seek enforceable undertakings and injunctions;
* The requirement for all commercial electronic messaging to contain accurate details of the sender's name and physical addresses and a functional 'unsubscribe' facility to enable people to opt-out;
* Banning the distribution and use of e-mail 'harvesting' or list-generating software, and
* Working together with international organisations to develop global guidelines and cooperative mechanisms to combat the global spam problem.
The Government will work closely with industry to ensure that Australia has a workable regime without harming legitimate business practices. The regime will seek to protect businesses which undertake legitimate e-mail direct marketing in line with the requirements of the Privacy Act. There will be a 120-day sunrise period without penalties from the enactment of the legislation for businesses to ensure their marketing practices are in line with the legislation.
Stakeholders including the Internet Industry Association (IIA), the Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA), small business associations and other not-for-profit organisations will be consulted on the details of the legislation.
The Government will also work with industry to develop relevant codes of practice to be registered with the ACA, building on initiatives such as the IIA's 'No Spam' campaign, which since April has enabled consumers to access anti-spamming technology for a free month's trial.
The measures announced today establish a framework for Australia to begin the important task of eradicating spam. The package will be accompanied by an education campaign to raise awareness of the nature of spam and anti-spam measures and to inform individuals and business of their rights and responsibilities when it comes to spam.
Leg
It's not just illegal in Italy, it's illegal in the European Union as a whole: on May 20, 2002, the European parliament voted for a common point-of-view on spam and other forms of electronic privacy intrusion.
Then, on August 1 2003, the EU Directive 2002/58/EC came into effect, effectively granting member states until October 1 2003 to adjust their national laws to fit the EU directive.
The Dutch "Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens" (law for the protection of person-related data) now has an article 13 that reads:
Artikel 13
Ongewenste communicatie
1. Het gebruik van automatische oproepsystemen zonder menselijke tussenkomst (automatische oproepapparaten), fax of e-mail met het oog op direct marketing kan alleen worden toegestaan met betrekking tot abonnees die daarin vooraf hebben toegestemd.
Roughly translated:
Article 13
Unwanted communication
The use of automatic paging devices without human intervention (automatic paging devices), fax or e-mail, aimed at direct marketing, can only be allowed with respect to subscribers that have given prior permission.
There you go: opt-in. A "do-not-call" list, that recently raised questions in the US, has been in effect for years now in the Netherlands. As far as e-mail is concerned, Dutch internet providers actually defend their customers and sue Dutch spam-perpetrators. If anybody has related stories from other EU member states, please do list them here.
Now, to put my previous remarks in perspective, it might seem that I'm being overly EU-zealous here. However, it is by no means my intention to adopt an attitude like that. But think about it: this legislation works: the only Dutch bulk email that I recieve comes from a site at which I have a free e-mail account; when obtaining that account, I actually did opt-in. And it's only about one message per week. So, without the intention of adopting an EU-superiority attitude, I'm just asking a plain and sincere question:
What, if any, is the big problem with disallowing companies in the US to send unsollicited bulk e-mail to customers?
Can anyone give a decent overview of interests at stake here, and (if any) US regulations on the subject?
Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
No - that is indeed spam. It is unsolicited. It is also sent to a group.
...
Spammers use exactly the same justification - that every person who receives their email is a "genuine potential customer".
The amount of paper junk mail I get at home is ridiculous. There are idiots who drive along the street *every day* in a van and put more in. Worse - they get their *kids* to put it in the mailbox, teaching the next generation how to spam.
Well, here's a tip for spammers and spammees. *Anything* may be attached to a reply-paid envelope in Australia, and the person who paid is liable for the entire amount. That's why I keep a good heap of bricks and rocks around at home. I take all the reply-paid cards, tape them to a brick and put it in the post
Everything you say points to the current state of affairs. My point is that Australia is still growing. We don't have much of a say in the world yet, but we will. We have decidedly more control over our future than the American public; we don't have stupid rules about lobyists being able to bribe politicians to pass laws for them. If our politicians want to get into power, they've got to make the Australian public as a whole (not just the subset who choose to vote, as in America) happy. No matter who our leader is, we're still going to have to kow-tow to the US for the moment. American favour is too valuable, and enmity too costly.
No, Australia doesn't manufacture much. But the industrial age is over, and the information age just beginning. I don't know about the "tattered remnants" you mention; the Australian education system is one of the best in the world. Many Australian graduates are asked to work overseas, not just heading over there to look for jobs, but being actively recruited. I know that in at least two fields (teaching and nursing), Australian's can earn massive salaries (compared to the earnings back home) in places like the UK.
Tha largest technological advance Australia has had the opportunity to participate in has been the internet. Australia, despite being encumbered by a government-sponsored telecommunications monopoly, has a very high rate of broadband penetration. For a country with such a low population density, our infrastructure is remarkable. Many Australian Universities (Wollongong, Melbourne, UTS) were working on the internet in its infancy.
Australia continues to make innovations in other areas. It was an Australian research group who managed to teleport, not just a single photon as had been done previously, but an entire laser beam. Australia is a world leader in medical research. I really can't see your argument about Australia being backwards technologically.
As too becoming a US vassal state, well, maybe. But there hasn't been a nation on earth who have lasted forever, and when the inevitable decay hits the US, someone's going to pick up the pieces and become the next world power. It could very well be Australia. It may not be, but then, it could be, too.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Perhaps the law could also prohibit businesses paying someone to send unsolicited email - and hold them accountable for the behaviour of the person they hire to send their (solicited) commercial emails.
It seems to me that this would have two effects: 1) It would make unsolicited email unprofitable, and 2) It would force businesses to keep their emailers on a short leash.
I suppose there must be something wrong with that idea or it would have been suggested long ago...