Recent international attempts to can spam

Computer Law and Security Report

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 472-479

  Cheng, Tania S L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLAMORGAN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINES; COSTS; EDUCATION COMPUTING; INTERNET; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MARKETING; PRODUCTIVITY; RELIABILITY; SECURITY OF DATA; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

ANTI-SPAM LEGISLATION; DATA PROTECTION; EMAIL ADDRESSES; JUNK MAILS;

SPAMMING;

EID: 84979800915     PISSN: 02673649     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0267-3649(04)00092-5     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Controlling The Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act 2003, entered into force on 1 January 2004.
2. Act on Promotion of Information & Communications & Communication Network Utilisation & Protection of 2001. Revised on 18 December 2002 and entered into force on 19 January 2003. Information on this Act was taken from the Korean Spam Response Centre's website http://www.spamcop.or.kr/eng . The KSPC is part of KISA (Korean Information Security Agency), an affiliated agency of the Ministry of Information and Communication in South Korea.
3. Directive 2002/58/EC of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector.
4. Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.
5. The Australian Spam Act entered into force on 12 December 2003 with all provisions coming into effect from 10 April 2004.
6. For instance, spam will only be dealt with in Singapore if it causes actual damage to the receiving computer terminal or server. Such an act would then constitute an offence under Singapore's Computer Misuse Act. Canada is an example of a country which regulates spam under its existing data protection laws.
7. Commission Nationale l'Informatique et des Libertés: “le publipostage electronique et la protection donnés personnelles” 14 October 1999.
8. Recital 40, Directive 2002/58/EC.
9. According to the preamble to the US Can-Spam Act 2003, unsolicited commercial electronic mail is currently estimated to account for over half of all electronic mail traffic, up from 7 percent in 2001.
10. A study conducted by analyst company, Radicati Group, indicated that spam will cost companies in excess of US$198bn by 2007 (Robert Jacques, “Spam will cost businesses US$20.5bn this year” www.vunet.com 10 June 2003).
11. Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
12. Directive 97/66/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector.
13. Directive 97/7/EC of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts.
14. Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market.
15. Article 12(1) Telecommunications Privacy Directive.
16. Austria, Denmark, Finland and Italy.
17. Recital 4, Privacy Directive.
18. See footnote 8.
19. s.2 Privacy Regulations.
20. § 14(b) Can-Spam Act 2003.
21. Messages sent by way of voice calls using the telephone are specifically excluded in s.5(5), Spam Act 2003. Further, the Australian Spam Regulations 2004 No.56 excludes facsimile messages from the definition as well.
22. Down from 12.8% in 2002 (Symantec).
23. Sophos Plc, “Sophos outs ‘dirty dozen’ spam producing countries”, ( http://www.sophos.com/spaminfo/articles/dirtydozen.html , 26 February 2004)
24. Under Californian law, emails may not be sent out without advance approval from recipients, which is not specifically required in the Can-Spam Act 2003.
25. Enforcement of offences committed outside Australia under the Act would pose a problem however. This is acknowledged in “A Practical Guide for Businesses” prepared by the Australian National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE), which provides practical information for businesses about the Spam Act. Australia on its own would find it very difficult to deal with overseas spammers. However, Australia intends to enter into international partnerships/arrangements with other countries to fight spam. Therefore, the Act as it reads ensures that there is an appropriate enforcement regime in place to deal with spammers outside Australia as soon as international arrangements are in place.
26. Recital 41 & Article 13(2), Privacy Directive.
27. Louveaux and Asinari, “New European Directive 2002/58 On The Processing Of Personal Data And The Protection Of Privacy In The Electronic Communications Sector – Some Initial Remarks” (Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 2003).
28. s.5(3)(A) & (B) Can-Spam Act 2003.
29. Leyden, “South Korea Mulls Spam Curfew”, www.theregister.com , 27 February 2004.
30. s.17 Spam Act 2003.
31. Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.
32. s.5(a)(2) Can-Spam Act 2003.
33. s.5(d)(1) Ibid.