Australia To Fast-Track Anti-Spam Bill 243
Crypto Gnome writes "News Interactive is reporting that anti-spam legislation is being fast-forwarded by the Australian Federal Government. The proposed law will ban sending commercial emails without the recipient's prior consent and ban the use of email harvesting or list-generating software. Naturally, this will only directly impact local Australian spammers, but they're also hoping this will set a precedent for the International community." Banning list-generation software seems a bit heavy-handed, doesn't it?
Heavy handed is about the norm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Heavy handed is about the norm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heavy handed is about the norm... (Score:3, Interesting)
No seriously, your problem here is that the holes will be opened in the same heavy handed and ill-informed fashion as the inital screen was created.
Making the whole idea more worthless than not having it, given the false confidence argument.
The real problem we have here is this: People have false expectations from the idea of email. What I mean is, email is by it's nature, open and unlimited. Anyone can send emails to anyone else. It's a bit like walking down a busy road in Londo
Re:Heavy handed is about the norm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Spam is not exactly "Free" speech. . . (Score:5, Informative)
The REAL problem with spam, is that it is, in effect, theft of service from the ISP that it originated at, and any intervening ISP as well. And we won't even get started on falsified headers, misleading topics, etc. . .
And, if spam WAS such an ethical and wanted product, then WHY do the spammers rely so much on disposable accounts, exploiting open relays, and other disreputable tactics. . .
Re:Heavy handed is about the norm... (Score:3, Interesting)
What is needed is a gauranteed way to determine who sent the email. This is indeed possible...if a bit of a fundamental change. A method to 'classify' email would be a nice 'feature' too, but that's a different holy war
It's a bit like walking down a busy road in London, and expecting people not to offer you leaflets.
Really? it's generally about the frequency, once or twice people can deal with. Every day, 40 or 50 times, i.e. every fe
Re:Heavy handed is about the norm... (Score:3, Insightful)
As usual, the analogy is poor. If the leaflet-givers were offering you penis enlargement and viagra, along with legitimate messages from friends and business associates, and you had to take the leaflets before you could determine which it was, and they charged you a penny for each one, and they gave a couple of hard-core ones to your nine year old daughter, then I think the analogy would be more accurate.
Spam is NOT about free speech; not at all. (Score:3, Interesting)
Free speech means you have the right to say whatever you want. Period. You have the right to utter any words you like, using your vocal chords.
Free speech does NOT, repeat NOT, mean you have the right to demand of someone else to relay or amplify your own speech. To illustrate this point, imagine somebody going in to the local TV station and demanding that they broadcast his opinion,
Re:Heavy handed is about the norm... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Heavy handed is about the norm... (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't see that this is going to have a great deal of immediate impact; based on my own experiences receiving spam, and that of frien
Simpsons (Score:4, Funny)
Give them the boot!
Re:Simpsons (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Heavy Handed? (Score:2)
One of our sales guys subscribes to what is basically a giant list of potential customers (businesses), which also includes a breakdown of some key figures (income/profits/etc) for each business as well as the appropriate people to contact (FDs, MDs, addresses - email, web, and physical). He then analyses the data and sends a few sales letters to see if they're interested in our services
Re:Heavy Handed? (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realise that spam is termed 'U.C.E.' as in Unsolicited commercial email?
The phrase "but I'm just contacting genuine potential customers" is the mainstay of every spammers excuse list.
I do applaud your sales guy for snail-mailing things out - it's likely to have more credibility anyway compared to having your message slotted in between v1argara and peni5 enlargement offers.
Re:Heavy Handed? (Score:3, Interesting)
The phrase "but I'm just contacting genuine potential customers" is the mainstay of every spammers excuse list.
Ok, I'm not a complete idiot and do realise that in the strictest definition of UCC (Unsoliciteds Commercial Correspondence), this would be considered UCC.
However, I do not liken UCC to spam. Spam is sent to random people or organisations with no particular bias or particular knowledge of them. It targets anybody
Re:Heavy Handed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Spammers use exactly the same justification - that every person who receives their email is a "genuine potential customer".
