UK Spam Controlled by UK's Advertising Standards Agency 152
Goth Biker Babe writes "The Advertising Standards Agency in the UK has outlined new rules which govern text advertisements including SMS spam, e-mail spam, and web pop-ups according to the BBC.
All unsolicited advertising must now clearly identify itself as advertising. This is as a direct result of the number of complaints about junk texts, e-mail and web pop-ups. All thought the article doesn't mention it a BBC news report this morning stated that unsolicited advertising must now be opt-in rather than opt-out."
As if it will help. (Score:5, Insightful)
-Mark
Re:As if it will help. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As if it will help. (Score:2)
I assume you refer to the people who pay for this method of 'advertising'.
Or do you mean the countries with the kind of person who makes up words, like 'misunderestimated', or 'suspectably'?
Re:As if it will help. (Score:2)
Re:As if it will help. (Score:2)
Re:As if it will help. (Score:1)
Re:As if it will help. (Score:2)
Sounds good, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:1)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:5, Funny)
The same way the UN enforces its resolutions.
That is to say, if you don't obey this resolution.... Hey! You better had obey this resolution, or... um... or else... um... we're going to pass another resolution if you don't obey!
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:1)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:1)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:1)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:2)
And since none of the spam-source countries have... oh, yes, Nigeria. Those spammers are in meteial breach, boys. Let's roll.
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:5, Informative)
But it is a start. About 5% of my spam is clearly UK based, companies offering to reduce my phone bill, or grey box PCs for 200 quid etc. Hopefully I can now stop this small percentage getting through.
Bear in mind this is also for mobile text spam, which while not currently a massive problem, if not nipped in the bud could become a worse problem than email spam. Hopefully we'll see the ASA dishing out 50 grand fines [theregister.co.uk], the US will see profit this gives the government and follow suit.
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume you are thinking of e-mail instead of SMS messages to cell phones. The SMS messages can be traced accurately enough and thus whatever punishments laws or regulations set, they can be enforced.
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:2)
Outside of that, you're right, very little good will come from this (mostly)- the opt-in is good, and this will control the local (UK) advertising.
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The ASA has no teeth. It's a self-regulatory body. If a member breaches it, they`ll be `told off` by the ASA, but there are no mandatory fines, and spammers will NOT ever be members of the - this is not a law.
Nothing to see here.
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:1)
It CAN have an effect, but not how you think... (Score:1)
However, new laws can be *quite* helpful, especially if they get a lot of press. After all, spam works because people believe the claims, click the link, and give the spammers money.
The more people understand what "spam" is, and the fly-by-night operations that these really are, the less likely they'll be to cough up the cash, no matter how sadly underdeveloped their genitalia may be, or how willing they are to help a kind Nigerian gentleman.
Recognizing that you have received an *illegal* email makes it a little harder to get sucked into the promises.
why would this reduce spam?? (Score:3, Insightful)
so now i'll get spam which says that it is spam...will this reduce the amount i get? I guess now I can have better email filters, but I dont think it is a real solution to the problem..
Re:why would this reduce spam?? (Score:2, Interesting)
If every ad said "Advertisement: " in the subject line, then you'd only read them if you wanted to, or filter them out easily, or have the ISP filter them easily.
I really dont care if people want to advertise their stuff to me, I just resent the crap that wastes your time trying to look like legitimate mail, and the outright scams.
For a second there, I got confused.......... (Score:1)
Hehe..... for a second there, I read "resent" as "re-sent". I was wondering why on God's green-and-blue earth you would want to re-send spam to anyone.
Re:why would this reduce spam?? (Score:2)
Of course! Now you can just set up a filter to deny any email that has both of these statements in it:
Re:why would this reduce spam?? (Score:2)
ASA Weak and Feable (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently the ASA had a massive increase in complaints regarding mobile txt messages, they went tenfold... from 6 to 60 complaints in a year! Anyway, by June I suspect not a single spam will enter my inbox... errr, right.
Re:ASA Weak and Feable (Score:2)
They may not have legal powers, but for now at least, the UK advertising industry listens to them. The alternative is for the government to take matters into their own hands and legislate, which the industry certainly won't want.
Nice ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to think it's a step forward in the fight against spam but I'm not sure quite how ...
Re:Nice ... (Score:2)
Not going to help (Score:3, Insightful)
It is very hard indeed to imagine how this is going to help stem the flow of spam.
The restrictions on banner addvertising is going to be interesting in practice.
Anyone care to guesse how these regulations are going to be interpreted pragmatically?
How will it affect already shrinking banner advert revenues?
EU Regulations (Score:5, Informative)
All forms have to be written that you proactively allow sharing of your information, if you don't expressily give your consent, your information cannot be shared.
The US could learn a lot from EU Privacy Laws.
Re:EU Regulations (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod the parent up!
Whenever I see yet another technical "fix" for spam I just wish that the USA would give it's citizens the right to own their data. EU citizens do - so we see spam coming from the USA and only a trickle from inside our own borders.
