NZ anti-spam law
February 24th, 2005 at 1:35 pm by David FarrarIt is great the Government has announced the details of the proposed anti-spam law, and I am looking forward to seeing the actual legislation.
For those who don’t know, I chair InternetNZ’s anti-spam taskforce and have worked very closely with the Government on the proposed law. On the basis of the announcement, it looks like the legislation will be similiar to Australia’s. This is a good thing, as world-wide Australia is generally regarded as having the best law, and also the most effective as locally sourced spam in Australia has almost disappeared.
People should be aware that no-one who is involved in fighting spam thinks legislation by itself will reduce spam. How-ever almost every expert agrees that legislation is a necessary part of a multi-pronged approach which includes education, technical filters, self-regulation and international co-operation.
Very little spam in NZ is sent locally because NZ ISPs are generally excellent in kicking off spammers. However this does not mean NZ is not a source of spam. There are a growing number of NZers who are majorly involved in spamming, and they hire people in the US to do the actual sending for them. At present they are immune from legal action.
The other important aspect of the legislation is that spam is an international problem, and only by way of legislation can we authorise international co-operation to catch the biggest spammers. At an OECD workshop on spam I attended, the US FTC spoke about how they sometimes need to execute within a week or so up to 14 search warrants in half a dozen different countries as one tries to trace the e-mail source, the website host, the domain name registration and the credit card bank account.
By being able to co-operate with the US FTC, and other countries, we will be able to play a party in closing down the major spammers who do spend most of the spam to NZers. We are almost the last country in the OECD to have anti-spam legislation.
Rodney thinks the law is pointless. I hope he will be open to persuasion once we see the actual bill. The law will not stop spam by itself, but without such laws and enforcement actions around the world, we will never reduce the impact of spam from the $25 billion global cost it currently is.
No tag for this post.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
I’ve suggested a model that might work on my blog.
A question you (David) might know – do NZ ISPs have contracts with the overseas ISPs they peer with – I assume they do but don’t know for certain.
Vote:February 24th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
NZ ISPs do tend to have contracts with overseas ISPs, yes. Technically they do not peer as much, as purchase international bandwidth.
Not sure how practical your model is, but keen to talk about it in the real world, if you want to.
Vote:February 24th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Is public execution to much to ask? (I would settle for private execution!)
Vote:February 24th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
I went to a presentation about the Australian Spam Act by one of the local Australian Government Solicitors, who is a bit of an IT legal guru. His point was that without international cooperation, there would always be a spam problem. But, in his opinion, international cooperation was possible using the model of the international laws that were negotiated to allow international shipping and commerce in the 19th century.
Vote:I’m in agreement that the Aussie Act is a good one. Lots of common sense, reflecting best technical practice. And implemented with lots of useful publicity and backup so that organisations knew just what they needed to do to be compliant.
February 24th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
I agree with Hide’s comments on this matter and it disappoints me to see DPF (who professes to a “right wing” viewpoint, and to care about excess regulation,) turning to more regulation and government as a solution the first time he has a chance to advocate a position on any issue.
Vote:February 24th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
There are a few excellent proposals going around at the moment. I think the honeypot idea is cool too (click my link).
But the best has to be a TAX on email. What a great plan. Here’s how it might work: The government taxes you for each email you send. Many governments around the world (under pressure, naturally) agree to this. They may introduce it by allowing certain software vendors, telcos or ISPs to charge you, and then they can tax that charge.
All of the money gets accumulated and a super server anti-spam site is created and this updates each minute showing how much money has been collected.
The super server also holds bank account details to this money, and none of the base software is patched with the latest security fixes.
It is maintained by work for the dole trainer programmers and people gaining computer experience. Some of those work for the dole people are instructed to review each advertisement, and have discretionary power to spend, but only if the deal looks good.
The spammers then target all spam at the super server, because they’ve finally found a rich customer with unlimited funds that will purchase a reasonable amount of goods.
Every-one else gets left alone.
Except for the “reminder to pay your internet email bill” messages that flood their system every day.
Vote: