Penguin
Note: You are viewing an old revision of this page. View the current version.

The NewZealand government is currently requesting input on drafting new laws against Spam. The WLUG is uniquely placed to offer advice to the government on the issue of spam, as many of it's members are technically savvy about how the Internet? works and the rise of Spam, and the LUG is not affiliated any way with any commercial entity that is likely to want to taint the new law.

I propose that the WLUG makes a submission to the government about Spam legislation. To contribute, edit this page with your comments. While I don't think laws alone are going to stop spam, they a certainly a powerful tool against spammers and should be encouraged.

The request is available online: http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech/spam/ PLEASE read this before commenting on the questions below. The document is very well written and discusses the various issues.

The deadline for the submission is 30 June 2004

I hope that we can draft up a document based on the comments on this page.


http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech/spam/discussion/discussion-02.html

1. Do you consider spam to be an important issue? Has it significantly affected you in any way?

PerryLorier: Yes, it has reduced the utility of email, which is one of my primary means of communication. Also spammers have started sending penis enlargement spams from a domain I help administer which is used by a biopharmaceticals company that sell amongst other things, growth hormones. The spammers are not affiliated in any way with the real owners of the domain, and are causing considerable loss of good will.

2. Do you think legislation has a role to play alongside other complementary measures?

PerryLorier: Yes

http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech/spam/discussion/discussion-03.html

3. Do you consider existing privacy protections in this area sufficient?

4. Do you agree that stand-alone anti-spam legislation is preferable to reliance on the Harassment Act?

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)?

6. Do the messages caught by the legislation have to be sent/conveyed to many recipients, and if so, how many?

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?

8. Should the legislation extend to coverage of acts done overseas? If so, what acts should be covered?

9. Should all parties involved in the act of spamming, such as the vendor sponsoring the spamming, be covered by the legislation? Should there be express exceptions such as for telecommunications companies and ISPs?

10. Should New Zealand adopt an opt-in, double opt-in or opt-out approach in legislating against spam? Why?

11. If an opt-in or double opt-in approach was to be adopted, what should amount to express consent and what actions and/or relationships should amount to inferred consent to the sending of a "commercial" electronic message?

12. How should the scope of any opt-in or double opt-in assent be framed?

13. Should there be a requirement for commercial electronic messages to accurately identify the sender of the message? If so, what constitutes accurate identification (e.g. name and physical address, name and email address)?

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?

15. Should there be a requirement that commercial electronic messages provide accurate header and subject information?

16. Should there be a requirement for the labelling of advertising or adult messages?

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?

18. Who should be able to bring an action against an alleged spammer?

19. What agency should have the enforcement role under the legislation?

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?

21. Should contraventions give rise to criminal or civil penalties?

22. Should the responsible enforcement agency be given the ability to obtain search warrants conferring powers of entry, search and seizure?