Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aussie Regulator Comes Down On SMS Spam

Posted by timothy on from the tastes-like-long-pig dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Communications and Media Authority has commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court against several local and international companies over allegedly unsolicited SMS spam. It's the first time the regulator has used its powers under the Spam Act to pursue an alleged SMS spammer through the Courts. Other companies have been fined or committed to an 'enforceable undertaking' to avoid this type of action (although these are not without issue). Another firm accused of SMS spam accused the regulator of being overzealous after it received a formal warning. The regulator appears to have instituted a crackdown on the premium mobile content industry in recent months, culminating in this latest action."

20 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Die Spammers!! by mfh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Find them guilty and kill them with fire.

    Now of course if these are run of the mill companies trying to promote their products by simply telling you about it on the phone, then they are telemarketers and technically not spammers, so they will likely walk away from this, unless justice exists?

    Nah, it's too easy to doubt justice, with all the evidence that it does not exist. Of course these defendants will come up with a great defense and cost taxpayers more money than they will lose from the publicity generated by a big court case.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Die Spammers!! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Find them guilty and kill them with fire.

      No one expects the Spammer Inquisition!

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Die Spammers!! by mfh · · Score: 2, Funny

      No one expects the Spammer Inquisition!

      Are you a spammer?

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    3. Re:Die Spammers!! by mark72005 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't cost you money to answer (and hang up on) a telemarketer. And there's a no-call list in most states that works pretty well.

      It costs me money every time someone spams me with a text message.

      Can you imagine if every spam email that came into your account cost you 10 cents?

      I hope they stop this before it becomes as bad as spam email.

    4. Re:Die Spammers!! by mfh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First, I recommend everyone get a plan with free SMS.

      Still, I agree with the parent.

      Can you imagine if every spam email that came into your account cost you 10 cents?

      Since killing them with fire is not enough of a punishment for these spammers, according to mark72005, I propose we find some other cruel way to kill these spammers for their horrible act of racking up unwanted charges for text messages.

      We could nail their fingers to a wall for one month per SMS they sent out? So for every 1mil messages... that's a finger, and with the time added, considering most of these guys spammed well over 9000 people... they are really gonna be in for a world of hurt, until they eventually die, hanging from their fingers.

      AND THEN we burn them.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    5. Re:Die Spammers!! by gnick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It doesn't cost you money to answer (and hang up on) a telemarketer. And there's a no-call list in most states that works pretty well.

      Well, kind of. I value my time at home and when I'm doing something that I don't enjoy, I expect to be compensated (pay check, home improvement, if-I-don't-clean-this-shit-up-my-wife-will-leave-me, etc.) Just because I don't see a new number on my phone bill doesn't mean I'm not sacrificing something of value.

      Since the don't-call-list, I've received only a handful of telemarketing calls but still get political, charity, and survey calls. My typical response is to ask the caller whether they're volunteering their time to call me. If they are, I'll give them a couple of minutes to make their pitch (if it's a political call and the person is motivated and well-informed, I may talk for a while if I have nothing going on - charities I prefer to research myself rather than take the word of a random caller). If they're being paid (typically the case for surveys and mixed results for charity/political), I ask why they expect me to spend time on the call for free when they won't. Ends the call pretty effectively.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:Die Spammers!! by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, I recommend everyone get a plan with free SMS.

      No. No way.

      I have a land-line with a bottom-basement plan that suits my needs just fine (with the occasional exception of missing call-waiting when trying to get through to my wife). We have a cell phone that we pay $15/month for (150 minutes - WAY more than we need). When we accept a text, it costs us $.05 (and usually isn't worth that). If I could find a cheaper plan, I'd take it - But no way am I signing up for a more expensive plan just so that I don't have to pay for people to send me crap I don't want without incurring additional expense.

      Also, I'm on board with the fire thing, but nailing fingers is more time than I'm willing to dedicate to torture. Let's just stick to killing them with fire - Simple, cheap, clean, and effective.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re:Die Spammers!! by gnick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We've got a plan from Net10 (not for everybody - It's $.10/minute at a minimum average of $15/month or so). When we accept a SMS message, it costs $.05 but we do get to see who sent it before committing to reading it - Declining to read it saves your nickel. Not exactly what you're asking for, but it does allow us to reject the trash without paying for messages or signing up for unlimited SMS.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    8. Re:Die Spammers!! by jank1887 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that itself is only a better suggestion if you know where I can get an unlimited SMS plan that doesn't cost more. (or at least an unlimited received SMS plan).