The amount of paper junk mail I get at home is ridiculous. There are idiots who drive along the street *every day* in a van and put more in. Worse - they get their *kids* to put it in the mailbox, teaching the next generation how to spam.
Well, here's a tip for spammers and spammees. *Anything* may be attached to a reply-paid envelope in Australia, and the person who paid is liable for the entire amount. That's why I keep a good heap of bricks and rocks around at home. I take all the reply-paid cards, tape them to a brick and put it in the post
Re:Heavy Handed? (Score:3, Interesting)
I accept that sending UCE is "almost essential" for promoting your services.
Given that, I hope that you go out of business and burn in hell, not necessarily in that order.
Unsolicited. Commercial. Email.
Re:Heavy Handed? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a lawyer... someone who consumes a lot of specialized services. As a result, my inbox gets flooded every day with emails "promoting the slightly obscure services that we provide". It's irritating, it's annoying, and because my e-mail is listed in Martindale-Hubbell, I'm going to continue receiving this crap.
Now snail mail... I have less of a problem with that, particularly since I have someone who can winnow out the garbage, and it costs you a few pennies to send
Re:Heavy Handed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how slashdotters then go to say that P2P software shouldn't be banned because it has legitimate uses, when we all know that almost everyone uses it to pirate music.
Not flamebaiting, just being cynical.
Re:Heavy Handed? (Score:2)
While copyrighted music in the mp3 format remains the mainstay, these services are also available:
-Movies and TV shows.
These are available in a variety of formats, the best and most common being the DivX format. These are less infringing than music, as the profit margin is less, and the volumes are lower due to simple data sizes.
-Software
As you mentioned, this is also available, mostly in the form of
Re:all spam != spam (Score:3, Informative)
No, there is only one kind. The second kind isn't spam.
Spam is defined as "unsolicited bulk email". Note the first word there - unsolicited. If you have a relationship with the sender, then it's not unsolicited, and therefore not spam.
I'm getting a weekly email from a radio station I sent my CD to, saying what their playlist is. Did I ask for it? No.
But you did ask for it, albeit indirectly. You initiated the relationship with them, so it's not unsolicited.
It's only spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it does, but all rational thought seems to disappear when the issue is spam.I hate it, you hate it, we all hate it. But it is clear that many people who are quite tolerant of copyright abuses, IP theft, piracy , porn as free speech etc etc etc become quite intolerant when the topic at hand is spam. The rights that are held so precious are there to be trampled over for convenience sake.
The way to fight spam is to build clever tools, come up with a technical fix. New laws are the last thing we need. I have seen Aussie net laws lambasted all over the web, but as soon as one of these stupid laws is aimed at spam a lot of people seem to think it is a good idea. It is not. When similar laws were proposed to ban porn and bomb making sites many were outraged. The same sentiments should apply.
Re:It's only spam (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you spam me you (not you peronally) take up my resources that are not yours to dispose of. If my ISP has to buy a bigger mail server to deal with the spam that is real money they have to spend on your spam. If you want to put porn up on your website as long as you pay for the bandwidth etc I don't see a problem as such.
Re:It's only spam (Score:2, Interesting)
Sidenote, I'm not sure, but I'm beginnning to wonder if the (US Only, Maybe Can
Re:It's only spam (Score:4, Funny)
>> The way to fight spam is to build clever tools
An ICBM comes to mind...
Re:It's only spam (Score:5, Insightful)
For me, the key point about spam is that no-one wants to receive it.
Sure there are plenty of misguided individuals who are financially motivated to think it's in their personal interest for other people to have to be on the receiving end of it, and will therefore cynically maintain that they are in favour of it. But I have never met anyone who could honestly say they would willing endure being sold to via cold-call, unsolicited sales pitches for products they mostly have less than zero interest in. And I've had that discussion with plenty of people.
