LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
Spam Laws Worldwide: Australia
Posted by Rebecca Bolin on Tuesday, February 10 @ 23:31:10 EST Governance
As the US spam legislation debate rages, perhaps there is something to be learned from the recent efforts of other countries, starting with the Australian regulations scheduled to start in April.

Australia seemed to be off to a good start in the fight against spam when it charged a "Nigerian" spammer last October. In December, it took an even stronger stance with new regulations after months of debate. Before the standardized law, Australia's spam policy was a legal mess. Desperate attempts to stop spammers using lawsuits accusing liability for negligent business injury (tortious claims of unlawful interference with a business), claims of trespass into one's computer, or contract extrapolations seemed to be on the horizon in some parts of Australia. Spammers seemed unstoppable and had even won lawsuits destroying spam-blocking systems for blocking their "advertising" using discrimination claims. Legislative guidance was sorely needed.

The regulations' grace period of 120 days after its December royal approval expires April 11, 2004. The law fines individuals and businesses per day of violations, with a fine of up to A$1.1 million a day for repeat violators. The law will be enforced by the Australian Communications Authority, which was given funding before the legislation was even passed. The legislation is far-reaching, including all messages sent to or from any Australian email addresses and mobile phone messages. It aggressively requires opt-in requirements and bans tools for harvesting addresses. Australia is also launching a twelve month ad campaign and has pledged to work with Korean intelligence.

The Communications Authority's shoestring budget of A$300,000 for the first year could be problematic. Although there is a civil penalties scheme, the Authority has the exclusive right to issue formal and informal warnings or request injunctions or civil proceedings; it could have problems fulfilling all these roles on such a small budget (about US$230,000). Also, the legislation must be reviewed in two years and could face major changes after elections. Electronic Frontiers Australia cautions extreme anti-spam measures could allow unfair searches in their enforcement. Though not perfect, Australia has taken an aggressive stance toward working internationally and domestically to stop spam.

For other countries, see the Spam Laws Worldwide Index.

 
Related Links
· More about Governance
· News by Rebecca Bolin


Most read story about Governance:
''Democracy in the Digital Age'' Conference Report

Options

 Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

 Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend

Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Banning tools (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 @ 01:56:39 EST
The DMCA is draconian because it outlaws tools which can be used to infringe copyrights so why are these laws good because they outlaw tools which can be used to help spam? Generally speaking isn't it better to outlaw behaviour and not technology?

I can even think of reasonable uses for email harvesting software.


[ Reply to This ]


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die

Contributors retain copyright interests in all stories, comments and submissions.
Everything else copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.

This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
The latest version is currently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.

You can syndicate our news with backend.php

Page Generation: 0.267 Seconds