Differences between version 19 and predecessor to the previous major change of LegislatingAgainstSpam.
Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 19 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 6:43:32 pm | by OliverJones | Revert |
| Older page: | version 18 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 2:00:38 pm | by JohnMcPherson | Revert |
@@ -28,8 +28,10 @@
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.
+
+OliverJones: Perhaps. However I think it would probably be more effective to ammend existing legislation covering unsolicited advertising, hawking, cold calling etc.
! http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech/spam/discussion/discussion-03.html
!! 3. Do you consider existing privacy protections in this area sufficient?
@@ -58,8 +60,10 @@
zcat(1): BULK and UNSOLICITED should be the only criteria, commercial makes no difference whatsoever. I would be just as annoyed if I was being sent religious, charity, or political bulk mail.
MatthiasDallmeier: I disagree with Perry and possibly also Bruce depending on the definition of "bulk", because it makes no difference to me how many recipients also received an unwanted message. Anyway, my answer to this question is a definite NO.
+
+OliverJones: No. A user is annoyed by the spam existing in their inbox. Not by the fact that it also got sent to 2 million other inboxes. The quantity of emails is only of concern to ISP's or organizations that process the mail as it is delivered as this effects their quality of service to customers or costs money in handling problems internally.
!! 7. Should the messages caught by the legislation be of a commercial advertising and promotional nature only or should other types of messages be caught? Should there be exceptions and if so what should be exempted? Exempting from political parties, religious groups and charities seems to not solve the problem. Spam would still be spam if I was being spammed by religious groups.
PerryLorier: It is not the content of the emails which is a problem, it is the number of them that cause the issue. Waking up and finding another 50 emails that are irrelevant to me if they are commercial in nature or not is my problem.