That universal distaste for it is what makes spam so reprehensible, and that is why I am totally in favour of all legal and technical measures to curtail it to the maximum extent. It wastes more and more of everyone's time and money (it's wasting my time right now, writing this!), and the sooner we are rid of it, the better.
Re:It's only spam (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that they are not going out of business, and in fact seem to be thriving, means that some people like spam, (or at least are willing to buy from it) even if you personally don't happen to believe it.
As soon as people truly don't want it, it will disappear. That simple.
Re:It's only spam (Score:2)
OK, then shall we update the phase?
99.9999% (is this correct? I think the success rate of spam is about 0.00001%, or something of that order?) of people do not like spam.
Happy?
Re:It's only spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Spammers do go out of business all the time. The people actually making money are the ones selling the lists and mass sending services. The people who actually 'sell' via the channels are the ones going out of business.
Reference the California Gold Rush days...the only ones who got rich were the people selling shovels.
The moral here is that as long as people 'think' they can make money via spam, someone else will sell them the ability to send it. Kinda like the script kiddies...no real skill, just following the instructions.
The real problem is the conveyor of the message...which makes shooting the messenger in this case quite reasonable
how does the law tell (Score:2)
If we can't produce 1500 bits of signed paper with a signature and an email and maybe a person's name and phone number, how are we going to prove consent. What about our juniors? Can they consent?
Do we just give up and not send out emails at all?
Can a subscription based system be legal where we force people to send an email and "subscribe" i
Re:It's only spam (Score:2)
I want to be able to sue that bitch from Marketing department in different country (same company, though) every time she sends email to 'All Exchange Users' list, letting us know that she's got a headache and will be leaving a bit early today.
Re:It's only spam (Score:3, Insightful)
A clever tool is worse than useless if, for example, it's running on your desktop. By the time the tool gets around to nuking the spam, it (the spam) has already wasted resources across the Internet.
Take the Bayesian logic and drop it into backbone routers
Re:It's only spam (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but you're wrong. No single law is going to fix the problem, and technical solutions on their own won't either. Spammers will always find ways around them. The fix when it eventually comes will be a suite of technical changes combined with a suite of changes to international law. Only in combination will they pack the punch needed to stop this abuse. I welcome this new law and hope
But... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: But no.. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you just felt like bringing up the somethingawful problem, it has nothing to do with this story at all. Banning the sending of spam and banning the harvesting of emails could in no way lead to the same kind of subnet-blocking that Something Awful was the
Heavy Handed ? (Score:4, Insightful)
But for the life of me I cannot see anything positive "email harvesting or list-generating software" could be used for. But maybe that is just me.
precedents (Score:4, Informative)
Re:precedents (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just illegal in Italy, it's illegal in the European Union as a whole: on May 20, 2002, the European parliament voted for a common point-of-view [eu.int] on spam and other forms of electronic privacy intrusion.
Then, on August 1 2003, the EU Directive 2002/58/EC [eu.int] came into effect, effectively granting member states until October 1 2003 to adjust their national laws to fit the EU directive.
The Dutch "Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens" (law for the protection of person-related data) now has an article 13 that reads:
Artikel 13
Ongewenste communicatie
1. Het gebruik van automatische oproepsystemen zonder menselijke tussenkomst (automatische oproepapparaten), fax of e-mail met het oog op direct marketing kan alleen worden toegestaan met betrekking tot abonnees die daarin vooraf hebben toegestemd.
Roughly translated:
Article 13
Unwanted communication
The use of automatic paging devices without human intervention (automatic paging devices), fax or e-mail, aimed at direct marketing, can only be allowed with respect to subscribers that have given prior permission.
There you go: opt-in. A "do-not-call" list, that recently raised questions in the US, has been in effect for years now in the Netherlands. As far as e-mail is concerned, Dutch internet providers actually defend their customers and sue Dutch spam-perpetrators. If anybody has related stories from other EU member states, please do list them here.
Now, to put my previous remarks in perspective, it might seem that I'm being overly EU-zealous here. However, it is by no means my intention to adopt an attitude like that. But think about it: this legislation works: the only Dutch bulk email that I recieve comes from a site at which I have a free e-mail account; when obtaining that account, I actually did opt-in. And it's only about one message per week. So, without the intention of adopting an EU-superiority attitude, I'm just asking a plain and sincere question:
What, if any, is the big problem with disallowing companies in the US to send unsollicited bulk e-mail to customers?
Can anyone give a decent overview of interests at stake here, and (if any) US regulations on the subject?
List Generation Software has no valid use (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh? Do I hear silence? Of course I do. there is NO legitimate reason for list generation software, or email harvesters. If you develop a drug where its only use is to incapacitate a person, you ban its possession and manufacture. The same goes for list generation software.
valid uses (Score:5, Insightful)
it can? (Score:2)
kitchen knives *are* banned (Score:2)
Re:List Generation Software has no valid use (Score:2, Insightful)
Drugs are different, but ironically drug law is one of the most heavy-handed pieces of legislature there is.
Re:List Generation Software has no valid use (Score:5, Interesting)
For a fraternity that had limited membership rules according to major. Get them a list of all students in that subset of majors to compare people who signed up with interest against. It's counter productive when you are trying to get someone to join your organization to be over-intrusive when first meeting.
For my boss, a list of all houses for sale in a 30 mile radius from all 22 local realtors. The houses had to fit certain specs and be in a certain price range. This included contact info of the realtor.
For the company I work for. I wrote a robot that scans specific job postings for projects available to bid on. It compiles them from many sites and updates them daily to an inter database, which then generates webpages for our Sales Staff to llok at and figure which ones are best for us to bid on. Once again, contact info is grabbed
Again, for my company. A bot to scour resume sites based on inputable criteria so that HR can find potential new hires more easily.
For my company yet again. contact info for the owners, engineers, contacts, managers, etc ... of every (available) mall, shop, radio/TV/Emergancy radio tower, telephone company, utility, etc. We are contracted out to provide PEMA (Pennsylvania Emergency Management Association) a database for use in case of emergancy. The list generation software helped populate the data, and helps scrub the database and keep it up to date.
For my company again. Phase I/II 911 geodatabases. I write software that scours local tax records for changes when people move, as well as phone carrier's records so that when you dial 911, they already have directions to where you are and emergancy crews automatically dispatched. These databases can shave anywhere from 45 seconds to 3 minutes off of response time ... which can mean life or death.
For a man in Palm Springs, CA. He wanted to track down people he graduated with for their 25th class reunion. His school had since closed and I wrote software to scrape classmates.com (after he paid for a membership) for the contacts he wanted so they could be put in a spreadsheet that was more easily readable and printable than the website.
;). I told him 'no' because I didn't feel right about contributing to spam anyways.
These are just some of the very legitamate uses for list generating software.
I don't have much of a problem with targetted lists, either, but I don't generate them myself. The man from Palm Springs offered me $2000 to get him the contact info from every Real Estate Agent in Cali. He was teh top seller for 6 years straight ('91-'96) for a real estate firm in CA and retired young a very rich man. He wanted to offer his consulting services to agents there now. I find this a gray area for spamming, but refused the job on principle. He *WAS* targetting his email towards people that could actually use his services (unlike me getting mortgage offers when I don't own a house or my girlfriend getting penis enlargement spam, regardless of how much I may or may not need it
-Ab
A valid use of list generators (Score:3, Interesting)
This list generator is a fake email creator to generate huge lists of non-existent emails, which it turns into a HTML file. You then put this HTML file online among your other pages, so that spam harvesters pick them up and pollute their own database with thousands of useless emails. If everyone had one page with a thousand bogus email links then spammers would find their job much harder.
Oh, and of course you can add the real emails of company individuals you
T3 Direct, Wayne Mansfield (Score:5, Informative)
Its rather nice that he uses the same phrase in each spam email "Business Seminars Australia - since 1987", guess what procmail is setup to look out for...
