Craig Whitmore wrote:
I spoke to Ryan Hamlin before the Dompost, and really wouldn't say that
MS *opposes* the proposed legislation - which has yet to be read in
parliament. On the contrary, when talking to Hamlin it was apparent that
MS is in favour of a legal solution to combat spam simply because there
is no technology fix for it. Looking at the SenderID/SPF kludge, and
comparing that to e.g. MS suing the speedos of "Snotty Scotty" Richter,
I'd have to agree. You have to hurt the spammers hard and remove the
financial incentives to carpet-bomb people's inboxes.
Also, MS wants the law to leave room for private entities - like ISPs -
to be able to sue spammers so that the enforcement doesn't just lie with
our overworked and under-resourced government departments (the ComCom
and DIA). This seems like a good thing, as it would allow ISPs to go
after spammers (maybe in conjunction with the government) who have
caused them monetary loss. MS also proposes liability protection for
ISPs when they are being (ab)used as spam conduits and for
blocking/filtering spam. I think this part should be defined better,
however, because there are ISPs that take spammy money quite happily
while saying they're not responsible for what their customers do. Yes,
I've seen examples in NZ... Simon mentioned one already elsewhere in the
Microsoft is lobbying for existing business relationships to be
recognised in the new law. Businesses may have customer relationships
that pre-date the law, but in order to use those, a company would have
to seek permission from everyone once the legislation comes into effect.
For instance, lots of people sign up for things and forget about it -
under the proposed law, companies sending messages to them would incur
big penalties unless they somehow get their customers to opt in.
While I can see Microsoft's point, the whole "PEBR" thing would have to
be framed very carefully so as to avoid abuse. Hamlin said "PEBR"
messages would have to be tagged with something like "ADV" and also be
relevant to the existing relationship. That is, if I purchase
product/service A from company Y, it doesn't mean they can spam me with
messages for product/service B, C and D. Defining all this in law and
eventually testing it will be a challenge though.
The Article Quotes:
"Mr Hamlin says his understanding is that there are just three big
spammers operating in New Zealand, responsible for producing about 5 per
cent of the spam that arrives in New Zealanders' inboxes."
The question is.. who are these NZ spammers? Where does he get this
Ask Tom Pullar-Strecker or Ryan Hamlin that... don't think anyone on
NZNOG would know.
Would like to know the answer as well.