overview
framework
features
New Zealand
prosecutions
codes
related
Guides:
Security &
InfoCrime
Governance
Networks
Censorship &
Free Speech
related
Profiles:
Messaging
Forgery
Adult Content
industry
Aust
Constitution
& cyberspace
|
codes and responses
This page considers anti-spam industry codes, community
education campaigns, international agreements and the
responsibility of spam recipients.
It covers -
Information
about overseas spam prosecutions is here.
industry initiatives
Hitherto the main action in Australia regarding spam might
be regarded as having come from the Internet Industry
Association (IIA)
and the Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email, Australia
(CAUBE.AU).
The IIA NoSpam
program, for example, focussed ISP
and other business support for development of an effective
regime that addresses consumer concerns, is both legally
and technologically sound, and does not involve onerous
obligations for small to medium-sized ISPs.
ISPs are a 'choke point' in regulating spam. However,
international law and end-user action (eg using personal/corporate
filters and not responding to spam) are important. 'False
positives' and other problems mean that filtering by ISPs
is not the whole solution or one without cost.
It is envisaged that industry bodies such as the IIA will
work with NOIE and the ACA in promoting development and
use of technological measures designed to reduce or eliminate
spam.
Those measures will presumably centre on action to close
open relays (used as an unintentional conduit for spam)
and the utilisation of spam filters and "spam interception"
services. In 2004 the Australian Burea of Statistics reported
that as of October 2003 some 384 (or 58%) Australian ISPs
offered a filtering product as either a free or charged
service and - more uncertaintly - that 0.8 million subscribers
had adopted a filtering product.
industry codes
The legislation is to given effect through regulations
and through industry codes.
In June 2003 the Australian Communications Authority and
Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF) announced
that the telecommunications industry was covered by a
formal industry code covering bulk unsolicited Short Message
Service (SMS) marketing,
aka speam.
The code (PDF),
to "promote the responsible use of SMS for legitimate
marketing purposes", is to be underpinned by financial
penalties if operators fail to comply with an ACA direction
to abide by its provisions.
Features of the code are -
- a
requirement that operators not send marketing messages
to customers unless they have specifically requested
them, or otherwise given prior consent
- operators
must include a 'Recognised Identifier' in messages to
enable recipients to identify the sender
- recipients
must be offered a low-cost, convenient method for opting
out of receiving further marketing messages (such as
a freecall number)
-
operators will be required to give effect to customers'
opt-out notices as soon as practicable (generally within
48 hours of receiving it).
An
additional code of practice was being developed by the
Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA), "covering
marketing by all mobile wireless technologies", including
SMS, multimedia message services (MMS), Wireless Application
Protocol (WAP) and 3G technologies.
In July 2004 the Internet Industry Association sought
public comment on a draft Code
that encompasses -
- ISPs
configuring their own networks to make them less susceptible
to spam attacks
-
providing customer information and empowerment solutions
to help them avoid spam
-
advising customers on how to make formal complaints
to the regulator about businesses sending spam; and
-
providing reasonable assistance to lawful investigations
of illegal spam activity
In
March 2005 the Australian Communications Authority (ACA)
registered an Australian eMarketing Code
of Practice that sets industry-wide rules and
guidelines for sending of commercial electronic messages
in accordance with the Spam Act 2003.
The Code was developed by an eMarketing Code Development
Committee comprising representatives from direct marketing
and advertising industry associations, e-marketers and
small business groups, chaired by the CEO of the Australian
Direct Marketing Association (ADMA).
The ACA noted that registration enables the organisation
to enforce compliance with the code rules on all members
of the e-marketing industry (defined by the Telecommunications
Act 1997) rather than signatories to the code. The
code supposedly provides consumers with "a clear
understanding of e-marketing industry processes and benchmarks
for sending commercial electronic messages". The
1997 Act defines e-marketers as those who use e-mail or
mobile telephones as their main marketing tool or who
market in this way by contract or arrangement on behalf
of a third party.
community education
CAUBE.AU notes that
While
education cannot address the problem of unrepentant
spammers who would happily destroy the Internet if it
would earn them a few bucks in change, there are those
who spam simply because they are not aware of the destructive
nature of that method of advertising. We believe that
many of these people, when given a reasonable and balanced
representation of the facts, will agree that spam is
an inexcusably unethical method of promoting their products.
The
federal government announced in December 2003 that the
National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE) - now
replaced by AGIMO - was to coordinate a
broad-based
educational program focusing on both business and user
communities in partnership with such groups as NetAlert,
the IIA, the AIIA and others.
That
program was to target "user communities", with
an emphasis on spam-reduction and avoidance strategies.
The effectiveness of the program is uncertain, particularly
given past poor performance by NetAlert
(somewhat cruelly described as a body in search of a mission,
distinguished so far by expensive events and publication
of mouse-mats), uncertain commitment by the 500-member
Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA)
and lack of enthusiasm by marketers
outside that organisation.
The program will also target business communities, focussing
on legitimate online marketing and reflecting past strategy
documents such as the 2000 Treasury Department guide
Building Consumer Sovereignty in Electronic Commerce:
A best practice model for business.
As noted on the first page of this profile, NOIE/AGIMO
will work with government, business and other groups to
develop "best practice guidelines in electronic messaging".
The education campaigns - which do not appear to have
had a substantial impact as of June 2004 - are likely
to feature past advice regarding responses to offensive/illegal
content. NOIE noted in December 2003 that
if
you receive spam that advertises or promotes content
that you believe is offensive or may be illegal, you
can complain
to the Australian Broadcasting Authority [subsequently
merged with the Australian Communication Authority as
ACMA] about that content.
Pyramid schemes involving participants in Australia
can be reported
to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission.
Stock spams sent by Australians, or about Australian
companies can be reported to the Australian Securities
& Investments Commission (ASIC).
... if the spam contains a clear indication that a crime
has been committed, or you have fallen victim to an
email scam, then you should report it to the police.
That reporting is commendable, although of uncertain value
given the lack of expertise within those organisations
and low resourcing for spam-related action.
international action
The legislation includes provisions anticipating Australia's
entry into multilateral arrangements with other countries
regarding regulation of spam, with those agreements to
be given effect through regulations under the Spam
Act.
The Government has showcased the Memorandum of Understanding
with South Korea highlighted earlier in this profile,
claiming that "other countries have indicated a desire
to do so once the legislation is finalised".
This site notes concerns regarding the weakness of the
Australian legislation in relation to the EU Directives,
an echo of problems with EU acceptance
of Australia's privacy regime.
action by spam recipients
Action by consumers is of critical importance, irrespective
of legislation, and takes two forms.
The first is non-response to junk mail. As suggested in
discussing user self-help,
do not -
- buy
products or services that are promoted using spam
- acknowledge
receipt of the junk mail by responding to the sender
The
second is ongoing maintenance of security on personal
computers and SME networks, given that non-corporate machines
are increasingly being hijacked by spammers.
::
|
|
blaw