Make up your MINDS, people! (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is it going to be?!?
On one hand, we decry any attempt to regulate the Internet for any reason (see this article [slashdot.org] just earlier today!) unless it's XYZ...
This is why true democracy always fails... Everybody will vote only for themselves, but the end result is that everybody votes *against* everybody else.
So we have slowly eroding personal liberties, along with a gradually growing, now almost all-encompassing quasi-socialistic govornment. (here in the US)
Sometimes altruism pays. Is it so terrible to BAN email harvesters and their accompanying list generators? How about google [google.com]? They've certainly made notes on some of my recent activity...
Most any slashdotter will agree that a line needs to be drawn, even if it's just ABM. (Anything But Microsoft)
It takes a level head to realize the idea of valid compromise towards drawing lines that will function well in society.
Socialist? (Score:2)
Err...
George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft etc. are socialist?
So what is your definition of right-wing?
Spam magnet (Score:2)
So I guess you don't mind receiving a few hundred penis enlargement ads each day, the way you've been broadcasting your email address..
For your information (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sounds Great! But Did They Actually Pay...? (Score:2, Informative)
I love the Aussies!! (Score:2)
this is better than it sounds (Score:5, Informative)
1. Almost all retail broadband accounts are volume capped and charged at ludicrously high rates if you go over the cap. This adds impetuous to the government to do something about spam due to the public knowing that they are paying for this stuff directly (even if technically it would make a very small percentage of their bill).
2. The Australian legal system isn't too corrupted yet and it is very unlikely that the DPP would use this law against anyone unless the list gathered (by software or otherwise) was actually used for sending spam. If you are a conspiracy theorist - the government will get you anyway, there are plenty of other laws for them to use. This helps the government get at all areas of the problem and no excuses like: "sorry judge, I don't send the spam I just collect the address's and my mate in is actually sending the spam".
Re:this is better than it sounds (Score:2)
Misleading Term: 'List Generation Software' (Score:2, Interesting)
NOIE Media Release (Score:5, Informative)
The Australian Government will move to ban electronic junk mail (spam) and enforce this ban through the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) in legislation that will be introduced to Parliament later this year, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, announced today.
Senator Alston said that Cabinet had yesterday agreed to anti-spam legislation including fines, along with a raft of other measures aimed at reducing the influx of spam into Australian e-mail inboxes.
Spam is a menace to home and business e-mail users and is a major scourge of productivity. Spam e-mails are the mosquitoes of the Internet - numerous, annoying and often carrying nasty viruses.
Australia will soon be applying a large dose of 'spam repellent' and sending a strong message to spammers that indiscriminate and unsolicited bulk e-mailing will not be tolerated. The adoption of an opt-in regime will make Australia world's-best practice on spam and put Australia in a strong position to participate in international efforts.
The Australian Government is committed to taking a strong stand against spam and has moved quickly to respond to the report by the National Office for the Information Economy The spam problem and how it can be countered released in April this year. This report provided a blueprint to take action against the problem to provide the maximum possible protection against spam.
While the report made it clear that there is no silver bullet against spam, there are many roles that all parties can play in a multi-layered approach. The anti-spam measures that the Australian Government will introduce include:
* National legislation, to be enforced by the ACA, banning the sending of commercial electronic messaging without the prior consent of end-users unless there is an existing customer-business relationship (an opt-in regime);
* Civil sanctions for unlawful conduct including financial penalties, an infringement notice scheme and the ability to seek enforceable undertakings and injunctions;
* The requirement for all commercial electronic messaging to contain accurate details of the sender's name and physical addresses and a functional 'unsubscribe' facility to enable people to opt-out;
* Banning the distribution and use of e-mail 'harvesting' or list-generating software, and
* Working together with international organisations to develop global guidelines and cooperative mechanisms to combat the global spam problem.
The Government will work closely with industry to ensure that Australia has a workable regime without harming legitimate business practices. The regime will seek to protect businesses which undertake legitimate e-mail direct marketing in line with the requirements of the Privacy Act. There will be a 120-day sunrise period without penalties from the enactment of the legislation for businesses to ensure their marketing practices are in line with the legislation.
