UK Spam Law Goes Live

loonix_gangsta writes "So, the UK has taken matters into its own hands and, as of today, is making it a criminal offence to send e-mails or text messages unless the recipient has agreed in advance to accept them. The law comes into force today. Unfortunately much spam originates from the US so the UK had previously asked the US to co-operate."

Comments

Unfortunately much spam originates from the US...

[Andypoo]

Personally, I see a lot more spam from China or Korea than the US. Sure, we get a fair bit from worm infected machines these days, but China and Korea are still the heavy hitters. Perhaps it would be more positive to amend the article, "Unfortunately, the UK is responsible for a very small segment of spam in the wild, so this is law is not likely to make a major difference to Internet users." Having said that, there are lots of people *responsible* for spam in the US, but it's next to impossible to tie most common spam to these respective (can I even use that word in this context?) people. Andypoo.

Wont make a blind bit of difference

[L-s-L69]

1. 90+% of spam is illegal anyway (dodgy companies)
2. Most spam is from US/Far east
3. Spam gets sent because really stupid ppl respond to it
The impact of spam will only be lessoned when people are educated to take care of the problem. I.e Not responding to spam and taking responsibilty for their internet connection rather than just calling for legislation.

The UK always has this "Something must be done" mentality without people ever thinking perhaps *they* could do something.

Re:Wont make a blind bit of difference

[Tom]

Well, brainiard, why don't you go out and get several hundred million Internet users the required level of education?

See, the problem is that stupid idiots do and always will exist. In most of society, that isn't much of a problem because they are a minority and their impact is minimal.

In spam, their existence threatens the communication medium for all of us. Due to the various factors of economy valid for e-mail that the anti-spam community has been pointing out for ages, this minority has a huge impact. Educating them won't work, because by definition, this bottom part on the intelligence scale can not be educated.

Laws are the correct approach, but only if they are executed properly. When the government starts having an active interest, then spammers will go away.
Don't believe me? The gov blows insane amounts of money on bringing individuals to justice already, if they are considered evil enough to warrant that (i.e. murderers, child molesters, etc.)
Once spammers enter that category, they will fade into a background noise, just like crime. Sure, there will always be child molesters/spammers, but they will be so few that you can use e-mail and your child can use the playground without having them all over you/her.

Maybe the gov should start by demonstrating how serious they are. Just grab a random 5-10 spammers and prosecute them to hell and back. It won't make spam magically disappear, but it just might reduce the level as people get out of a game that's becoming too hot for them

Goodbye Social networking

[Anonymous Coward]

"criminal offence to send e-mails or text messages unless the recipient has agreed in advance to accept them"

Examples of spam?

"I found your article at example.com very interesting, but I have some additional information you might be interested in..."

"Regarding the job posting in this Sunday's paper..."

"Excellent blog for today, I laughed my ass off"

Re:Headline Plagiarism?

[graxrmelg]

Yes, and all the papers that have headlines saying "Smith Wins" after an election are plagiarizing as well.

There's nothing particularly original about that headline. Besides, the Register headline uses "anti-spam", not "spam", so it's not verbatim.

Re:Unfortunately much spam originates from the US.

[Andypoo]

I'm from Australia actually :) And not particularly fond of the US for a variety of reasons, but for the sake of spam, I don't think they're entirely to blame.

Just because a spam contains a US-style phone number (which is generally not the content of the spam) or identifies as a US-based business, only means they're trying to seduce the biggest market (the US) for their advertising campaign.

I don't see sufficient evidence in spams these days to suggest that the US are behind the majority of spam.

However, will definitely be looking more at ROKSO from spamhaus.org, although traditionally, most of the "big name" spammers I've seen on these lists are spam campaigns I've never personally seen. (Which is surprising, because a lot of my addresses are very exposed.)

I guess it just boils down to differences in targetted audience based on domain. Whilst you might not think any consideration goes into which addresses are spammed (since you may aswell just 'spam them all'), up until recently, most spam has worked off e-mail lists, and it makes sense to try to deliver to your most powerful segments first (.com, .net, etc are likely to be US-mostly for example), rather than go after .au and .uk domains (do you have only .uk addresses? Or .com/.net?) Whilst you may think this would take an overwhelming about of thought/preparation on the spammer's side, imagine the greater exposure they'd get from this slight targetting..

Having said all that, I'm still assuming the US as the most lucrative and easily led market for spam.

All in all, not really saying that the US *aren't* behind the majority of spam. I just lack suitable evidence that they *are*, in my opinion.

Phew,
Andypoo.

Re:And yet...

[samhalliday]

in the UK the courts are a way to settle injustice; unlike in the US where courtcases are seen as a second income.

the courtroom will not have its time wasted on stupid bickering like you suggest. and besides, i'm sure they will include some kind of description of email/txt which falls under this law... otherwise ANY txt and email from a company at the moment is illegal.

Re:Speech rights

[JuggleGeek]

Spam does not enhance free speech, it inhibits it. Spam forces people to hide their email address, to run filters to get rid of the junk (which sometimes means loosing the real messages) and in some cases, just plain discourages people from using the net.

Spam is no more free speech than your local bookie painting his ad on the side of your house or car is free speech. In fact, to come close, he would have to bill you for the paint.

Re:This could help spammers.. ?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

It should only be illegal to send the truly annoying spam that is offensive, trying to scam you, or sell you something that you shouldn't have, or that there is a very small chance that you would want

Dude, you just described 90% of UCE. I don't have a problem with legitimate commercial email (no forged headers, working removal link, ect). And I'm glad that governments are finally taking SPAM seriously. However, instead of the act itself, I think they need to focus on spammer's illegal activities like:

• Hacking other's computers and using them for spamming purposes
• Selling questionable or illegal goods
• Forgery of headers could be seen as fraud
• Identity Theft (ever get spam bounces in your name that you definately didn't send?)
• Cons, Pyramid Schemes, ect