[LINK] mobile phone spam

[Fred Pilcher]

More of a scam than a spam. I received this the other day - apologies 
for its length:

* * * * *

SMS/SPAM ALERT
FOR MOBILE PHONES/PDA USERS

A number of officers responsible for (ACT Govt Dpt) mobile phones have 
recently identified charges on their "Mobile Service Statement" that 
relate to unsolicited SMS contacts.  It should be noted these numbers 
can be charged under the heading "Enhanced Features".

(ACT Govt Dpt)  have confirmed the SMS function on mobile phones enables 
  proscribed services to forward unsolicited data to random mobile 
numbers, at a cost to the mobile number.

These proscribed services are to mobile phones what SPAM is to a 
computer.  It is virtually impossible for Optus, our telephone service 
provider, to filter and prevent access.  Pending legislative control, 
all staff using mobile phones/PDAs must be vigilant when checking SMS 
content prior to opening or responding to messages.  Such messages once 
received, whether answered or deleted, provide the prescribed service 
access to the account.  Once accessed, your handset will be charged for 
each additional message until stopped.

The only mechanism currently available to stop unsolicited SMS messages 
once they have made initial contact, is by the user opening the message 
and sending "STOP" via reply text.  This action will incur the cost of 
the text; however, this will be considerably smaller than receipt of 
future unsolicited messages.

Do not just delete the message.  As soon as a company has reached your
handset they have full access to send repeat messages, at a cost to the
handset holder, regardless of whether you open or delete.  YOU MUST TEXT
"STOP" (in capital letters) via reply.

Where unsolicited SMS messages are registering on monthly Mobile
Statements, the staff member should retain records, and brief their
supervisor on the situation as soon as possible and agree to a course of
action.  Optus may be able to stop some unsolicited SMS messages;
however, most of these will require intervention by the handset holder.

* * * * *

My youngest daughter was hit by one of these and lost $60 from her
prepaid account.

"As soon as a company has reached your
handset they have full access to send repeat messages, at a cost to the
handset holder, regardless of whether you open or delete."

How can that be right? Am I missing something? Anyone who calls my phone 
   effectively has carte blanche on my account? Isn't that like saying 
that anyone I pay a cheque to has open slather on my bank account? How 
can that be legal?

Fred