Stakeholders including the Internet Industry Association (IIA), the Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA), small business associations and other not-for-profit organisations will be consulted on the details of the legislation.
The Government will also work with industry to develop relevant codes of practice to be registered with the ACA, building on initiatives such as the IIA's 'No Spam' campaign, which since April has enabled consumers to access anti-spamming technology for a free month's trial.
The measures announced today establish a framework for Australia to begin the important task of eradicating spam. The package will be accompanied by an education campaign to raise awareness of the nature of spam and anti-spam measures and to inform individuals and business of their rights and responsibilities when it comes to spam.
Leg
stupid stupid laws (Score:2, Insightful)
So greping for email addresses in netnews is now going to be illegal?
Re:stupid stupid laws (Score:3, Informative)
You will only get in trouble if you have been caught using list-generating software for the purpose of spamming.
List Generation Test (Score:3, Funny)
Uh oh... (Score:2)
Don't tread on me, man!
I don't believe it! (Score:4, Interesting)
For those with short memories, Alston is the one who banned internet gambling and porn, thereby sending any Australian companies involved in the above overseas. Of course Australians have no trouble engaging in internet gambling or downloading porn - just not from Australian servers now. Well done Alston!
I'm curious though, this bill bucks the liberal government's current trend of screwing the individual. Maybe they're just trying to distract us from ever-increasing public transport & medical costs.
Re:I don't believe it! (Score:3, Interesting)
And didn't he justify it by saying that nobody from Australia would use the overseas gambling sites because... drum roll please... nobody would want to pay the long-distance phone calls [fabc.org.au].
Alston, the
Timmy!! (Score:2)
Is it just me, or does Timothy consistantly just not get it?
Re:Timmy!! (Score:2)
Bye, bye grep... (Score:4, Funny)
Yep... don't know how our Australian friends are going to get by without grep.
Re:Bye, bye grep... (Score:2)
My script would be banned ? (Score:4, Interesting)
This just to show that it can be done in the scripting language of choice, and that the Slashdot obfuscation techniques commonly used are hardly a deterrent.
I have no intention to release the script ( heck, I only just got my internet restored - I can do without a Slashdot mob pounding at my sites
Re:My script would be banned ? (Score:2, Informative)
Alex.
Re:My script would be banned ? (Score:2)
I know for a fact I've never had my e-mail harvested off Slashdot. OTOH, I *do* get spam arriving at a domain I own but never told anyone about except the company I registered it with. Hmmmm
Yes it would. (Score:3, Informative)
Australia has a grand tradition of the big stick that is used with "discretion".
As an example - in the state of Queensland it is currently an offense to possess and/or distribute information pertaining to the production or consumption of drugs. This applies across the board - consider the following text.
Production:
Consumption:
"List generating" - wait for the bill (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's keep in mind there is probably an entire section in draft legislation, which was reduced to a few sentences in a press release, which the media reduced to the phrase "list generation software."
We won't know what this actually means until the bill appears before parliament.
One concern is that a sufficiently vague definition could cause legal concerns with software that has legitimate uses - for instance, something like SELECT DISTINCT sender_address FROM usenet_posts; on a database like Google Groups could generate a list of email addresses, how should things be phrased to make sure Google Groups is in the clear?
Way to Go (Score:2)
Heavy-handed seems about the only way to do it. Sending e-mail to people who did not ask for it is wrong whichever way you look at it.
I can see that there is a potential for abuse. For instance, person A fancies person B, and sends B an e-mail suggesting something innocuous. B takes this the wrong way and A ends up a criminal. But hey
Australian spammers (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely. When was the last time you had any spam from Down Under? As far as "the international community" is concerned, I don't think we can really class the spamming scum, who obfuscate their identities and operate across multiple countries, as a community. All in all, not even close, and definitely no cigar :-(
Re:Australian spammers (Score:3, Informative)
So they are big in porn, and they are spammers and scammers. This means that the porn spam you are receiving could well be from one of them. In other words, af
Spam repellant (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spam repellant (Score:2)
Re:Spam repellant (Score:2, Insightful)
If i can't decide by the subject line what's spam and what's real, how should a spamfilter do?
