Australian Spam Laws Working?

smash writes "According to AustralianIT, recent spam laws, including fines of up to 1.1 million dollars per day has seen a reduction in local spam production. This has been confirmed by SpamHaus. Surely people in other countries are just as ticked off with the problem - perhaps this is an example to follow?"

Comments

Protecting the innocent

[cybermancer]

The main problem with laws in this area is when legitimate e-maillers are threatened. With the no-call list here in the state I have delt with a number of companies that have to jump through hoops just to call me on the phone.

so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, spam from Australia is stopped? This could make a huge reduction in the amount of spam sent, maybe even 0.0001%!

Maybe this will silence the naysayers

[fmaxwell]

I've been dealing with people who make the unfounded assertion that tough spam laws won't reduce spam. Well, here's strong evidence to the contrary. Australia has passed tough anti-spam laws and now spammers in Australia are running scared and the total amount of spam is down.

Australian Spam

[digitalchinky]

Spam created by Australians, for Australians? I've only ever seen one (for a hotel Broome) - It's not hard to pick up the phone and explain to the brain dead spamming company that you've sent off a complaint to the ombudsman, the police, and any other agencies that might have an interest.

A couple of months following, I received an apology (over the phone) and a cheque ($110 AU) for the hassle of deleting their crap from my inbox.

The law does work. Slowly.

I haven't lived in Australia since 2000, so things may have changed since then.

Re:Australian Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

I know of at least 4 bulk mail & porn places in Brisbane alone, with offices in the city centre, through to Milton and Taringa (basically going west out of the city). Just plain office buildings pumping out large amounts of porn spam.

Re:Australian Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, aren't you lucky.

Personally, I've had four Australian businesses spam me (apart from that jerk in Perth). Two acknowledged that they were spamming, and ceased.

The other two were a different case: one, a hotel, claimed my name was put on a list in exchange for a free meal on a promotional night (and I will assume I don't have to explain the two major problems with this approach). The service they used (since their email account specifically prohibited pamming) was a major spamming ring based in New York which used forged headers (bad sign), and, as I soon discovered, sold it's email and opt-out lists to other spammers.

The other was from a music promoter who had been given my email address as a contact four years earlier when he was working for a different company. Despite the fact that the emails were advertising bands he was promoting, and that I had only the most fleeting connection with him (and none at all with his current company), he refused to accept that his messages were either commercial or unsolicited. Forunately, his ISP and webhost agreed with me, however I only got an apology.

Where is the other 80%?

[ptaff]

A couple of days ago an article proposed that 80% of spam comes from Microsoft-infected machines. So at most, 20% could be eliminated by these laws.

So, should the Aussies really want to prevent spam and so something about it, the way is obvious.
</ms:Bashing>

Re:Where is the other 80%?

[spood]

Some more realistic numbers:

100% of spam comes from spammers, so at most 100% of spam could be eliminated in this way. The reason why spam happens is because it's profitable. It's because someone is selling something and paying the spammer to advertise it. It doesn't just randomly spawn from infected hosts.

I agree that it is interesting how spam is being distributed currently, but that's just because it's the easiest way. While I agree that eliminating insecure Windows machines is a desirable goal, the fact that spam comes from these machines is only a symptom, not a cause of the problem.

Oh yes explain please

[SmallFurryCreature]

If you contacted the company then the do-not-call list does not apply. If you never contacted the company then why the hell should they call you?

Remembering the story about the spam-lover a few months ago you might of course be someone who likes to be called by sales-drones but more likely you are just a person who like to cold-call people themselves and want to make it appear that this is in demand.

So give a concrete example were you where a business you wanted to call you couldn't because of the no-call-list.

Damn you stole my line

[SmallFurryCreature]

Everytime some country proposes to introduce laws on spam you get a lot of idiots claiming that it will make no difference since everyone knows all spam comes from abroad or zombie machines. Guess this will shut them up once and for all eh? Why yes, I do believe in Santa Claus why do you ask?

RE: Protecting the "very few" innocent

[cybermancer]

. . . more likely you are just a person who like to cold-call people themselves and want to make it appear that this is in demand.

Don't get me wrong, I hate cold-calls, and I really don't have much compassion for those who make them.

Let me explain.. No, there is too much; let me sum up. There is this company that I do business with that offers this promotional package to our friends (Dinner for two and a $50 Best Buy gift card) to see if they are interested in doing business with them too. I always explain to my friends all about it before introducing them, since I don't want them to be blind sided. I tell them what they are selling, how much it costs, etc. Then if they are still interested I introduce them.

Now before the do-not-call list they just verbally got their phone number and permission to call them, and would call them later on to arrange things. After the do not call list they have to physically obtain a signed form giving permission to be called. Most of my friends find this extra step of completing the form a pain.

Now this is just one example, but very often laws are made to protect the innocent, and the innocent are the ones who are hurt.

I know a lot of businesses who are leery to send e-mails to people who signed up for e-mails from them now because the person might have changed their mind and claim it is spam.

I would imagine that we all get e-mails from companies that we would like to keep getting. Ever wonder how many companies have stopped sending you e-mails, that you want, because they are afraid they will get in trouble under current spam laws?

