By silicon.com, 19 July 2006 16:55
Though most of us have found ways to live with spam - simply because it's been around so long - it continues to be one of the most pervasive IT-related pests.
There are so many things not to like about it - the burden on ISPs to transmit the junk messages, the drain on IT departments' resources to store them and of course the annoyance to users who lose significant time each day pressing that delete key to clear their inboxes.
So you can understand both this publication's hope and depression at recent news the UK government may revise our flawed anti-spam laws - hope that they'll get it right this time around, depression that it's taken so long to come about.
silicon.com has argued for tougher spam laws before and we'll do it again.
Legislation is admittedly not a perfect solution. Even with the toughest laws, it can be difficult to discover spammers' identities, let alone press charges against them. And given that spam is an international problem, any one nation's laws can only accomplish so much. Getting ISPs involved in the hunt for spammers could help.
Yet it's imperative the UK cracks down on the senders of junk email with stronger legislation. For one it sends a message to the rest of the world that it is unacceptable - and thus could help in convincing other countries to go after spammers.
And evidence is emerging that anti-spam laws are effective. According to some sources, the amount of spam originating in the US, the number one producer of the stuff, is dropping - which some attribute to the country's CAN-Spam Act and law enforcement's successes shutting down spammers operating there.
The UK could learn something from the US here - in giving the police and the Information Commissioner's Office more power to track down spammers and in creating more stringent penalties than the meagre fines provided in the current UK law: the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations.
Trade and industry minister Margaret Hodge told MPs this week that "the government is actively considering whether to revise the relevant legislation".
Our message: don't take too long considering. Get on with the action.
Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. Simon Cox
Over 2 years ago I started to use the online email filtering service Bopspam (based in Wales) and you might find the figures interesting...
May 2004:
email= 592(51.6%)
spam= 554 (48.2%)
May 2006:
email= 1273 (29.9%)
spam= 2973 (70%)
This month I am already on 77.7% spam.
Legislation that works is needed in the UK desperately.
2. Richard
Email should have honest "subjects" & "senders":
Legitimate businesses, especially new small businesses, need a low cost method of offering their services to others. Email is a very useful channel.
That's the problem with "do not email" type lists.
Most of us would be happy to see the end of scam emails for porn, fake medicines, fake financial products etc.
There must be some way that these scams could be stopped, without impeding legitimate business?
It would greatly help if all emails had to have an honest "sender;" an honest descriptive "subject;" and an honest "return address."
Note. Many of use have a legitimate need to send email from a different domain to that given as the "from" or "return" address.
3. Jorge Santos
EmailXT is a promising solution to the whole email problem: It is based on relationships, is compatible with the current mail transport and has new features like encryption, automatic address book, and completely eliminates spam.
Still giving its first steps but I guess it's worth keeping an eye on it...
http://www.emailxt for those interested...
JS