Can you imagine the rage of people, when some projectmanager's email gets filtered and you loose profit?
Alex.
Re:Spam repellant (Score:2, Insightful)
Won't help. (Score:2, Funny)
The only way there's ever going to be any progress in the fight against spam is by making any egregious violation punishable by summary execution.
No, I'm not kidding. If every nation had such a law and actually enforced it things would improve instantly. Kill just ONE spammer and watch it all start to fade.
Of course it'll never happen, but a man can dream, can't he? A
Alston is deluded. (Score:4, Informative)
I had a chuckle to myself when I heard Alston's response the suggestion that these measures would have no effect because most of the spam comes from overseas. He beleives that by implementing these strong arm policies we are setting an example to the international community, and slowly other countries will follow in suit.
Countries that are spam-friendly are not going to care what the hell australia does. So we are getting these insane policies for no real reason.
1c e-mail postage stamp (Score:3, Insightful)
How to implement this world-wide is another question.
Re:1c e-mail postage stamp (Score:3, Insightful)
At $.01 per message for leagal messages means that any message will be legal if its paid for.
I've worked for compaines that have dumped $10,000,000 on some ad campaigns. At your rate thats a billion messages.
Besides who gets the money? There is no way to get it to the small ISP and the only other choice is some govt funded s
list generating software (Score:4, Insightful)
-scientific data result generation.
-list of open ports on a computer for security analysis.
-list of most popular products from your on-line store front for re-ordering and evaluation.
-compiler/assembler output is a list of errors in your code hence a compiler is list-generating software.
-list of journey routes and times generated through point and click maps.
-security auditing software recording logon times and users.
-lists generated by search engines. be it online or by database search.
The law bans all of this legitimate and essential software and i think i could go on all day thinking of situations this software is needed.
Hitting spammers where it hurts (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the law could also prohibit businesses paying someone to send unsolicited email - and hold them accountable for the behaviour of the person they hire to send their (solicited) commercial emails.
It seems to me that this would have two effects: 1) It would make unsolicited email unprofitable, and 2) It would force businesses to keep their emailers on a short leash.
I suppose there must be something wrong with that idea or it would have been suggested long ago...
Patching the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Governments are acting like Microsoft, their laws are full of massive holes so every month they issue more hot-fixes, thats not the way to do it.
Prior consent (Score:3, Insightful)
So these spammers all either believe that they have a list of opt-in addresses, or are convincing their clients they do. (And the clients are frequently legitimate businesses.)
Given the ease with which a spammer will claim that you opted-in to their mailings, and the ease with which they could claim that you had agreed to those terms, won't all spam simply be labelled as opt-in after a law like this is passed?
SPAM - We're missing the mark. (Score:3, Insightful)
SMTP based on RFC821 [faqs.org] relies soley on the principle of:
- User sends mail to target sender.
- Mail goes to their SMTP server
- Mail 'finally' arrives at the recievers SMTP server.
The problem with this is that there is no verifcation from the end-user that the mail is legit.A much better solution would be based on user verification.
This in theory would work on the principle that the we are creatures of habit.
We all recieve legit Email from a small trusted group. Anything not based on the trusted group is potentially unwanted mail.
A verified Email transport would work like such:
This has some added benefits:
This is only a thought -- and would need to round out the idea - however it seems feasable that this is possible.
Interested in others comments.
Most Spam filtering software already includes 'WhiteLists/BlackLists'.
MB.Moving this into the SMTP transport at the server end seems the next logical and automated approach.
