[LINK] (fwd) SMS SPAM
Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:52:26 +1000
I left aside location privacy because the nightmare scenario is, in
Australia at least, against two sets of regulations: the privacy
legislation; and the mobile location indicator standards.
I didn't want to heavy Link with MOLI detail, because it's been hammered
around a few times over the years... but in short, location information must
not cross the network boundary. This may be modified for 000 uses, but
there's no other proposals to change MOLI in Australia...
You aren't giving marketers a realtime map. And even if the regs were
changed, mobile phone location doesn't say which shops or streets you pass
... just which cell had the best signal from your phone at time X (not
necessarily the closest cell).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Sanders [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2002 14:43
> To: Chirgwin, Richard
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [LINK] (fwd) SMS SPAM
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 02:32:03PM +1000, Chirgwin, Richard wrote:
> > Craig,
> > Leaving aside the location privacy issue...
> actually, it's the privacy issue that i thought would be of most
> interest to linkers.
> just by walking around with a mobile phone you are giving marketeers
> (and anyone else interested enough to pay the fee to the telco) a
> complete map of your travel throughout the day. where you go, what
> route you take, how long you spend in each location, etc....automated
> real-world electronic stalking.
> now imagine what happens when telstra/optus/whoever start
> selling daily
> routine maps to interested parties like police, private investigators,
> debt collectors, etc....or if the system is cracked (or a
> telco employee
> bribed) by nosy employers, psychotic ex-spouses, kidnappers
> or whatever.
> > [...]
> > 3) match user profile (another blunt instrument) to offer
> (is Craig Sanders
> > a likely McDonalds customer?);
> nope. i won't finanically support McDonalds. ever. in
> fact, i boycott
> nearly all chains and franchises except for a handful are on
> my "they're
> not so bad" whitelist.
> btw, you're assuming that SMS spammers want to target specific users
> rather than just blanket-spam anyone who comes within range.
> personally, i think that this will annoy people so much that SMS
> spammers will end up getting their shop windows smashed by irate spam
> at the least, the annoyance and invasion of privacy will
> cause a lot of
> people to decide that they don't need a mobile phone after all.
> > I somewhat suspect that this model limits the usefulness of
> the system to
> > the spammer - because the 22c (or whatever) message cost is
> loaded up with
> > the price of the campaign management system.
> spammers won't be paying 22c per SMS. they'll get a
> bulk-discount rate
> of a few cents at most.
> craig sanders <email@example.com>
> Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
> -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch