[LINK] Will governments grasp the nettle on spam
cas at taz.net.au
Wed Jan 10 08:47:27 AEDT 2007
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:41:34AM +1100, Howard Lowndes wrote:
> I commented the other day about governments having to get more involved
> in fighting spam. It looks like I am not the only one with that thought.
i don't have any objection to better anti-spam laws, but i also don't
think they'll do much (if any) good - although it was nice to see the
perth spammers get some of what they deserve last year.
spammers are breaking many existing laws - some of them with far higher
penalties than any anti-spam penalties.
most of the things advertised by spam are already illegal (e.g. pump and
dump stock scams, nigerian "419" scams), or advertised/sold in a way
prohibited by regulations (e.g. pill spams). if the governments of the
world wanted to go after spammers, they've already got the laws to do
porn spam could be targetted on the basis that it's impossible for
spammers to restrict their spam to adults (18+ or 21+ depending on
jurisdiction) so they are distributing pornography to children.
and the bulk of spam comes via spamware viruses which are in themselves
about the only common spam that isn't for an illegal product or service
are mortgage spams, and they're fairly easy to block.
so yeah, good anti-spam laws would be an OK thing....but laws are never
going to replace the need for good anti-spam filters.
> CTO of SoftScan Diego d'Ambra said in a press release that "if spam
> distribution levels continue to rise at the rate we have seen over the
> last few months, then I believe that by the end of 2007 governments
> worldwide will be obliged to enforce international anti-spam laws."
why? spam is already causing massive problems to the email infrastructure
around the world, and governments are doing little or nothing. why should
they suddenly decide to do something? wishful thinking.
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
More information about the Link