Nice idea, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, given the Australian government's track record on these matters, I'm not confident it will make that much difference in practice. Take Internet censorship as an example. Similar concept, the legislation gives them the power to take down Australian hosted sites. Result - dismal failure [zdnet.com.au]
Re:Australia rules (Score:3, Informative)
It's just you.
Seriously, Australia as a nation seems to have gotten most things right. The notable exception is the complete stupidity in the way we manage and legislate technology-related stuff, but that's just Senator Alston being his usual self.
Re:Australia rules (Score:5, Informative)
Watch out son, you just laid out a very big troll bait. You might not be able to handle what you're about to hook!
I'm an Aussie, and despite the oncoming wave of complaints about the Government and Telstra, it is a great place to live, and pretty-well IT minded. No, we're not South Korea, but broadband take up has just started accelerating at quite a pace, we've got an excellent mobile and landline network and all the capitals have cable in one form [bigpond.com] or another [transact.com.au].
Every day I am reminded about how fortunate we are that our government by and large is not in the pockets of big corporations. This article on Wired [wired.com] really opened my eyes yesterday. The very thought of a Bank over here selling your details is unfathomable; good legislation [privacy.gov.au] is partly responsible, but I don't imagine many people would do it even if that wasn't in place. That a state is having to fight for this level of privacy (and having difficulty doing it) just floors me.
And the "do not call" register that the US has had to set up. My god, is it really that bad over there?
-- james
Re:Australia rules (Score:2)
Unless you are non-white in which case it's an awful place to live.
Re:Australia rules (Score:3, Insightful)
It really isn't a myth. I also happen to live in Sydney. I also happen to be white (and my family tree goes back to the first fleet). I happen to be married to an Iranian.
Australia has gotten more tolerant of Asians in the last 20 years. Jump back to the "Asians arebuying all of Australia" idiocy and it
Re:Australia rules (Score:2)
No I'm not. Australia being part of the Western World shares a lot in common with other members.
Australia does it better than most. We've had lots of recent practice.
Re:Australia rules (Score:2)
Rome was founded by Greeks, wasn't it? And it was the Roman's who colonized England just before they colapsed. And England colonized the US.
Australia's one of the youngest western countries. I wouldn't be surprised if it began to dominate, at within least the western sphere, as time goes by and it starts developing.
Re:Australia rules (Score:3, Funny)
We are pathetic bitches. Yeah, it's a lovely country (as long as you're white, conservative and middle-class), but we have zero power in the world, zero say over our own future, and a "leader" who is hell bent on greasing up and bending over in front of the good old U! S! A! for a free trade agreement that will surely net us the kind of wonderful benefits that most of South America has been lucky
Re:Australia rules (Score:5, Informative)
No, Australia doesn't manufacture much. But the industrial age is over, and the information age just beginning. I don't know about the "tattered remnants" you mention; the Australian education system is one of the best in the world. Many Australian graduates are asked to work overseas, not just heading over there to look for jobs, but being actively recruited. I know that in at least two fields (teaching and nursing), Australian's can earn massive salaries (compared to the earnings back home) in places like the UK.
Tha largest technological advance Australia has had the opportunity to participate in has been the internet. Australia, despite being encumbered by a government-sponsored telecommunications monopoly, has a very high rate of broadband penetration. For a country with such a low population density, our infrastructure is remarkable. Many Australian Universities (Wollongong, Melbourne, UTS) were working on the internet in its infancy.
Australia continues to make innovations in other areas. It was an Australian research group who managed to teleport, not just a single photon as had been done previously, but an entire laser beam. Australia is a world leader in medical research. I really can't see your argument about Australia being backwards technologically.
As too becoming a US vassal state, well, maybe. But there hasn't been a nation on earth who have lasted forever, and when the inevitable decay hits the US, someone's going to pick up the pieces and become the next world power. It could very well be Australia. It may not be, but then, it could be, too.
Re:Australia rules (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution to Spam Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Then you go buy another radio cause this one isn't working correctly. But dammit if it doesn't happen again with the new radio. Some how some radio station aquired technology to change your channels.
I guess your response would be to not listen to the radio then