Wednesday 3rd September 2003
launch of anti-spam Bill in bid to eliminate costly nuisance e-mails
spam costing Irish business up to €188 million each year
Spam is a cause of considerable irritation for computer users, but perhaps more importantly it costs Irish business almost €200 million every year, according to Simon Coveney TD, Fine Gael spokesman on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. spam is the main factor assisting the spread of computer viruses that force Irish business to spend a fortune constantly upgrading their anti-virus software."This Bill will require Internet Service Providers to filter and reduce spam e-mails and it also makes it an offence to send commercial text messages. This will help to reduce the rapid spread of viruses by filtering out mass-produced commercial e-mails. One virus after another has invaded PCs across the globe in recent weeks, causing untold damage and adding to the cost of the fight against Internet crime.
"The top 1,100 companies in Ireland employ 574,679 people, or an average of 509 people in each company. A recent UK study estimated the cost of spam to businesses at €57,000 per year for those employing more than 500 people. If the same costs were to reasonably apply in Ireland then the top 1,100 companies would face a cost of €62.7 million per year. With twice this number of people employed in the economy in smaller companies the cost to business across the economy comes to a total of €188 million.
"Communications Minister Dermot Ahern indicated this summer that he is open to introducing legislation to control spam. Today I am launching Fine Gael's draft bill which we feel can deal comprehensively with this problem. I would urge Minister Ahern to take our Bill on board by introducing legislation this autumn."
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION (ANTI-spam) BILL 2003
_______________________EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Introduction It is widely recognised that spam represents a substantial cost for businesses' around the world. A recent EU study estimates that spamming results in lost productivity of at least €10 billion worldwide annually. Equally, it represents a sizeable problem for Irish businesses and could legitimately be described as a hindrance to the development of business in this country.The growth of spam has increased dramatically in recent years and has now become problematic on e-mail accounts as well as on cellular phones.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of this Bill is to prohibit the sending of unwanted commercial e-mails and text messages.The responsibility for ensuring that the Bill is implemented will be vested in the Commission for Communications Regulation, which was established in 2002. Provisions of the Bill The Bill is divided into 5 parts. Part 1 deals with preliminary matters; Part 2 deals with e-mail spam and Part 3 deals with text message spam. Part 4 confers additional functions on the Commission for Communications Regulation. Part 5 of the Act deals with the Minister's power to make regulations and the prosecution of offences.
Section 2 defines a number of terms, including " e-mail" , " internet service provider", and " text message" .
Section 3 defines and unsolicited e-mail (spam) as being an e-mail which carries an advertisement, sexually oriented material or a virus or which is designed to affect computer servers. For legislative purposes, this definition is more broad than the meaning attributed to the word spam in common usage.
Section 4 makes it an offence to send e-mail spam or to use a computer to send spam or to collect e-mail addresses for spam.
Section 5 is intended to ensure that those who expressly request or authorise spam can continue to receive e-mail of that nature. Every spam type e-mail must contain an " opt-out facility" which allows the recipient to withdraw his or her authorisation to receive such e-mails.
Section 6 places an obligation on internet service providers to utilise technology to filter spam. This section also imposes a strict requirement of privacy on internet service providers so as to ensure that the content of e-mails cannot be disclosed. In addition, this section indemnifies the internet service providers against any legal action for the inadvertent deletion of legitimate e-mails.
Section 7 defines a " commercial text message" as being an unsolicited text message which is comprised of advertisements or other material which the recipient must pay for.
Section 8 makes it an offence to send text message spam or to use a phone or computer to send such messages.
Section 9 is intended to ensure that those who expressly request or authorise spam text messages can continue to receive them. Every spam type text message must contain an " opt-out facility" which, in accord with section 2 of the Bill allows the recipient to withdraw his or her authorisation by sending a message to that effect free of charge.
Section 10 recognises that the problem of spam is an international one and that the ultimate resolution of the problem of spam lies at the co-ordination of national initiatives at an international level. Accordingly, this section obliges the Commission for Communications Regulation to participate with anti-spam initiatives at an international level.
Section 11 confers responsibility for the provisions of this Act in the Commission for Communications Regulation which was established in 2002. Section 12 allows the Minister to make regulations to ensure that this act is fully effective.
Section 13 imposes financial and custodial penalties for breaches of sections 4 or 8 of the Bill.
Section 14 allows the Commission to prosecute summary offences under the Bill.
see also spam White Paper published [zip file]
remember spamming is still a losers business
White Paper published [doc zip file]
Ireland’s antispam Bill
More on spam ...
Who are the worst spammers on the net? Click here to see...
Getting inundated with spam? Need help? Click here for a free download.
