Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam The Internet Your Rights Online

Australian Spam Bill Not So Good After All? 131

Posted by timothy from the hawaiians-get-more-spam-anyhow dept.
crazney writes "Electronic Frontiers Australia has criticized the anti-spam bill proposed by the Australian government. You can read their full analysis here"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Spam Bill Not So Good After All? More

Australian Spam Bill Not So Good After All?

Comments Filter:
  • So Alston is still the worlds biggest luddite even though he's gone... can we see the new minister change this bill for good or will he usurp Alston's title?

  • indeed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by loraksus ( 171574 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @02:05AM (#7135828) Homepage
    the bill had the Chinese shaking in their boots.
    • Nobody is going to get prosecuted under this bill once people realise that police can search the premises of a recipient of spam without a warrant.

      Nobody will take action against a spammer under that threat.

  • critisize?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by LadyLucky ( 546115 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @02:06AM (#7135832) Homepage
    <crocodile-hunter>
    Crikey, there's a huuuuuge spelling mistake lying in the article text *just above me*. This one's a real beaut, too mate! It would be sick if you just fixed that up there...
    </crocodile-hunter>

    • Re:critisize?? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yes, critisize. Half way between oversize and correct size.

      BTW, in Australia we have a special word for people like Steve Irwin...we call them "idiots".
  • * Stop the Telstra Bulldozer in it's tracks -- support broadband. Canada proves it's possible in a big country * Sensible censorship * Sensible copyright * Serious commitment to anti-spam * Keep investing and committing to open source Alston's policies have left Australia as an international IT joke. So much local telent, and so many opportunities in the Asian and global markets have gone to waste. More importantly, every Australian business and consumer has suffered from the 1950s attitudes of the present

  • Good to see some sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by evil_roy ( 241455 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @02:11AM (#7135846)
    Recently it has seemed that if anything was said to be anti-spam it was deemed to be good - no further scrutiny was required.

    These laws were a case in point, but any comments here or elsewhere that questioned the new laws were howled down in the shared "spam-is-evil" sentiment. Spam is a pain and is hard to defend - but defeating spam should be a case of the right tool for the job. The right tool is rarely legislation - yet it is the first we seem to reach for.

    I'm glad that there is some well thought out legitimate questioning of these knee-jerk reaction laws.
    • I'm not sure which "we" you think you speak for, but I don't think there is a "the right tool." Pure technical solutions aren't going to work unless you rip-and-replace SMTP - I and others have worked the technical solution front for... geez, I've been involved for 7 years now, and I was by no means an earlybird.

      Technology in and of itself is not the solution. Nor is legislation in and of itself. Nor is preventive education in and of itself (it potentially could be, but it'd be a huge task, and the fi

    • Maybe the article proves that anti-spam legislation can work, at least when it's adopted by most countries.

      If the spammers are forced off-shore, then those IPs can be blocked.

      Either way, I doubt anyone is going to invest in expensive anti-spam measures until the legislation is finalised.

  • What (Score:5, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @02:22AM (#7135875)
    You mean training kangaroos to box the crap out of spammers is not a good idea !!!

    Whats that Skippy ? You threw another spammer down the mine shaft. Good roo.
    • Give spammers THE BOOT!

  • Alcohol, Tobacco, and SPAM? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cliffy2000 ( 185461 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @02:24AM (#7135878) Journal
    Spam laws are kind of like the US gun control laws. They're all fine and dandy, but until the existing laws are enforced, they really mean nothing. And the greater restrictions probably just annoy law-abiding citizens.
    (Now, I'm all in favor of gun control. Just not more legislation until the ATF actually does something.)

    • Re:Alcohol, Tobacco, and SPAM? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @02:43AM (#7135916)
      I'll accept your analogy, for the sake of argument, and run with it.

      The problem with enforcing gun control laws is similar to the problem with enforcing spam laws.

      Anyone can make crude offensive firearms quickly and cheaply in their own basement.

      Anyone can make crude and offensive spam quickly and cheaply in their own basement.

      The advantage the spammers have over the gun makers is that the spammer can make spam in somebody else's basement will still sitting snuggly in their own.

      To enforce a law first you have to be able identify violators. Then you have to be able to arrest them, inside your own jurisdiction.

      The big spammers protect themselves and are immune from any law. Thus antispam laws are only going to end up getting used against minor players, kids sending out "flyers" for their ball game and such. A granny thinking she can make a few extra bucks by peddling her hand crocheted doilies with some email.

      They'll throw the book at them too.

      Tackling the spam problem by making laws is just as silly as it would be to try to outlaw a common weed.

      The problem is inherent in the system. Fix the system, no more problem.

      KFG
      • The idea of SPAM is just that. It's unwanted email sent unsolicited.