      If I'm paying more, it is not leaving the cost to the provider. I'm picking up the tab for the cost, and providing the provider with a profit margin that they have incentive to maximize without passing me any of the benefit.

      The providers absolutely love your suggestion. An extra $5 per month on every contract they have would do wonders for their bottom line. I'd rather do something else with that $60/year, thanks. No good.

    9. Re:Die Spammers!! by icebrain · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let's just stick to killing them with fire - Simple, cheap, clean, and effective

      I prefer lobbing nukes from orbit. The fireworks are more impressive, and there's a greater chance of success.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  2. Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... by acon1modm · · Score: 2, Informative

    standard. I've received spam texts from about 3 sources, several per day from each, since the first day I got my phone/number.

    I think its possible to call verizon (fun), and have them blacklisted for me but from what I've heard its not even free to do so (even if it is, the customer services call probably takes 30 mins).

    If I didn't have an unlimited text plan, every spam msg would cost me. For those without such aplan, the ability block a source *from the phone* is necessary.

    1. Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I didn't have an unlimited text plan

      Unlimited text plans usually aren't. My stepdaughter's boyfriend has 'unlimited text' through Verizon, and he ended up paying per message one month. Unlimited usually means 1,000 text messages or so a month.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... by ad0n · · Score: 2, Informative

      i've been told i could text the words "stop" to any sender and it would block.

      I am with Fido, here in Canada (Ontario).

      Of course, the "stop" message costs against my texting quota (i'm not on an unlimited package). I haven't been overrun with rogue SMS so I can't comment on whether this is an effective deterrent.

      a>

    3. Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Funny

      "stop" may block them, but texting "stop. hammer time" actually destroys their soul in the process.

      --
      Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
    4. Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... by mjwx · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I didn't have an unlimited text plan, every spam msg would cost me

      In Australia its the other way around, sender pays, with telephones sender always pays. I don't understand why you yanks have the receiver pays system, it seems backwards and an invite for abuse.

      Admittedly in AU, the only spam I get is from my telco, whom I have called and said in no uncertain terms "stop". They still test my patience every now and then but its down from 1 per week to 1 per quarter. Spammers likely get mobile numbers from those free "services" they advertise on TV where you only have to enter your mobile number (or send SMS to) to get content. TV studios themselves do this a lot, well they did before I stopped watching TV and Reality TV would be a big culprit (American/Australian/Crap Idol and Big Brother). It's really all because people are stupid enough to hand out their mobile numbers, it costs too much to cold call mobiles in AU.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  3. Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? about being forced to pay for in coming texts? Has any one taking that to court?

    This is like a COD that they say it hear YOU PAY NOW! You don't want it WE SHIPPED to you so YOU PAY.

    If UPS, FEDEX, or the USPS tried the same thing the courts likely kill that off fast and what if your only choice was pay for all in coming and what you send even if you send very little or no shipping at all and the only way is to pay for a package deal that costs much more then you need to pay and comes with way more then you use per month.

    1. Re:Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the US is the only place where you pay for *incoming* communications. I've been in several European and Asian countries; all of them had free SMS and free incoming calls.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  4. pay to receive calls? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the information of Merkins out there: here in Australia, we don't pay anything to receive calls or SMSs. This only happens when we're roaming internationally, where the cost of calls can be nearly doubled as the telco slugs both caller and callee. Vodafone is a particular case in point.

    1. Re:pay to receive calls? by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless you receive a message from a premium SMS number. Then they charge you $6 a message and send multiple messages within a minute to slam high charges onto your bill.

      They supposedly need consent, but many rely on phone numbers entered into websites and general deception as ways to get 'consent'.

    2. Re:pay to receive calls? by DuranDuran · · Score: 2, Informative

      Easy there, mate. You don't see us getting out of our pram when someone calls us 'Aussies'.

      --
      "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein