|
|
|
In This Issue
Editorial Board
IT Law Society Officers |
|
The Philippine IT Law Journal Spamming the World Spam, spam, spam, spam.....no, no, no it is not the kind that we eat. This one is a technical term referring to unsolicited e-mail messages appearing in your inbox. These messages are called by many other names, but the most commonly used term to describe it is "spam." There are a lot of theories abounding in the Internet as to the reason behind the name but the most reliable is a story, rumored to have originated from the MUD/MUSH community, told by blue haired former news administrator Nathan J. Mehl and summarized in www.cybernothing.org:
Spam, a formerly harmless form of electronic advertisement, is now gaining attention from the legislative arm of various governments, notably of the United States, Australia, and the European Union. Complaints of the end-users inconvenienced by spamming are mounting. The Australian government drafted its version of an anti-spam law because 50% of e-mails received by end-users are spam that resulted in increased download time and Internet access costs. [ 2 ] In the United States, average Americans spend fifteen hours deleting spam compared to two hours in 2002. [ 3 ] Roughly the same numbers apply in other countries harassed by spam. Marketers who use this form of advertisement are seldom reputable as can be deduced from the most common forms of spam. Examples are:
The problem There are many spam-caused problems but the most pertinent is the cost borne by the end users. Sending spam mail is amazingly cheap since it only requires a 28.8 kbps dial-up modem and a PC. A spammer can send hundreds of bulk e-mails per hour. However, the effect of this falls on the end-users especially those who pay for personal e-mail services. In the technical sense, the Internet is a worldwide system of computer networks that allows data to be routed and rerouted before the data arrives to its destination. Each data passing through this network system contains the address of the source and the destination. The routers read the address and then send it to the appropriate router which repeats the same process until the data arrive to its Jestination. For example, atypical e-mail is virtually divided into "packets" for transmission because its mere size would limit the possibility of a single transmission. Dividing information into packets makes it more manageable and thus avoids data loss. The router can only read the packet at a time. This creates the delay in sending and receiving mails via the Internet. So just imagine if there was delay in sending and receiving e-mails before spams, how much more with the introduction of spams? The problem doesn't end there. Instead of processing only important mails, spams create a drag on the CPU of ISPs resulting in lost time and resources of end users. Data are lined up in queues of unsolicited mails, or SPAMS. [ 5 ] Spam abuse legislation In answer to the growing problem of spams, some countries took appropriate measures. These countries differ in whether subscribers should "opt-in" or "opt-out" spam. Opt-in is for the user to give consent before receiving spam, whereas optout is when the user automatically receives spam and expresses his/her refusal to accept such messages to the spammer via e-mail to whatever address the spammer gave.
Effective? Despite the best intentions of lawmakers, the power of anti-spam legislation is still highly criticized and doubted. The survey released by Pew Internet and American Life Project shows that even after the implementation of Can-Spam Act, spamming continues to be a problem. The survey further shows that:
Admittedly, legislation alone cannot stem the flood of spam in electronic mailboxes. "There's no silver bullet," Roger Dean, founder of EEMA, told ElectricNews.Net. "The solution is a combination of legislation, technology and educated users." [ 12 ] Anti-spam law in the Philippines? The spam issue in the Philippines is almost insignificant because the number of Filipinos hooked up to the Internet is sparse compared to other countries. Nevertheless, the Philippine government should also take up arms against spam in order to alleviate any cost that businesses and individuals may bear as a result of the malpractice. It is preferable if Congress adopts an opt-in policy. Generally, spams that clogged the end-user's inbox are unwanted and to make the reception of spams automatic will only give the spammer the freedom to send one message after another should the recipient opt to unsubscribe. This defeats the purpose of the law which was to save the end-user cost and time. The possibility that the end-user will spend more time unsubscribing to the spams should be avoided. Another advantage of an opt-in policy is that it can minimize the possibility of a minor's exposure to adult materials because majority of spams sent are pornographic. Sparnmers must provide true addresses to which the recipients will be able to send their refusal to receive any further spam. This is to make sure that the end-user is not robbed of his right to make a choice. If an unscrupulous spammer provides a false address, the end-user will be forced to bear the continual reception of message he no longer wants. Those two features of an anti-spam measure are most relevant for now. Endnotes 1. Southwick, Scott and Falk, J.D.(1998). The Net Abuse FAQ. Retrieved on 31 March 2004. http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html 2. Barton, Lindsay. Spain. Retrieved on 2 April 2004, from Australian Government: National Office for the Information Economy. http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/confidence/Improving/spam.htm 3. Studies Find More Spam Leaves Bad Taste In Inboxes(30 March 2004). Retrieved on 2 April 2004 from WBALChannel.com http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2961291/detail.html 4. The Problem. Retrieved on 2 April 2004 from CAUSE Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail http://www.cauce.org/about/problem.shtml 5. Ibid. 6. Junk e-mail runs rampant despite Can Spam Act (25 March 2004) Retrieved on 2 April 2004, from Yahoo! News http://story.news.yahoo com/news?tmpl=story&cid=711&ncid=711&e=2&u=/usatoday/ 20040325/tc_usatoday/junkemailrunsrampantdespitecanspanract 7.Carter, Richard (27 January 2004). No 'silver bullet' for the monster of junk email. Retrieved on 2 April 2004 from EUobserver. http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=14227 8. Williams, Martin (15 September 2003) Spam falls after South Korea strengthens e-mail law. Retrieved on 29 March 2004, from InfoWorld. http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/15/HNkoreaspam_1.html 9. Perrone, Jane (24 July 2003). Australia Tries to Can Spam. Retrieved on 29 March 2004 from Guardian Unlimited. http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/spam/story/0,13427,1005158,00.html 10. AFP (22 March 2004). Asian countries join US-led coalition against spa,. Retrieved on 2 April 2004 from smh.com.au. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/22/1079823278794.html 11. Sinrod, Eric J. (25 March 2004). Junk email runs rampant despite CAN-Spam Act. Retrieved on 2 April 2004 from USATODAY.com. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ericjsinrod/2004-03-25-sinrod_x.htm 12. Clark, Mathew (5 November 2003). No silver bullet for spam, says expert. Retrieved on 2 April 2004 from electricnews.net. http://www.enn.ie/news.html?code=9380566
|
|
Copyright (c) 2004-2006. E-Law Center, Arellano University School of Law. All Rights Reserved. Site maintained by the IT Law Society. |