My point is that the legitimate businesses are the ones that are most likely to change their behavior because of a new law simple because they want to continue being a "good" business. The illegitimate businesses don't care.

As was previously pointed out 80% of SPAM comes from Zombies. Last I checked it was already illegal to spread viruses / worms and take over other peoples computers. <sarcasm>Those laws seems to be making a real huge impact.</sarcasm>

The Solution

[maxchaote]

Look -- I work in the internet marketing business, (not a spam company) and I know exactly what will stop them:

When California Bill SB-186 was proposed, it looked like it would pass. This scared the snot out of so many spammers that companies even in other states began to up and cease operations -- sell their lists, ramp-up delivery one last time, and just get out of the business. What SB-186 did was it made it legal to sue the Advertisers buying the spam marketing to begin with. If all of the spammers' customers suddenly have liability for their marketing methods -- including huge fines -- they'll be out of business fast. At the last second, the CAN-SPAM act (which, ironically, instead of CANning SPAM, pre-empted the SB-186 law and overrode it the day before it was scheduled to take effect, making it so unsolicited commercial emailers CAN continue to SPAM) which was funded by major companies such as AOL, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and other big businesses who make a lot of money in email made it near impossible to sue over SPAM, effectively disabling SB-186, and saving their money-grubbing asses at the last moment.

And that's the story of that.

In short: Go after the advertisers. When the money pulls out, the spammers won't have a business-model anymore.

Less Spam?

[Macgrrl]

...not noticblyless spam in my inbox...

Ummm - More Like BigPond Turned off Port 25

[grantdh]

I would say that more likely the cause of Australian SPAM dropping off is that BigPond turned off access to port 25 - all mail MUST go out via their mail servers. This would certainly stop a large number of zombies and spammers in their tracks (BigPond was always getting in trouble for the volume of SPAM it produced).

Of course, it's also pissed off some of the staff at my office who can no longer use our mail server while they're out and about (at least until I get the non-port 25 authenticated system running with our providers :)

Re: Protecting the "very few" innocent

[sjames]

There is this company that I do business with that offers this promotional package to our friends (Dinner for two and a $50 Best Buy gift card) to see if they are interested in doing business with them too. I always explain to my friends all about it before introducing them, since I don't want them to be blind sided. I tell them what they are selling, how much it costs, etc. Then if they are still interested I introduce them.

Why don't they set up an 800 number so you can tell your friends 'just call this number'. No more problem.

Two words,

[Mateito]

Wayne Fucking Mansfield.
aka T3 Marketting
aka Business Services Australia.

As far as I know, this guy only sent his crap to Australian (.au) email addresses, but by God he was a pain in the arse.

He flogs "How to be a winner" type management seminars, but at one point I was getting a dozen messages from him a day. I (and several hundred, if not thousand other poeple) reported him to the Anti-spam group and, in my case at least, the Spam has stopped.

This guy honestly believes that what he is doing is legitimate... Otherwise how else can you explain the inclusion of his real name, address and PHOTO (right ugly bastard too) in his emails.

Tell you what, I've got that photo saved, and given that I'll be in Perth towards the end of the year, I was planning to pay him a visit. Now I reckon I wont need to bother.

the fine

[thaWhat]

given that the fine is 1.1 million dollars, I presume that we are considering a 1 million dollar fine plus 10% G.S.T.?

Different taste I suppose

[SmallFurryCreature]

Personally I call your examples examples of unwanted advertising. It is a bit to close to those "welcome cards" you get when you moved house or similar stuff around child births or leaving school. STOP BUGGING ME ALREADY

Then again I just don't like advertising at all, kinda suffering from an allergic reaction after an overdose.

And that is really what has happened. So much unwanted advertising has appeared with so few obeying even the simplest of rules that now though laws have to be enforced. We only have a speed limit because people can't drive at safe speed. We only got advertising laws because companies can't advertise responsibly.

There are still other ways to advertise. Cold calling people no matter how you disguise it has gone. The company you described as being responsible has become the victim of the countless of bad companies. Sad but there are worse things.

What do you trade freedom for?

[cybermancer]

The company you described as being responsible has become the victim of the countless of bad companies. Sad but there are worse things.

While the example of the company I gave is not a very big deal, the overall principle is we are continuing to trade freedoms for a sense of safety. The Patriot Act is just another example in a long stream of traded freedoms. Just like speed limits. We decide as a group of people that we are unable to make safe and intelligent decisions ourselves so we allow a governing body to make those decisions for us.

Sure, we each know as individuals that we are safe drivers and that we are not terrorists, but it is our untrust of our neighbors (usually rightfully so) that motivate us to give up our freedoms.

We give up our freedoms little by little. In the old west most people wouldn't dream of giving up their pistols, but today we no longer carry them, and are even considering laws to outlaw handguns all together. 100 years ago that couldn't even be considered. I wonder how many freedoms we will give up in the next 100 years?

It all comes down to what you are willing to trade your freedom for. Is reducing spam worth paying a fee for each e-mail you send? Maybe. But what is next? Paying to post to slashdot? Maybe paying for each page view?