more on BBC: UK bans spam messages (fwd)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
> X-Authentication-Warning: wells.cisco.com: ole set sender to ole () cisco com 
> using -f
> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <ole () cisco com>
> Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <ole () cisco com>
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
>
> Dave,
>
> Here is some feedback from a person in the UK:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:36:27 +0100
> From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel () firsthand net>
> To: 'Ole Jacobsen' <ole () cisco com>
> Subject: RE: [IP] BBC: UK bans spam messages (fwd)
>
> Ole
>
> If you think anything here is relevant to Dave and the list please forward.
>
> I've had a look over the statutory instrument and the following report has a
> reasonable summary of the obvious points.
>
> http://www.silicon.com/news/165-500001/1/6067.html?nl=20030919
>
> But there is a bit more to it from a net head perspective.
>
> From a policy perspective the crucial issue here remains the opt in / opt
> out argument. US companies with European subsidiaries may find themselves
> in a grey area.
>
> However with the recent history of "spam" of all sorts it would have to be a
> particularly bone headed commercial operator who today insists on opt out.
> So hopefully the opt in perspective will come to be seen as just good longer
> range commercial good sense as well as good manners.
>
> From an enforcement perspective we will have to see what prosecutions
> result.
>
> From an Internet perspective the statutory instrument refers more to legacy
> voice and fax services than it does specifically to electronic mail. It
> deals with telephone and fax with some fairly specific items but email is
> much less closely defined.
>
> The definition of electronic mail is in itself quite interesting:
>
> "electronic mail" means any text, voice, sound or image message sent over
> a public electronic communications network which can be stored in the
> network or in the recipient's terminal equipment until it is collected by
> the recipient and includes messages sent using a short message service;"
>
> ...so nothing Internet specific here. Indeed mentioning SMS by name
> indicates that mobile phone services are high in the mind of the drafter
> whereas Instant Messaging is included only by interpretation in the round.
>
> ...and again in terms of directory information:
>
> "(8) In this regulation, "telephone number" has the same meaning as in
> section 56(5) of the Communications Act 2003(a) but does not include any
> number which is used as an internet domain name, an internet address or an
> address or identifier incorporating either an internet domain name or an
> internet address, including an electronic mail address."
>
> So telephone directory information appears to be impacted but not whois or
> email directories Quite what happens with ENUM in regard e164 numbers in
> NAPTR I need to think about! and perhaps so will a judge in due course.
>
>
> ...and on disguising the source of an email:
>
> "23.A person shall neither transmit, nor instigate the transmission of, a
> communication for the purposes of direct marketing by means of electronic
> mail-
>
> (a) where the identity of the person on whose behalf the communication has
> been sent has been disguised or concealed; or
>
> (b) where a valid address to which the recipient of the communication may
> send a request that such communications cease has not been provided."
>
>
> ...which suggests that some types of remailers may be included in the
> provision unless the content makes it clear who the sender is which is in
> anycase now required as below.
>
> " 24.-(1) Where a public electronic communications service is used for the
> transmission of a communication for direct marketing purposes the person
> using, or instigating the use of, the service shall ensure that the
> following information is provided with that communication-
>
> (a) in relation to a communication to which regulations 19 (automated
> calling systems) and 20 (facsimile machines) apply, the particulars
> mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) and (b);
>
> (b) in relation to a communication to which regulation 21 (telephone calls)
> applies, the particulars mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) and, if the
> recipient of the callso requests, those mentioned in paragraph (2)(b).2)
>
> The particulars referred to in paragraph
> (1) are-
> (a) the name of the person;
> (b) either the address of the person or a telephone number on which he can
> be reached free of charge."
>
> Whether remailer services that change header information get caught up in
> the provisions or not probably is worth a further look. The only way round
> is to vet each mail has the correct identity in the content or to amend the
> content to place the original header information as a section in the copy,
> which would be very controversial.
>
> The Regulator OFCOM is also required to do some work as in
>
> "Register to be kept for the purposes of regulation 21"
>
> which
>
> "26.-(1) For the purposes of regulation 21 OFCOM shall maintain and keep
> up-to-date, in printed or electronic form, a register of the numbers
> allocated to individual subscribers, in respect of particular lines, who
> have notified them that they do not for the time being wish to receive
> unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes on the lines in question.
>
> (2) OFCOM shall remove a number from the register maintained under paragraph
>
> (1) wherethey have reason to believe that it has ceased to be allocated to the
> subscriber by whom they were notified pursuant to paragraph (1).
>
> (3) On the request of-
>
> (a) a person wishing to make, or instigate the making of, such calls as are
> mentioned in paragraph (1), or
>
> (b) a subscriber wishing to permit the use of his line for the making of
> such calls, for information derived from the register kept under paragraph
> (1), OFCOM shall, unless it is not reasonably practicable so to do, on the
> payment to them of such fee as is, subject to paragraph (4),required by
> them, make the information requested available to that person or that
> subscriber."
>
> ...to understand the reference to lines rather than numbers the definition
> is earlier given as:
>
> "(4) Any reference in these Regulations to a line shall, without prejudice
> to paragraph (3), be construed as including a reference to anything that
> performs the function of a line, and "connected", in relation to a line,
> is to be construed accordingly."
>
> ...again this is pure PSTN circuit based thinking.
>
> the rationale for this seems to be that potential spammers will exclude
> these numbers from their databases. Whereas the rationale of many email
> spammers seems to have been to harvest such useful "addresses" to spam.
>
> So there seems to be a conflict of expectations between what the pstn
> provisions suggest and those for "electronic mail".
>
> Again we may find this creating some further complications with ENUM
> implementation for +44 which is now in Trials until the end of 2003.
>
> What this Instrument is doing is defining "spam" as un-solicited and not by
> content, but requiring certain contact data in the content of solicited
> (allowed) spam.
>
> I don't see it having a big short term impact, which explains the recent
> bids at the Information Commissioners Office for an information resource on
> spam to aid consumers.
>
> It is more interesting to me to see how not very far government thinking has
> come in regards a packet switching world rather than circuit switching.
>
> Christian
>
> Christian de Larrinaga
> Network Brokers Ltd
> +44-7989-386778

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/