        If I want email, I'll ask for it. I can subscribe to list servers, software updates bulletins, and lots of other requests for email. I don't think anyone has a right to put mail in my mailbox unless I consent to it. If I do business with someone AND I consent to email notices, then fine. If I put an "email me here" link on a web page, then anyone can email me.

        I don't want someone's kid emailing me a request for donation or a grandma

  • Austrailian spam? Naw! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zerocool^ ( 112121 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @02:39AM (#7135906) Homepage Journal
    Spam sent from austrailia? Never.

    Oh, wait. I just sent some emails to the people who own:
    mail006.syd.optusnet.com.au
    mta05.mail.mel. aone.net.au
    mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au

    And told them to stop the spamming.
    Return-Path: spachakra@ozemail.com.au
    Received: from mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta04.mail.au.uu.net
    [203.2.192.84]) by mail.netmar.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02654
    for <your_mom@netmar.com>; Sun, 5 Oct 2003 00:04:47 -0400 (EDT)
    Received: from fsveeyjv ([63.60.218.131]) by mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au
    with SMTP
    id <20031005040357.GWUT21664.mta04.mail.mel.aone.net. au@fsveeyjv>;
    Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:03:57 +1000
    FROM: "Microsoft Customer Support" <njsmmr_lcmmo@technet.com>
    TO: "Customer" <customer-ciltovfs@technet.com>
    SUBJECT: New Net Update
    Mime-Version: 1.0
    Message-Id: <20031005040357.GWUT21664.mta04.mail.mel.aone.net. au@fsveeyjv>
    Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:04:37 +1000
    Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ucvnkfiuyukzljwof"
    Content-Length: 157002
    Yeah, I'm getting these "Microsoft Net Update" mail messages at a rate of about 6 an hour. "Please install this latest update, rejwk.bat". Please wash my balls.

    I'm so freaking frustrated, though. I don't know how to filter them, cause they're comming from lots of different (some non-open relay) mail servers, and the messages are innocent enough as to not be words I'd want to filter out of my incomming mail. Plus, all the file attachments and email addresses and attachments are all randomly generated characters.

    FUCKING SPAM make the internet unusable! GOD DAMNIT. They took something that was beautiful in it's simplicity, and FUCKING RUINED IT.

    GOD, I must be tired to rant, but it pisses me off. Viruses! Spam! Worms! Denial of service! Get sued by the FBI, CIA, RIAA, SCO, FreeMasons! Fuck, it's a wonder anyone's still online.

    ~Will
    • It filters out these stuff quite reliably (and with very low false-positive rates) after training it with 20 or so legit mails. For safety just mark them as spam and not really delete them. It won't reduce bandwidth waste or prevent filling up the ISP's mailbox though.
      • Yeah, I know.

        Part of the problem is that is the email I use for work, and as such, I only check it via webmail. So, clientside baysean filtering is out.

        On the server side, it's a very touchy subject on how to deal with spam. It's netmar's primary mail server that comes through. netmar.com's MX record uses our filtered mail server, but our customers start to get really mad when we crank up the filtering (for example, turning on the mail restriction that bounces mail from mail servers without valid rever

    • Is that just the Swen worm, by any chance? It's all over the place, and sends mail claiming to be from MS Technical Support.

      If it is, it's not quite the same as spam - the people sending it to you don't even know they're doing it, so anti-spamming laws aren't going to make them stop. I share your anger at what spam has done to email, but I think it is important to understand it and differentiate it from other annoyances such as worms and viruses if we are to deal with the situation.

      Legislation seems

      • It might be the Swen worm, I haven't looked at that one.

        I get lots of other spam there, too. There's not too much I can do about it (see other posts in this thread by me). But, yeah, I know that worms aren't the same as spam.

        All of these either look like they're from Microsoft Tech Support or they're trying to tell me that a mail has bounced, convieniently it was the attachment.

        I wish slashdot still used timestamps for posts, so you could see, but I've had 7 of that worm come in since I posted that pos
    • here's an idea, keep the hackers busy and the spammers worried www.listofspammerstohack.com.au
      I'll subscribe
    • I don't know how to filter them

      The latest Spamassassin [rediris.es] catches them all just fine for me - some of them score high enough even without my bayes training. Actually, after upgrading to 2.6, the only spam I see in my inbox is the type with a single image and a buch of random dictionary words, and even those are starting to get caught by my bayes filters (random dictionary words means that there are a lot of words that don't show up in my normal messages).

    • Re:Austrailian spam? Naw! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @05:20AM (#7136148) Homepage
      Use spamassassin. You can either catch them with some bayes training, or even easier, set:

      score MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE 5

      in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf

      That way everything with an executable will be set as spam. You can then use sieve or other mail scripting language to filter / discard the messages as apropriate.