We could then push to close the rest of the world out - and really drop the volume of spam...
When are people going to stop offering me mortgages - in Dollars?
Re:EU Regulations (Score:3, Insightful)
I've pushed the idea before and I will again that one (meaningful) country needs to set the standard of no spam on a national level and use a scheme of border router filters (in the literal sense!) on SMTP traffic to block everything except from/to pairs whitelisted by citizens and SMTP traffic from countries that meet the no-spam standards. I doubt the U.S. would be the first adopter and frankly don't care -- it'd be a good kick to the ass to get our representatives serious about fixing things if the E.U. implemented something like this.
There are an array of technical alternatives that could be strung together into a workable solution, but it involves an infrastructure update. I'm informed that this is about as likely to happen as the deployment of IPv6 and, therefore, am not holding my breath.
from/to pair whitelists (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:EU Regulations (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:EU Regulations (Score:2)
>can unsolicited mail be opt in? If I've opted in
>to receive it, then it's not unsolicited, is it?
Well, lets say you fill out a registration form for a piece of software. You can agree to get advertising. There is a difference between a regular opt-in news letter and a random spattering of e-mail or phone calls offering services you didn't ask for, even if you agreed to share your information. Does that make sense?
Re:EU Regulations (Score:1)
In a way, but it also still stands that I didn't opt in for the mail splattering - regardless of whether I actually said "yes" to the newsletter - so the mail splattering is still unsolicited, especially if it's unrelated to the original service/product
YMMV, but that's what I see. Which is probably why I don't think this will work.
Opt-In == Solicited? (Score:2)
Re:Opt-In == Solicited? (Score:1)
Dude, that's exactly what I was saying!
And if the checkbox says something like "we may share this information with trusted companies" then don't check the damn thing!
But I will miss getting my degree from an American University, being offered cheaper-than-drug-store medicine, and even finding out how I just won $BIGNUM on an imaginary lottery.
Unsolicited? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can sense my cynicism. I think the rule makes sense, but question how much good it will do. Now, innovative enforcement I would be interested in. How about threatening to punish the originating ISP? Is it too much to require them to examine mass mailers, obtain a bond against abuse, and so on? After all, they provide the tools that make spam possible.
Re:EU Regulations (Score:2)
*sigh*
TANJ.
Re:EU Regulations (Score:3, Funny)
You are receiving this message because you opted-in when we harvested your address or randomly hit your mail server looking for accounts. Or we found your address somewhere else. You may unsubscribe by clicking on this link which will send you more spam, or email this inactive address.
What about advertisers outside the UK? (Score:1)
(Can we say 'offshore advertiser' plague?)
Re:What about advertisers outside the UK? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is true that their decisions do not have the force of a legal act. But AFAIK there have been practically no cases in recent UK history for a company to try to disobey them.
Great, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing I see from British spammers is pyramid schemes and the guy on Blueyonder who keeps sending out virus mails. Hopefully they'll get whacked a bit harder now, which can only be a good thing :-)
Re:Great, but... (Score:2)
obligatory spam (Score:1, Redundant)
Wife: I don't want any spam!
Man: Why can't she have egg bacon spam and sausage?
Wife: That's got spam in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much spam in it as spam egg sausage and spam, has it?
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam (crescendo through next few lines)
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?
Waitress: Urgghh!
Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like spam!
Vikings: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Waitress: Shut up!
Vikings: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam.
Wife: (shrieks) I don't like spam!
etc. etc.
Unsolicited opt-in? (Score:3, Funny)
If you have to "opt-in" to your spam, then how is that unsolicited?
Re:Unsolicited opt-in? (Score:1)
Re:Unsolicited opt-in? (Score:2)
Someone else opts you in
ASA != Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Not going to change anything (Score:1)
In related news.... (Score:2)
Internet connectivity providers applauded the move. Said one executive "This will make spam easier to filter, but it will definitely increase the amount it get."
Hillary Rosen, spokesdemon for the RIAA said "This will reduce the available bandwidth for evil copyright pirate terrorists."
can someone explain this? (Score:5, Funny)
does it really say that before the Advertising Standards Authority (whoever that is) stepped in, car advertisers in the UK promoted road rage and hoped to sell cars by claiming you could hit children and old ladies without the slightest dent to your cherished chrome bumper?
Unsolicited advertising must be opt in (Score:4, Funny)
Unsolicited advertising means advertising you did not ask for.
But to opt in means you have asked for it.
But if you have asked for it, it is not unsolicited.
LOGIC ERROR: Norman, co-ordinate
Re:Unsolicited advertising must be opt in (Score:1)
Re:check your facts wowbagger (Score:2)
STATE_DEFAULT
STATE_OPT_IN
STATE_OPT_OUT.
I suggest you look up the word "opt" as used in this context:
Until I, the potential spammee, take action, then I have NOT opted, therefore I cannot have opted in.
If the initial state is treated as "opt-in", then the system is not a true opt-in system, rather it is an opt-out system masquerading as opt-in.
