UK Policies to Prevent Online Spam

UK Policies to Prevent On trace emailSpam is unrivaled of the or so monumental ch every(prenominal)enges facing the net income today. Its rapid growth threatens the convenience and efficiency of electronic messages and undermines drug user confidence online more gener totallyy. Thus the very purpose of the earnings is under threat.In light of the above statement critically prize the toll of the United Kingdoms Privacy and electronic communication (EC directive) Regulations and assess the effectiveness of those provisions in defeating the challenges of ering armor.IntroductionNo just challenge hind end be mounted to the arguments that e-mail e mails atomic number 18 some(prenominal) a monumental threat to the integrity of a calculating machine system and a more generalised nuisance in common day to day access to the cyberspace. However, the title question call ines only atomic number 53 half of the true issues associated with email. The purpose attributed t o the net profit is not solely that of the soulfulness network user. Commercial activity is an equally valid component of Internet use.Spam as a targeted threat carrying a multitude of potence viruses, spy w ar and other insidious digital attackers is properly characterised as a menace to be deterred. Spam as a locate marketing tool is in theory a far more innocuous concept.The fundamental issue to be addressed is whether an appropriate agreement can be struck among these interests, ones that are not competing positions so much as they are disparate. It shall be submitted the UK Privacy and Electronic conference (EC Directive) Regulations (the Regulations) are an entirely inadequate response to the issues posed by Internet spam.Spam definedSpam is generally defined as undesired e-mail or junk e mail the common attributes to spam are bulk mailings from a typically integrated source, often employing techniques such as anonymizing servers and other methods to mask the senders web address or identity.At a more innocuous level, spam is a bulk mailing that indiscriminately advertises or promotes a commercial message crop such as erectile dysfunction medication or the advancement of hot stock market tips. In its most repulsive format, the spam whitethorn be either pornographic in content, an inducement to dishonorable activity or it may contain viruses or other noisome attributes that damage or disable the recipients computer. Spam is a consumer of strong system dismissdwidth and has the capacity to damage large scale computer networks.1The financial cost of spam are also profound, two in terms of direct tolls taken on computer systems and the indirect slime of productivity in work rumps where spam must be deleted from employee mailboxes on a seemingly incessant basis.2The weapons available to the individual computer user with Internet access to combat spam are relatively straightforward, includingnever start e-mails received from unknown mail a ddressesequipping the computer with anti-spam filtering software, virus protection, and firewalls umteen direct marketing advocates suggest that these simple remedies are ample protection against the unscrupulous further government regulation re endues an unwarranted inhibition of their commercial efforts, analogous to a No Soliciting sign in a lie door residential window3. It is submitted that the question is not nearly so simple. except the sophistication of anti-spam technology, estimates as to the volume of spam received at both workplace computers and residential addresses ranges from 30 percent to 80 percent of all e-mail received in the UK.4The Regulations, 2003The Regulations were a much pass judgment UK political weapon when they were enacted in September, 2003. The UK computer industry hailed the Regulations as spam busters5 that were anticipated to both result in prosecutions of the most prevalent spammers and create a more healthful UK commuting environment.The Regul ations were designed to bring the UK into compliance with the European Community Directive concerning electronic marketing, Directive 2002/58/EC.6 The EC Directive stressed a balance in the midst of the harmonization of regulation between member states in the interest of commercial efficiency and the enhancement of citizen secrecy rights.The Regulations were not restricted to spam. The provisions also restrict the manner in which such digital techniques as cookies (the HTTP method of tracking and authenticating user selective randomness), trade data, and public directories. The act of clicking ones computer mouse to open a spam transmission can potentially provide significant cookie data to the spammer.The industry optimism of 2003 was replaced by blunt scepticism as to the efficacy of the Regulations by late 2004. The same industry insiders who had lauded the Regulations on their introduction now panned them as ineffective, as no prosecutions had been launched pursuant to the R egulations.7 Questions were raised as to whether the UK government was real committed to the spam battle due to the suggested under funding of the enforcement aspects of the Regulations.8The Regulations as promulgated could never have fulfilled their promise due to the expression of the e-mail provisions of the Regulation. The relevant portions of s. 22 the Regulation and commentary are set by below1) This regulation applies to the transmission of unsolicited communications by convey of electronic mail to individual subscribers.The Regulation is and so not applicable to the regulation of corporate and commercial users of the Internet. 2) Except in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (3), a somebody shall neither communicate unsolicited communications for the purposes of direct marketing by means of electronic mail unless the recipient of the electronic mail has previously notified the sender that he takes for the time being to such communications being sent by, the send er.If (2) stood completely in the Regulations, the individual user would have a reasonable line of protection against spam, provided that the user had not previously consented to the transmission 3)(3) A person may send or instigate the sending of electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing wherethat person has obtained the contact elaborate of the recipient in the course of the sale or negotiations for the sale of a product or service to that recipientthe direct marketing is in respect of that persons quasi(prenominal) products and services only andthe recipient has been given a simple means of refusing (free of charge except for the costs of the transmission of the refusal) the use of his contact details for the purposes of such direct marketing,Subsection (3) serves to create an exception to the consumer protection afforded with (2) so as to render the section ineffective. The spam mailer can conceivably obtain the contact particulars of the recipient in a myriad of ways, all of which are unknown to the recipient but entirely legal. The expression connatural products and services is so broad as to suggest that the subjective judging of the spammer would be a complete answer to any complaint.The UK initiative is besides not without potential merit. The UK authorities have suggested that the UK ISPs are denying the spammers a place in their networks out the outset and that the Regulation sin this direct spirt are having a desired effect. 