Page updated: Tuesday, 3 August, 2004 16:45
Filtering the dross of the Net
June 22, 2003
Much spam can be identified by the senders e-mail address format. The name of the sender is often repeated in the e-mail address but is immediately followed by random letters or a score mark and letters. The latest batch of spam deploys the use of multiple spaces after the From: header, for example: From: "DrossPerson" <drossperson@dross.com>, increasing the difficlty of filtering or blacklisting such mailings.Other examples are:"Darcy Hager" darcy.hagerxv@miesto.sk; "Sharon Burks" <sburkslm@amhb.ab.ca>; "Jewel Ratliff" <jratliffbn@ifrance.com>; "Stanley Griffin" <stanleygriffin_wd@carleton.ca>; "Deloris Collier" <deloriscollier_el@hisword.com>; "Robert M. Kennedy" <rm.kennedyoo@msn.com>. Note the additional letters after the senders‘ names in the actual email address, enclosed within the <>.
It is a pathetic attempt to make the address appear genuine, and pathetic is the operative word. But then, spammers are pathetic people. Strange that the IPs are blatantly getting away with supporting spammers too. If some jerk kept banging on my front door trying to get me to buy something after being told not to call, I'd be likely to tickle his nose with a touch from a lump hammer. No joke. So why do IPs get away with constantly breaching privacy protocols and engaging in harassment, for that is what it is?
Spammers go to ridiculous extent to hide their true details. They send out obfuscated web addresses, they deliberately disguise the IP origin of their mail, sometimes fraudulently. They are afraid to show themselves. They cannot be open and true. They have no interest in normal polite business protocol. They are the trash of the Internet.
They get away with it because greedy IP services remain uncontrolled and operate at the same level as the trash dealers that they give space to.
Of particularly bad taste was the spam sent out just before 11 September, which used the subject line DO YOU REMEMBER 9/11--DID YOU CHANGE? then went on to promote real estate management sales.
As for the ISPs who send automated messages to complaints stating that such may be the only contact they would make due to the "high level of complaints received" users would be advised to blacklist any such ISP for the following reasons:
1. If they receive such a high volume of complaints why are they not doing something about it?
2. Would you accept such a pathetic response to a complaint made anywhere else?Now I know you are not supposed to blow your cool. I am not. But I expect when I raise a complaint of persistent harassment of my mailboxes, the one courteous thing would be a proper reply.
Yet worse are the people who continue to afford spammers the ability to operate and do so out of their own greed, whilst effectively ignoring any complaints sent to them. They are no different to the irritating salesperson who constantly knocks uninvited at your door despite being told not to.
I have taken the decision to publish the names of some of the worst spamming networks, after having tried without success to communicate with them in an effort to enlist their co-operation in ending the transmission of UCE from their servers to my mailboxes
Make your own mind up regarding who is running responsible services or otherwise. Check out the list of spamming IPs.
Some of the more prominently and continually offending networks include
shaidc.com
charter.net
verio.net
attbi.com
rr.com
charter.net
ns.chinanet.cn.net
genuity.com
cndata.com
sprint.net
online.sh.cn
china-netcom.comIn addition, IP ranges starting with the numbers listed below also accommodate persistent spammers.
4.
12.
24.
61.
66.
67.
68.
80.
200.
211.
216.
217.
218.
220.The above have continued to send high volumes of spam on a daily basis despite having received continually raised complaints.
Further details relating to spam are available from this website by clicking here.
The Internet is an open forum. That does not and should not mean that it should be open to unchallenged abuse by unscrupulous sales techniques that do very little other than irritate all who receive their junk.
Anyone interested in communicating with this site in relation to spam, or who may have ideas regarding the same, should contact me
I would also like to hear of any ISP that refuses to acknowledge mail sent in relation to spam complaints. This refers to mail sent to ISP abuse departments and to which a reply is wanted other than the standard automated acknowledgement. It does not refer to forwarded copies of spam.
Whose responsibility?
Somebody has to take responsibility to close down persistent spammers. But who? If you or I were to send out postal letters on headed notepaper belonging to somebody else with the intention of making the recipient think the letter originates from that source, whereas it is actually promoting the sender’s own product or service, then you or I would be open to charges of fraud and deception.Companies of course cannot possibly prevent someone else fraudulently using their identity before the act itself, unless they have advance knowledge. But what if somebody lodges a complaint that someone is fraudulently using the name of another company?
It is difficult for police to issue criminal proceedings unless deliberate deception with the intent of fraudulent gain or fraudulently obtaining a pecuniary advantage is intended. This is hardly the case with spam. Private prosecution absurdly places the cost of legal proceedings on the recipient of something they did not ask to receive and which might in fact be nuisance activity.
Spammers are forced to use temporary accounts as most responsible ISPs will quickly close down mail accounts known to send out mass mailings of spam. There are exceptions. Many ISPs refuse to take any really conclusive action against spammers, preferring to have their cake and eat it too.
In 2003 Ireland passed legislation outlawing spam It states that recipients will be able to instruct senders of Spam to cease forwarding such messages though how such matters will be enforced is less clear. [see related news item]
How many times have you had a response from an ISP disclaiming all and any responsibility for forged use of their mail domain headers?