      • In theory, a good idea.

        I practice, mail.netmar.com handles 300,000 pieces of mail a day for over 1000 customers. Many of whom want to get attachments and don't really know much about spam. Many of whom are not technically literate, or less so than you and I.

        I'll run it by the boss, though. It's getting really annoying.

        ~Will
    • There are assholes in the world. They are few, but they cause trouble out of all proportion to their numbers. Prepare for the assholes while you enjoy the good people. Worth remembering in trying times.

      Here are some easy solutions to their sorry efforts.

      1. Spam: don't post your e-mail address in machine readable format. Pretty much handles it. If people whine about the re-typing, ask 'em if they'd rather be getting e-mail for "Hot Gay Webcam!!!" or "I love you!".

      2. Worms/viri: Use non-standard hardwar
    • That's not spam, dude, it's a virus/worm. Quite different things.

  • All over again (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Omega037 ( 712939 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @03:02AM (#7135954)
    This is another one of those laws that may have been made with good intentions in mind, but will either not work or actually unintentionally harm those who aren't the real culprits. The problem with this law, much like the DMCA, is that the computer world is changing rapidly, and it is often hard to draw lines as to what is or isn't spamming. Instead you end up with huge loopholes for the real spammers and lots of red tape and problems for those who aren't. Laws regarding online crime or problems need to be updated at least a few times a year, if not monthly. However, the speed at which governments are willing to change laws is far too slow to do this.
    • The problem with this law, much like the DMCA, is that the computer world is changing rapidly, and it is often hard to draw lines as to what is or isn't spamming.
      Here we go again, why do so many people keep buying into this spammer line? Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail, i.e. if the e-mail is unsolicited (you didn't ask for it) and bulk (send in mass quantities), it's spam. How much easier to define can you get?
  • While it seems that the US government, for example, has and is actually doing the right thing with the national do-not-call list, perhaps that is the exception.

    We are asking our governments to step up to do the right thing and protect us from this nonsense, but what they seem unable to restrain themselves from doing is to get their hands on all of it and regulate it.

    We aren't asking for a whole system of regulation, we are just asking for protection.

    The problem though, is that there are a lot of other parties who see this whole mess from other (possibly commercial) perspectives, and they want protection too, or whatever you would call doing services to their private interests and agendas.

    For example, if we call in the government to help us, are they also going to decide that it is ok for political and non-profit groups to spam each of my email addresses X number of times per year or per month? Is government going to decide that any business can spam me once a year or until I renew my request with them to not be spammed?

    Is the Bush re-election campaign going to be able to spam me once a month asking for donations?

    Should we be worried that regulation will bring some relief, but with it the legitimization of unsolicited email conforming to the new regulations as an acceptable component of an advertising model for mainstream products and services, especially with telemarketing being clamped down on perhaps more now than in the past?

    While I do believe that it is appropriate for us to act through our government to regulate this mess for the benefit of the majority (there is no right or legitimate expectation of private persons to force a communication with another person against his or her will), and ideally they would, I do not have faith in our elected representatives to do the right thing.

    I think that is very sad. It seems that realistically our best hope for just and progressive government right now is to elect those who will screw us over least badly with the representative power we give them.

    section {.rant}
    I don't want to elect agendas or philosophers or idealists. I want to elect, surprisingly representatives, persons who I can in good faith entrust to act as an extension of my person - an extension of my own moral agency, an entity whose actions, good or bad, I am directly responsible for in so far as I am representated by a maximally auditable, responsive, and transparent manner, not used.

    Just get it done, damnit.
    • Oh, I wouldn't mind voting for the odd agenda, philosophy or ideal. I would simply like those agendas, philophies and ideals to have vague coorespondence with my own.

      In nearly thirty years of voting I've never seen anyone on any ballot that I have felt comfortable voting for, let alone feel they were "my" representative.

      I like representative government. I like the fact that politicians are charged with equal representation of all the people in their political jurisdiction, not just me. It keeps me from ru
    • I respect your opinion, however at the end of the day that's all it is; an opinion. Your representatives also represent [x] amount of people who also have opinions; some of them spammers. I AM IN NO WAY sticking up for spammers, however restrict the rights of one and you end up restricting the rights of many. A downfall, to be sure, however I'd rather be scrutinized by my peers than be prosecuted by the government.
    • Is the Bush re-election campaign going to be able to spam me once a month asking for donations?

      It's the Dean compaign that was accused of spamming, IIRC.

  • It's not like our government has actually done anything decent in IT/Telecommunications in the last 20 years, if it's done anything, its stifled development through self-regulation of companies like Tel$tra (who deserve the cliched $/S replacement far more than MS.)

    -Gwala

    • I think the only entity challenging M$ for the dollar-sign is Gate$ himself...

      The angst against Telstra is probably due to being Australian; though what that has to do with spam, I don't know. Telstra entered New Zealand's newly deregulated market a few years ago, and has proved to be TelecomNZ's only real competition. They have built a superior fibre-optic network in Wellington and Christchurch, and continue to challenge Telecom's monopolistic practices here.

      I'd be interested to know if TelecomNZ's acqui

  • Legislation is not the answer. There are too many juristictions in which you cannot enforce *your* law. Even if the UN stepped in - who will prosecute? The answer is in the technology. Where is SMTP version 2 (or whatever) that fixes this shit? Let's rollout IP6 and change the protocols so typing in any old crap into an MTA makes it work ! Sure spammers will still spam, but they could no longer lie about who they are or where they are sending mail from. Don't want it - block it. Also - all you ISP's
    • Legislation is not the answer.

      Legislation is the answer. Legislation is the only way we have to cure social problems, and spam is a social problem.

      The answer is in the technology. Where is SMTP version 2 (or whatever) that fixes this shit?

      Spam exists because scumbags want to get something for nothing, and don't care how many people they annoy, harrass, or steal from. Technology cannot change this.

      Spam does not exist because the protocols allow it, it exists because spammers see nothing wrong in a
      • I agree spam is a social problem, but it is a global society we are dealing with, so we need global laws to deal with the problem.

        I agree spammers annoy, harras and steal from us all, but legislation only acts as a deterent, not a remedy. People still steal, cheat, lie, kill, etc even when we have laws that prohibit these behaviours. You cannot legislate against greed.

        As long as there is a way to abuse the system, they will. If the technology makes it impossible for them to disguise their location or i
      • > Legislation is the answer. Legislation is the only way we have to cure social problems

        That is so frustratingly asinine I want to scream. Did you get this crap from your parents, or do you truly believe this? Loose morality can be considered a social problem, yet we can't make legislation to make immorality "wrong," or at least illegal. I agree with you that the true problem lies with the greedy scumbags who send spam, and not necessarily with the technology itself, but legislation does nothin
    • Sorry, but that's no solution.

      1) If spammers still spam, then they're still wasting resources that the rest of us have paid for.
      2) Technology never solved anything other that a purely technological problem.
      2a) There are no purely technological problems.

      Legislation is the answer, but we don't need new laws--we just need to prosecute spammers for the fraud, theft, and vandalism they're committing on a daily basis.

  • A big surprise (Score:2, Insightful)

    by swb ( 14022 )
    You can't simultaneously have laws against spam and support legally unfettered email, since the latter implies that spam is OK. It's just like free speech; you can't be for free speech "except" the free speech of groups you don't like.

    You have to fight spam by going after what it mostly is: criminal fraud, and the only effective legislation against spam will be increasing the criminal penalties for mail/wire fraud that already exist, perhaps by including any financial participation (vendor/seller/spammer
  • Comments on the subject last time stated that the bill was poo poo, who wasn't listening??? Alston is still a moron, don't degrade us luddites by associating him with us! Luddites choose to bag/reform technology, Alston simply don't understand what the technology does.

    Telecommunications is Oz is stiffled by low population and distance, not Telstra, etc. 90%+ can have broardband, only 5% want it.
    • "Telecommunications is Oz is stiffled by low population and distance, not Telstra, etc. 90%+ can have broardband, only 5% want it."

      Um... only 5% want it at $90 a month with severe download limits and heinously huge extra data rates.

      And Tel$tra IS a problem, they own all of the network infrastructure yet other companies are supposed to 'compete' with them whilst renting space on the Telstra network. Furthermore, they have the ability to act like a competitive company yet are government-owned and therefore
  • The messages are legal from government bodies, and the Nigerian spam pretends to be from a government body. The burden of proof would be on the reciepient to show that it is not really a message from a current or ex government minister of Nigeria/Liberia/South Africa/Insert name here. This law is useless in this situation, and we already have laws for fraud.
  • Told ya so! [slashdot.org] I admit that I didn't see those other loopholes coming, but any spam bill that a marketing group likes always (1) legitimize a class of spam, and/or (2) legitimize a group of spammers.
  • Went to read it but its too long. Can anyone summerises. Its monday and can't be bothered.
  • Last week, Electronic Frontiers Australia [efa.org.au] released an evaluation of the Spam Bill 2003 [law.gov.au] and the Spam (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2003 [law.gov.au], in which they stated that the bills were "not anti-spam" http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/spambills2003.html [efa.org.au].

    The Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email, Australia (CAUBE.AU) [caube.org.au], has reviewed the criticisms of EFA, and found that this label is entirely unjustified. In particular:

    • None of the three case scenarios offered by EFA as examples of situations in which non-spam wou

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close