Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bluetooth Spam In Public Spaces

Posted by kdawson on from the unwelcome-intrusions dept.

mrwireless writes with a bellwether from The Netherlands of a problem that is bound to spread. Judging by the CAN SPAM Act, the US would be even less likely than the EU to classify Bluetooth-borne commercial spam as spam. "The Dutch OPTA, a national telecommunications watchdog, has decided not to label commercial Bluetooth messages as spam (in Dutch, but Babelfish works). These messages seem to fall through a loophole in European laws against spam since they do not travel through an 'intermediary network.' The issue was raised last week when a Dutch broadcasting agency outfitted a number of bus stops so they would send a promotional video of an upcoming show to passersby. Although the messages first asked if people wanted to watch the video, the article quotes a lawyer who believes that this does not qualify as 'opt-in' advertising. As more and more people leave Bluetooth turned on to make use of their Bluetooth headsets, Bluetooth close-range messaging, such as through bluejacking, is increasingly being exploited for commercial purposes."

11 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. CAN SPAM? by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, we all know how effective CAN SPAM has been. My mailbox receives only 1000+ more spam emails a week now then before.

  2. No intermediary by debrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These messages seem to fall through a loophole in European laws against spam since they do not travel through an 'intermediary network.'

    Well, the reason for anti-SPAM legislation being written that way is that SPAM passes over an anonymous intermediary network. If you know who sent it, and can identify the sender, you can thus take legal action against them directly, so it probably should be handled in a different way. If it becomes a big enough problem, something will be done about it.

    My 2 cents. :)

    1. Re:No intermediary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Meh, legal action... for communicating.. right. Sounds like a great world you're advocating there.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
      http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241460.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
      http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ec omm/index_en.htm

      Have you been living in a barn for the past 160 years?

  3. I don't understand advertisers by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is bound to be counterproductive: how do you think people will react when they get one, two, three, dozens of unwanted messages? just look at how they react when they get unwanted phone calls...

    I for one never buy anything from any company that practices obnoxious in-your-face advertisement, unless I have absolutely have no choice. Advertisement is bad enough, but I just can't stand when they try to shove it down my throat. I'm sure I'm not alone.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:I don't understand advertisers by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, cause people handing out leaflets in the streets, that's *never* been effective.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:I don't understand advertisers by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I for one never buy anything from any company that practices obnoxious in-your-face advertisement...

      And yet somehow, all those big companies manage to stay in business without your support.

      Why do Slashdotters find it so hard to get past the assumption that everybody thinks they way they do?

  4. Please start doing it. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be beneficial if people started getting random spammings.
    Hopefully it will reach the mainstream press and people would get taught how to disable the promiscuous phone settings.

    I just recently picked up a bluetooth adapter for this computer and I am getting quite good at recognising people who arrive at the house (before they even knock on the door!).

    Your Bluetooth personal area network should not operate like RFID, at the moment, businesses can see who comes and goes.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  5. Not for long! by OpenGLFan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds like a wonderful idea. Either it's automated, or there's a person doing it, and in both cases, bluetooth is short-range. If it's a little automated box, take a hammer to it.

    And if it's a person doing it, dude, I've still got the hammer.

    I expect this to be a short-lived phenomenon.

  6. Any reliable wireless technology? by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've got to wonder... is there ANY wireless technology that's worth a damn? Cell phones are finally, after several decades, starting to work well, but even those have massive security holes. (My parents had their personal info stolen on a trip to NYC a year ago via their cell phone, and the cell phone company told them that it's very common, and that there's nothing my parents could have done to prevent it).

    I'm not so sure, due to the very nature of data floating around where anybody can grab it, that we'll see any kind of secure wireless connection any time in the near future.

    And then there's reliability. Cell phones are probably the most reliable type of wireless connection out there, but even those still aren't great.

    (Only a fool would rely on 802.11x for anything even remotely critical.)

    Wireless. Blech. Nice idea, but not so hot in practice.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  7. Re:Not all bad, google for 'toothing' by topham · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Except the original article on 'toothing' was a hoax.

  8. Re:Trustless from Abuse. Battered Users! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

    • As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
    • Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
    • A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
    • Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
    • Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
    • Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
    • Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
    • Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
    • Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
    • There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

    From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy