| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 32886 | 2003-04-30 17:57:00 | wimpy antispam law | Clueless (181) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 140400 | 2003-04-30 17:57:00 | this doesn't go far enough! (cnn.netscape.cnn.com) but it's a start.. One worry is the "banning of software to forge headers" does this mean the text editor becomes illegal? .Clueless |
Clueless (181) | ||
| 140401 | 2003-04-30 19:48:00 | Hmm.. So as Outlook Express has the potential to make forged headers I assume that is going to become illegal as well?!? Could prove fun since Microsoft has put it's name foward to be part of the project :p Wonder if that includes Telnet as well?!? Because Headders can be easily forged in there ;) Just because it's a law/becoming a law doesn't mean it's going to be that simple just to stop spam. Spammers won't care about using a fake addy or forged headders CyberChuck |
cyberchuck (173) | ||
| 140402 | 2003-04-30 23:51:00 | For a more "local" perspective, see Australia's National Office of the Information Economy (NOIE) proposals at: www.noie.gov.au/publications/NOIE/spam/final_report/ This report is at least being noted by the NZ govt, which is making vague noises about TransTasman collaboration. NOIE perhaps provides a more appropriate "crack in the door" for the insertion of our own crowbar than the Virginian legislation. The NOIE report includes sections on "US State Spam Laws" (there are many) proposals for US Federal law and pertinent law in other jurisdictions as well as a useful list ("Spam Regulatory Matrix") of existing Australian law on interference with emails, forgery, deceptive business conduct, etc, which could be employed against spam, and many of which have parallels in NZ law. For example, the NZ Crimes Act, under Forgery (section 263) clearly states that it is an offence to utter a forged document; and the definiton of a forged document includes any document: "of which the whole or any material part purports to be made by any person who did not make it or authorise its making; or "in which...the time or place of its making, where either is material, or any number or distinguishing mark identifying the document, where either is material, is falsely stated" Electronic documents are specifically provided for under this section. I cannot understand why it has not AFAIK ever been invoked against spam or software piracy. The question of possession of legitimate software which may be used for a criminal purpose has been well canvassed under the still unpassed "anti-hacking" measure, Crimes Amendment Bill #6. A requirement to prove intent to use, or to persuade customers to use, the software illegally, was written in at one of the committee stages. I would imagine a similar provision would be made in respect of software which might aid spamming, should we ever get round to a law. Steve B. |
Steve Bell (1009) | ||
| 1 | |||||