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

This could help spammers.. ?

[junkymailbox]

in true slashdot style, NOT RTFA

The laws make it a criminal offence to send e-mails or text messages unless the recipient has agreed in advance to accept them.

IANAL the article is not clear on whether they're going to prosecute the companies or the spammers working for a company?
If they are going to prosecute the companies then i would imagine someone's going to do a fake spam to frame their competitor.
with the current way of distributing spam via viruses and zombies this seems like a great law to use to annoy your competitor.

Re:This could help spammers.. ?

[Otter]

My concern is the same as with the proposed California spam law -- what constitutes "agreed to accept" and at what level do I get arrested?

I've been job hunting recently and have sent several resumes to people with whom I've had no previous contact, generally having gotten their addresses from their friends who suggested I contact them. Including in the UK. Would I be eligible for prosecution under this law? Would they actually arrest me?

Re:Unfortunately much spam originates from the US.

[Andypoo]

This both worries me and pleases me at the same time.

Whilst innocent users could get caught up in horrendous legal battles, it also means that class actions against certain companies making horribly bug-riddled mail clients may also be forced to take place.

Of course, I shouldn't really wish legal battles on anybody, but in the view of means to an end..

Andypoo.
(Yes, this time I will use Plain Old Text)

Re:Wont make a blind bit of difference

[rbeltene]

Exactly. As a Sys Admin - I constantly told people that I didn't care what kind of spam hit their email (and it is amazing what gets through filters) NOT to reply to it because it just perpetuated it and definately increased the amount of spam they were going to get. I also recently cleaned a client's system (cable modem - no firewall) - they had so much spyware and adware on it that it took 20 minutes after the OS started before you could get the system to repsond - among it were three redirected hosts - guess what they were doing, all unaware.

Attack the link destinations

[G4from128k]

Most spam is intended to make the recipient visit some destination and do business of some kind. Perhaps anti-spam laws needs to target the businesses that use spam to create business - the destinations of all those links in all those spams. Any company that sells viagra, ink jet cartridges, cell phone plans, or mortgages will have a more vulnerable point of presense than a spammer does. Even porn and gambling sites could be vulnerable because they require more permaneance than does a spam operation. If those companies where held accountable for their marketing affiliate's spams, then they might not engage the services of spammers.