If you or I sent out hundreds of letters purporting to be from The White House or from Downing Street, it would not be cost effective is a common one excuse of those who might take action to prevent the same. Yet what did these people set up business as ISP operators for?
It was certainly not out of the benign goodness of their charitable hearts. They set up in business for one reason only, money and profits. And many are willing to eschew their responsibilities for the sake of their profits, regardless of the inconvenience this may bring to others.
Those who would follow such a course of disclaiming any responsibility or requirement to take action against fraudsters are just as guilty of incorrect conduct as those who forge identity details.
There is big money to me made through spam mail, that is without doubt. There will always be some responses to a round of bulk mailing that will outstrip the outlay costs and result in profit to the spammers. But would you be happy if your personal details were released by your bank, for instance, to any salesman who wished to have them?
I have evidence that some ISPs have released mailing details to spammers, garnished from their servers. This evidence has been gathered by contacting the ISP by e-mail with an e-mail address that has not been used elsewhere at any time. Lo and behold, within a few days of contacting the ISP using such an address, spam was then sent to that very same address. In some cases, the originating ISP of the spam was within the range assigned to the destination of my complaint. The offending ISPs are among those listed above.
Internationally agreed legislation based on agreed protocol is needed that impacts upon the providers of e-mail services that send out spam. They must also be compelled by law to reveal the identity of a spammer when requested to do so by the recipient of spam sent through their system.
Newsmedianews - working together for a cleaner Internet
news resources
Afghanistan | Africa | Albania | Algeria | Andorra | Angola | Anguilla | Antigua | Argentina | Armenia | Aruba | Asia | Australia | Austria | Azerbaijan | Bahamas | Bahrain | Balkans | Bangladesh | Barbados | Belarus | Belgium | Belize | Benin | Bermuda | Bhutan | Bosnia | Bolivia | Botswana | Brazil | Brunei | Bulgaria | Burkina | Burma | Burundi | Cambodia | Cameroon | Canada | Cape Verde | Caribbean | Cayman Islands | Cen African Rep | Chad | Chile | China | Christmas Island | Columbia | Comoros | Congo | Cook Island | Costa Rica | Croatia | Cuba | Cyprus | Czech/Slovakia | Denmark | Djibouti | Dominican Republic | Dubai | East Timor | Ecuador | Egypt | El Salvador | Equatorial Guinea | Eritrea | Estonia | Ethiopia | Europe | Faroe Islands | Fiji | Finland | France | Gabon | Gambia | Georgia | Germany | Ghana | Greece | Greenland | Grenada | Guadeloupe | Guam | Guatemala | Guinea | Guyana | Haiti | Holland | Honduras | Hong Kong | Hungary | Iceland | India | Indonesia | Iran | Iraq | Ireland | Israel | Italy | Ivory Coast | Jamaica | Japan | Jordan | Kazakhstan | Kenya | Kiribati | Korea | Kuwait | Kyrgyzstan | Laos | Latvia | Lebanon | Lesotho | Liberia | Libya | Lietchtenstein | Lithuania | London | Luxembourg | Macau | Macedonia | Madagascar | Malawi | Malaysia | Maldives | Mali | Malta | Marshall Islands | Martinique | Mauritania | Mauritius | Mexico | Micronesia | Moldova | Monaco | Mongolia | Montenegro | Montserrat | Morocco | Mozambique | Namibia | Nauru | New Zealand | Nicaragua | Niue | Niger | Nigeria | Northern Ireland | Norway | Oman | Pakistan | Palau | Palestine | Panama | Paraguay | Peru | Philippines | Pitcairn Islands | Poland | Portugal | Qatar | Romania | Russia | Rwanda | Samoa | San Marino | Sao Tomé | Saudi Arabia | Scandinavia | Senegal | Serbia | Seychelles | Sierra Leone | Singapore | Slovakia | Slovenia | Solomon Islands | Somalia | South Africa | South Americas | Spain | Sri Lanka | St Kitts | St Lucia | St Pierre | St Vincent | Sudan | Suriname | Swaziliand | Sweden | Switzerland | Syria | Taiwan | Tajikistan | Tanzania | Thailand | Tibet | Togo | Tonga | Trinidad | Tunisia | Turkey | Turkmenistan | Turks & Caicos | Tuvalu | Uganda | Ukraine | United Kingdom | United States | Uruguay | Uzbekistan | Vanuatu | Venezuela | Vietnam | Virgin Islands | Walli & Futuna | Yemen | Zambia | Zimbabwe | World
Human Rights | Science | Journalism | Music | Showbiz | Sport | Technology
Clickable News Globe
Top | Privacy | Forum | Comment MP3 Sounds | Links | Publicity | Contact
On-line Editing | Publish news | Guestbook | Site Status | Site Map
Seed Newsvine
© Newsmedianews—