Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spam And Alston - From Luddite To Pin-Up?

Posted by timothy on from the what-firm-resolve dept.

templeton069 writes "Alston (the Australian Communications Minister) has been lambasted as the 'world's greatest Luddite' for a long time but the spam bill introduced to the Australian Parliament last week seems to have struck an almost magical balance with everyone from the Internet Industry Association, the Coalition Against Bulk Unsolicited Email and the Direct Marketing Association, suggesting that it is about as good as it gets. So what's the story -- can you go from Luddite to pin-up in one step? And more importantly, does the legislation provide a template for other jurisdictions to implement low-pain anti-spam legislation?"

5 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. major problem.. by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Non-profit groups are exempt.

    Sorry, but I don't like spammers that are trying to save my soul any more than spammers who want to sell me placebos to increase my sexual prowess.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:major problem.. by kudos200 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Non-profit groups are exempt.

      Sorry, but I don't like spammers that are trying to save my soul any more than spammers who want to sell me placebos to increase my sexual prowess.

      That may be true, but what percentage of the spam you receive is trying to save your soul? If your inbox looks anything like mine, it's full of low-interest loan offers, porn offers, and penile enlargement stuff. If that stuff can be eradicated with this bill, then I'd be all for it. I, for one, don't get much non-profit spam at all, if any. But I don't know about everyone else.

      The notion (that another reply offered) that penile enlargement companies will spawn non-profits just to do the spamming for them seems awfully far-fetched to me. I was under the impression that non-profits had to meet certain criteria or something of that sort. I highly doubt an organization would be allowed to keep non-profit status if it were sending out millions of porn ads a day.

      Of course, as usual, this is all just my opinion, and if the past is any indicator, it's highly likely that I'm wrong.

  2. My only gripe by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I will admit I only read the "Simplified Outline", but from what I saw there, my only grip with this bill is this:

    "Address-harvesting software must not be supplied,
    acquired or used."

    I have no problem banning the USAGE of harvested lists. But banning the software?? hmmmm it reeks of censorship to me. Personally, I'd rather be free and spammed than to be sliding down slippery slopes that are completely spam-free.

    But maybe that's why I hang out here instead of the local pub.

    Stewey

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  3. Could make google.com.au Illegal! by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 3, Interesting
    My initial reading of the draft legislation is that it could make web search engines illegal. For example, I can use google.com.au to search for "@student.uq.ed.au", and then use these to create a list for spamming students at the University of Queensland. Under paragraph 20.1.a, this would make Google a provider of address harvesting software.

    While 20.2 says the following, I don't think it helps:

    20.1 does not apply if the supplier had no reason to suspect that the customer, or another person, intended to use the address-harvesting software or the harvested-address list, as the case may be, in connection with sending commercial electronic messages in contravention of section 16.

    The mere fact my search request contained a DNS name and an '@' character could be construed as grounds to suspect that I might use the results for spamming.

  4. A technical problem takes a technical solution. by jurujen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the IT industry needs to recognise that standards like SMTP need overhauling. They were never designed with the insight required to recognise potential mis-uses. The world should not go the way of the USA in attempting to fix all problems by turning society into one bit letigious mass.

    Here is a copy of a letter which i sent to the Australian Government in relation to this matter which was published in the the Australia IT.

    This email is intended for Minister Richard Alston, but is applicable to any persons within the Australian government who are responsible for administering, overseeing, and maintaining Australia's Information Economy.

    Whilst I applaud the Australian Government's strong stance on SPAM email and its recent decision to fast track legislation to prevent it, I am gravely concerned by the nature of this legislation with regard to its stance on list-generating software.

    At face value it may seem as though it is a good idea to prevent people from mining email addresses from the Internet, however upon closer inspection I hope that you will come to see it as I do, shortsighted, dangerous, and detrimental to the Information Economy.

    My concerns arise from a fundamental view of what the Internet is and what it represents. Without a doubt the Internet has become much more than its designers ever envisaged, the current day invocation of Internet is as a medium for the publishing and sharing of information and, perhaps more importantly, it is also a medium for free speech and dissemination of data.

    By moving to restrict the ability to harvest this information, the Australian Government will be unwittingly placing restrictions not on what is published, but rather how it is allowed to be received and distributed. This course of action may have far reaching implications and consequences for the Information Economy which the Australian Government is poorly equipped to understand.

    From a technical perspective the Internet is still in its infancy, its current invocation will not last for ever, and so legislation which effects the flow of information needs to be carefully considered for the implications it may have on the future evolution of the Internet and therefore the Information Economy.

    The Internet is an architecture built on flexible and generic standards, for instance an email address is actually a subset of a much wider standard for representing information called a Universal Resource Locator (URL)* which in itself is derived from a wider and even more generic standard called a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).

    * Please refer to http://www.w3.org/Addressing/ for more technical details on the URI and URL.

    By attempting to legislate against software which extracts email addresses from web pages or other content on the Internet, the Australian government is potentially legislating against software which harvests any kind of information based the URI/URL standards. Much of the software which performs such data mining activities is used for generating indexes of the Internet for use in search engines.

    Search engine technology, and therefore data mining, is the most critical and heavily used application on the Internet today. Whether it be individual users, small business, corporate entities, or governments, they are all heavily dependent on search engine technology. Without such technology and the freedom to produce new innovative software utilising Internet standards, the Information Economy would surely be doomed.

    What the Australian Government may not be aware of, and what the legislation probably overlooks is the fact that software designed to support the URI/URL standards will often not distinguish between and Email address (i.e. mailto:oof@foo.org) and a conventional HTTP address (i.e. http://foo.org).

    The Australian Government cannot pass legislation which will effectively stifle existing search engine technology and future innovation in that area. Data mining based on existing Internet stand