Differences between version 17 and predecessor to the previous major change of LegislatingAgainstSpam.
Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 17 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 1:38:49 pm | by JohnMcPherson | Revert |
| Older page: | version 16 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 9:52:39 am | by GreigMcGill | Revert |
@@ -38,8 +38,10 @@
PerryLorier: The harassment act does not seem to be applicable to Spam. In particular if it was to be enforced, it would be possible for spammers to easily bypass it by rotating through email addresses annually. Also, due to the sheer number of different spammers that are out there even if each spammer only sent you one email then you'd still be flooded with spam.
MatthiasDallmeier: Yes.
+
+JohnMcPherson: I'm not convinced. Much of the spam I receive is probably already illegal, in some ways. Under the recent changes to the Crimes Act (?), unauthorised access to a computer is crime. (Much spam is currently sent from insecured personal computers, and the owner is unaware that a spammer is running programs on it). Sending mail with misleading subjects and with other forged headers sounds like it could be covered as fraud. Advertising pills and medicines is already covered under existing legislation. Similarly, pornographic texts and images are covered under current laws. If these laws can't be adequately enforced when it comes to electronic media, new laws won't change that. Perhaps spam that advertises a company's services (and isn't covered by one of the above morality laws) would need extra legislation.
! http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech/spam/discussion/discussion-04.html
!! 5. What message mediums should be caught by the legislation (e.g. email, short message services using mobile phones, Internet instant messaging, faxes, telephones (telemarketing), physical mail delivery)?