9The provisions in the Regulations concerning facsimile transmissions as direct marketing are of interesting in this context. Facsimiles may not be used to direct market goods unless the subscriber has provided their prior consent the facsimile provisions are more protective of the individual users privacy.10Other options?As apparently toothless as the Regulations may be in practice, the other options available on a rigorously UK based regulatory footing are very modest. The individual Internet user who is bo mbarded with spam has no practical alternatives the potential common jurisprudence tort remedies of invasion of privacy, intentional interference in economic relations, or the pursuit of an injunction have at best a supposed appeal the cost of mounting such actions is likely prohibitive.A corporate complainant has the same concerns as the individual user in terms of legal costs, coupled with the realization that the targets will in all likelihood be far removed from UK legal jurisdiction unless the various reciprocity provisions of the European Community might be engaged, a opinion that assumes EC domicile for the target spammer.The only viable legal revivify is an extension of the international co-operation exhibited through the response to the Council of Europe Treaty on Cyber Crime, ratified by 33 European nations and signed by intravenous feeding international states to date.11 It is plain that so long as computers and their requisite networks may be situated anywhere on Earth, a concerted expansion of regulatory efforts is the only true manner in which spam can be regulated.A number of recent commentators, including Bazelon12have stressed that computer systems, the most global of entities ever created, will require a correspondingly sophisticate transnational legal framework to counter all forms of computer crime. patch spam is not always considered a felon product, the loss of both productivity and computer enjoyment, compounded by user fears of the compromise of their esoteric information, make the concept of an international spam treaty an imperative.The indication between the European Treaty of Cyber Crime and the distinct provisions regarding spam as enacted in the Regulations and the initial EC Directive are the fundamental distinction between the readily identifiable criminal computer act, such as the dissemination of child pornography or the perpetration of identity theft, and the assort commercial flavour imparted to the European re gulation of spam.It is submitted that given the potential for insult and criminality inherent in spam, international powers to combat its spread would be significantly furthered if spam were simply treated as a lesser but included form of cyber crime activity, while holding out the ability to regulate its transmission in carefully defined and consistent business and commercial settings. In this sense, the prospects of true international enforcement of anti-spam legislation would be enhanced if never perfect. The elevation in the status of spam to a true crime might also carry a significant level of deterrence in the activity that is clearly not present through the enforcement of the current Regulations.It must also be noted that other avenue exists to throw out the promotion of spam as a criminal act. The G-8 group of nations, of which the UK is a member, has an existing protocol for the sharing of law of nature enforcement information regarding computer crime.ConclusionsSpam cu rrently rests in an enforcement netherworld a puff up defined problem, a significant irritant, but like the weather, no one evidently can do much about it in the current Regulatory climate.Spam solutions will be ones of stark choice either a grin and bear it Internet consumer attitude, with an assumption of risk that requires the taking of all necessary personal precautions for home computer safety, or encourage the UK to broaden the reach of international cyber crime enforcement to tackle spam as an adjunct to existing computer crime initiatives.BibliographyBazelon, Dana L et al reckoner Crimes Journal American Criminal righteousness Review, Vol. 43, 2006 , 1Dickinson, David An Architect for Spam Regulation federal official Communications Law Journal, Vol. 57, 2004Crews, C.W The Government should not ban electronic mail spam In The Internet Opposing Viewpoints, James D. Torr, Ed. (New York Thomson Gale, 2005)Edlind, hawkshaw J. and David Naylor / Morrison Forester LLP Uni ted Kingdom The United Kingdom Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 09 March 2004Munir, A.B. Unsolicited Commercial E-Mai Implementing the EU Directive (2004) figurer and Telecommunications Law Review, Vol. 10, Issue 5Nordlinger, Jay, The government should ban E-mail spam, In The Internet Opposing Viewpoints, James D. Torr, Ed. (New York Thomson Gale, 2005)Silicon.com UK soft on spam (August 11, 2005) http//www.silicon.com/research/specialreports/thespamreport/0,39025001,39151286,00.htm (accessed January 21, 2007)ZDnet UK law smashes consumer spam (September 18, 2003)http//news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39116473,00.htm (Accessed January 20, 2007)ZDnet UK law failing to thrive spammers (December 13, 2004) http//news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39181034,00.htm (Accessed January 20, 2007)Table of RegulationsDirective 2002/58/EC, (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)The United Kingdom Privacy and Electronic Communications ( EC Directive) Regulations 20031Footnotes11 An resplendent and concise technical description of the manner in which spam is contractable and the problems that result is found at Dickinson, David An Architect for Spam Regulation Federal Communications Law Journal, Vol. 57, 20042 Global estimates as to spam related losings exceed $20 billion3 C.W. Crews The Government should not ban E-Mail spam, 1494 Jay Nordlinger,The government should ban E-mail spam, 1415 ZDnet UK law smashes consumer spam, (September 18, 2003)16 Directive 2002/58/EC, (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)5 ZDnet UK law failing to nail spammers (December 13, 2004) 16 Ibid, 2789 ZDnet December 13, 2004, 110 S.20, Regulations11 Bazelon, Dana L et al Computer Crimes Journal American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 43, 2006 , 112 ibid