Furthurmore, I suggest you also look up the words "humour" and "joke", as you seem equally unaware of their definitions as you are unaware of the definition of "opt".
Messenger service (Score:1, Redundant)
Glad I have the firewall on there now...
Re:Messenger service (Score:1)
Re:Messenger service (Score:2)
In fact you really should be doing that for security anyway
Re:Messenger service (Score:1)
I knew it was suspicious when it happened. The sad thing is, it said it was from the "Microsoft Security Center" in the guise of protecting my computer from terrorists. What would Joe user do in that instance?
Too bad I didn't know of any way to track it back to the sender. I've now disabled the service.
Spel^H^H^H^Hsense checker. (Score:1, Redundant)
Well I thought the article did mention it a BBC news report.
Back to you Chet.
friend recommendation (Score:2)
What next popup-ad are going to need to say Unsoliciated popup ad in big bold letters then show the ad?
Is this why God created (gasp) Government? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is this why God created (gasp) Government? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is this why God created (gasp) Government? (Score:1)
Green Card spam (Score:1, Funny)
Am I the only one who had to read this thrice? (Score:2)
You mean one realized that the article does mention it? No surprise there, no one RTFAs on /.
Wha... that was supposed to have been "although"?
Oh.
This is basically self-protection (Score:5, Insightful)
The effects are likely to be marginal at best. Most large companies are smart enough not to irritate potential customers this way. The slimebrains that peddle Big Man and Easy Money snake-oil won't take any notice. Maybe it will have some effect on the armies of small companies that are competing to replace your windows with new! improved! double-glazed! fittings! - we can but hope.
I can't help being reminded that it was an early Anglo-saxon ruler, Kanute, who famously ordered the tide not to come in.
Re:This is basically self-protection (Score:3, Informative)
Re Kanute (Score:1)
Re:This is basically self-protection (Score:1)
Re:This is basically self-protection (Score:1)
Re:This is basically self-protection (Score:1)
Oh thank you, yes that is my hat and yes I was just about to leave anyway....
Not original, but correct.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like green eggs and spam Sam I am..
huh (Score:1, Funny)
Besides, spam is already opt-in - the little linky at the bottom aren't optout, they'er opt-in - it means that you're reading the emails so, they send you more....
>>
>>
Catch the spam... (Score:2, Informative)
Here it is [cloudmark.com]
Re:Catch the spam... (Score:1)
Pop ups (Score:2, Interesting)
The BBC news article says:
"The new code also covers banner and pop-up advertising on the internet, though not a company's claims on its own website."
What do you get when you goto to ASA website [asa.org.uk]? Why a popup of course
Rus
Re:Pop ups (Score:2)
The ASA popup was info about ASA business. At least, the one served up to me a moment ago.
uh-huh (Score:3, Insightful)
Intentify as spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yeah - I also need to filter (adv)..and [AD]...and [-ad-]... and {A - D - V - E - E - R - T - I - S - M - E - N - T } and... well, you get my drift. The point is this:
Spam that identifies itself as spam is still spam, and I already know it's spam without a prefix. So what good is it?
With a standard prefix, Joe Luser can use his Outlook to filter the spam after it has been downloaded. Now, those who does that, wouldn't buy anything from spammers anyway. So the spammer doesn't care. To accomplish his return rate, he just sends out another million emails.. and another one.
There's only one law that will ever work. Don't send commercial email unless the receiver asked for it. All the other suggestions and implementations are just jumping through hoops.
Self Regulation Measures (Score:1)
But information wants to be FREE!! (Score:4, Funny)
They should be revered for the incredible volume of information they liberate and release to all of us on a daily basis!
Unilateralism should spread (Score:1, Interesting)
Question - how much faster would the net be if there were no unsolicited junk flying back and forth?
Pax Britannica (Score:2, Funny)
unsolicited opt-in?? (Score:3, Funny)
Facts (Score:3, Insightful)
If an email list is opt-in, then it's hardly unsolicited.
Big deal! (Score:2)
I must learn to spell "advertisement" in all these languages, so that I can filter them!
All the better to filter (Score:1)
Of course, I'm not sure there is much that can be done to affect mail coming from outside the nation's borders and laws.
Well... (Score:1)
Well it's my own fault for opting in to all of the penile enlargement, spy-cam, and russian mail-order bride companies.
Standards Agency has "Interesting" Standards (Score:2)
If it were to be used on a billboard across the street from a school, the impression their ruling gives is that it would not have been given the go ahead.
Re:Standards Agency has "Interesting" Standards (Score:2, Interesting)
That it is profitable... (Score:2, Interesting)
SMS (Score:3, Interesting)
this is good becuase now i wont get any SMS's from my own provider who i dont care to listen to as i am sure a similar system will be implemented for SMS.
The advertisement companies will listen to this in the UK. on SMS you must give some form of UK contact details for sales (otherwise the text was wasted), and if you are spamming, you WILL be caught.
obviously with the international nature of the internet, this will not effect email spam, but at least you can complain to someone now if its .uk!
Re:Kick arse!! (Score:1)
National laws are catching up.