New Zealand finally has anti-spam law
Having a law against spamming is definitely a good thing. Without an anti-spam law, there was a risk of New Zealand becoming a haven for spammers. In fact, the NZ-based spammers I've interviewed have all used the "I'm not doing anything that's illegal here" excuse when asked about their activities. Well, now it is.
I notice that some commentators make much out of the fact that the new law won't stop spam. That's a Captain Obvious statement, given that most spam emanates from overseas and is generated by criminals who know they're breaking the law and don't care. The point of the new law is to make spamming illegal and to prevent spammers from setting up in NZ.
It's disappointing to see that the two MPs for ACT voted against the law, clearly as yet another contrarian publicity stunt. Those who voted for Hide ought to bail him up on the way he represents his electorate in Parliament, because this sort of token clowning isn't helpful for anyone.
What remains to be seen is how effective the enforcement mechanisms will be. The New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) will be the "cops" and may need more resources to handle enforcement. Businesses sending out emails will need to study the new law to make sure they're compliant with it; clear guidelines are required here, and I hope the government publishes some soon. The key principle is that people must opt in to receive promotional emails, so organisations must keep proof of that.
There's also the issue that Microsoft brought up, being able to go after spammers for civil damages as well. Microsoft seems to have had success in the US suing spammers, but I'm not sure if that strategy would work in NZ; the US has a different legal tradition when it comes to law suits.
Tag(s):
More information
Other related posts:
This is how ridiculous the whole Intellectual Property Rights situation is
What SOPA means for business and innovation
Fritz!Box in the house
Comment by Josh Rowe, on 5-Sep-2007 19:29
Good work! The more countries that have good anti-spam laws, the more it pushes out countries who don't have that legislation and puts them into the third world of the internet.
Comment by Antony Dean, on 25-Oct-2007 11:55
I don't agree. This law is another stupid ill-advised travesty of legislation. What they've banned isn't "spam". Yes something was needed but what we've got now will be about as effective in the fight against spam as a law banning the use of different coloured socks in your mouth. I wouldn't usually listen to anything a politician says, but Rodney's view seems to be coming from experience rather than rhetoric.
I have been active in the fight against spam since the late 80s, from what I've seen, NONE of spam as we know it comes from NZ (not the 0.1% cited everywhere). Spammers need friendly ISPs and abusable infrastructure - NZ is too small. Years ago I did have to deal with someone trying to spam from Xtra and I had them shut down in minutes.
Spam is unsolicited *bulk* mail, the law is wrong. This has been proven very clearly in legislative cock-ups overseas, over and over again. Why NZ had to "baaaa" its way into the same predicament disturbs me, I guess our politicians are sheep who must follow the US and Australia, and by definition, so are we, the voters.
Comment by Dion Blundell, on 13-Dec-2007 20:05
I notice Microsoft are all for this new law. It's a huge pity they don't comply themselves. I cannot unsubscribe from their emails, as they have no unsubscribe link in their spam/emails. They do have a link that purports to be an unsubscribe link, but all it does is take you to a sign-in page for something I don't understand. When I enter my email address to remember a lost password, I can't type the CAPTCHA characters in correctly, don't know why they all look ok. The only other possibility is that my email address is wrong, which it isn't as I'm still receiving spam from Microsoft... sigh
Add a comment
Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted.
E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.
Comment by Hamish, on 28-Feb-2007 14:21
Yeah, about bloody time. Although it isn't surprising that Rodney would vote against - he's a stickler for his ideals, however divorced from reality they might be.