Differences between version 18 and predecessor to the previous major change of LegislatingAgainstSpam.
Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 18 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 2:00:38 pm | by JohnMcPherson | Revert |
| Older page: | version 16 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 9:52:39 am | by GreigMcGill | Revert |
@@ -26,8 +26,10 @@
!! 2. Do you think legislation has a role to play alongside other complementary measures?
PerryLorier: Yes. There are several promising technological solutions on the horizon such as [SPF], [CallerID], [Penny Black|http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack/], however even if these are effective at wiping out email spam, there is still other types of spam, such as IM spam.
+
+JohnMcPherson: I'm not convinced new legislation would change much. 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-03.html
!! 3. Do you consider existing privacy protections in this area sufficient?
@@ -38,8 +40,10 @@
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: With respect to harrassment, a "one-off" message probably wouldn't meet the threshold of a "pattern of behaviour".
! 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)?
@@ -86,46 +90,67 @@
PerryLorier: This should be a requirement for all commercial communications that they have obvious and accurate sender information. Commercial or not, it should be illegal to send mail as someone you are not.
!! 14. Should there be a requirement for commercial electronic messages to include a statement to the effect that the recipient may use an electronic address set out in the message to send an unsubscribe message to the sender, and to ensure that such electronic address is functional?
+
+JohnMcPherson: In practise, this doesn't work, because unethical people (such as those who spam) merely use such responses to confirm that their message was actually read by a human, and so that sender's valid address is of a higher "quality" compared to an address of unknown status.
!! 15. Should there be a requirement that commercial electronic messages provide accurate header and subject information?
PerryLorier: Yes.
+
+JohnMcPherson: Yes. Legitimate headers allows end users, system administrators, and ultimately law enforcement to contact, or at least discover, the origin of the message. Whether such a requirement could be enforced is another matter, or course.
!! 16. Should there be a requirement for the labelling of advertising or adult messages?
PerryLorier: Adult material should be labelled obviously as such and should be labeled in a way that can be detected by software for filtering purposes for younger children.
zcat(1): This shouldn't be necessesary. My children should not be recieving anything that they didn't explicitly subscribe to. I'm fairly sure they didn't sign up anywhere for hot oral sex and penis-enlargement emails, so I shouldn't HAVE to filter those out.
MatthiasDallmeier: I would tend to agree with Bruce on that one. Without UCE this is not an issue and such a requirement would only confuse matters. There might or might not be a need for such a requirement independent of anti-spam legislation and not limited to e-mail only though.
+
+JohnMcPherson: Current legislation already covers indecent messages. Someone sending pornographic email to a minor should be treated in the same way as someone physically given printed pornographic material to a minor.
+
+
!! 17. Should anti-spam legislation include rules against the supply, acquisition and use of address-harvesting software and harvested-address lists in connection with the unlawful sending of electronic messages?
PerryLorier: Yes. Publishing an email address on a website should not be an open invitation to email it with things that are unrelated to the page that it was posted on.
MatthiasDallmeier: Yes, e-mail addresses should never be passed on to anyone without the expressed permission of their owner...
+
!! 18. Who should be able to bring an action against an alleged spammer?
MatthiasDallmeier: Anyone who is actually affected by their action.
+
!! 19. What agency should have the enforcement role under the legislation?
+
+JohnMcPherson: As mentioned earlier, much spam is technically already in breach of existing laws. I guess the Police are responsible for enforcing laws within New Zealand, although the nature of electronic networks would require cooperation with agencies from like-minded countries for infringements that occur or transit external countries.
!! 20. What should be the available penalties and remedies for breaches of anti-spam legislation and what should be the maximum fine or pecuniary penalty?
+
SamJansen: I believe it should be a criminal offense. The penalty should range from a fine (perhaps thousands of dollars) to a short-term prison sentence; in the order of a few months.
DanielLawson: apropos of both of the above points: http://slate.msn.com/id/2101297/ and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/italy_p2p_law/. The former is tongue in cheek. The latter is current law in place in Italy, and I think is on the right track
MatthiasDallmeier: A ban from connecting to the Internet.
GreigMcGill: I'm not really sure the penalty matters so much, but I'd agree with Matthias in that a ban would be the most useful, and nobody can be accused of using the legislation as a revenue trap. I think the main point is that whatever penalty is decided on gets enforced publically, and as frequently as possible as a deterrent.
+
+JohnMcPherson: Similar penalties to existing laws, eg fraud. Currently large-scale fraud involving large sums and/or many victims normally results in jail sentences and large fines.
+
!! 21. Should contraventions give rise to criminal or civil penalties?
+
+JohnMcPherson: large scale offending for commercial gain should be a crime.
+
!! 22. Should the responsible enforcement agency be given the ability to obtain search warrants conferring powers of entry, search and seizure?
SamJansen: Yes. This really needs to be the case.
zcat(1): Since spammers are an exceptionally low-life form of sociopath, it is felt by many that they may try to 'frame' legitimate mailing lists in order to hurt honest retailers in competition, draw attention away from themselves, or merely confuse the whole issue of legitimate vs. unwanted commercial mail. Any agency investigating spam needs to be aware that spammers are often completely devoid of normal human ethics.
+
+JohnMcPherson: Yes. Abundant evidence should be easily available on computers controlled by someone involved in large volume spamming. However, because the removal of computer hardware can result in severe disruption to an individual or company, such a warrant should only be issued by a judge in the face of significant circumstantial evidence indicating that the suspect is involved in significant offending. I also believe that in the result of a conviction, any such equipment seized may not be returned.
