BADMIHAI
05-30-2004, 08:49 AM
Canadian law not powerless against spammers, but legislation and enforcement lags behind other nations.
This week a New York state man, known as the "Buffalo Spammer", was sentenced to three-and-a-half to seven years in prison for sending out millions of spam emails to unsuspecting recipients.
Howard Carmack of Buffalo received his maximum sentence less than a year after losing a $16.5 million civil court ruling to Internet service provider Earthlink. Carmack set up more than 300 false email accounts to send more than 825 million emails using Earthlink resources, starting in March of 2002. Found guilty of violating state forgery and identity-theft laws, the ruling is just part of an ongiong crusade to eliminate spamming.
"We're satisfied that today's sentencing sends a strong message to spammers, and Earthlink will continue to investigate spammers and work with law enforcement," said Earthlink General Council Karen Cashion.
However, with the Buffalo Spammer conviction making headlines south of the border, Canadians are left to wonder what measures are being taken to minimize our own influx of spam.
The United States, European Union, South Korea, Australia and Japan have all taken legislative steps to combat spam. Ranging from labeling requirements, prohibitions on false header information, bans on email address harvesting, the creation of do-not-spam lists, and penalties for commissioning spam, these nations have set the wheels into motion to minimize and eventually eliminate spam. Some countries, such as the U.S., have adopted an opt-out approach to spamming, while other legislative bodies like the European Union have implemented a strict opt-in.
While Canada has yet to implement any specific anti-spam legislation, Canadian agencies are far from powerless when it comes to dealing with this problem. According to an article in The Toronto Star written by Michael Giest, Canadian law features similar power against spamming as those found elsewhere. Private sector privacy legislation, deceptive practices legislation and the application of the Criminal Code give prosecutors the artillery to go after spammers.
The Telecommunications Act, in particular, allows prosecutors to prohibit or regulate spammers' use of Canadian ISPs if doing so would "prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance," while obviously still adhering to freedom of expression.
Another powerful impediment to spamming, also sourced from Giest's article, is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). PIPEDA can be used to prohibit the collection of personally identifiable email addresses through harvesting, demand opt-in consent in certain circumstances, and to ensure that organizations honour requests to opt-out of spamming.
Canada's Criminal Code, specifically section 380, covers fraudulent conduct, which means spammers can be prosecuted for accessing computer servers without permission.
According to a study conducted by the security firm Sophos, Canada produces the second-most spam of any country in the world (although while this nation produces 6.8 percent of the world's spam, the U.S. took the lead by sending out a whopping 56.7 percent). Why then, one might ask, does Canada lag behind its counterparts in its prosecution of spammers? And, if the laws are in place, how do you explain the mountain of spam in your inbox every morning?
With CRTC, PIPEDA, Criminal Code legislation in place to sway spammers, the lack of specific anti-spam legislation is not the greatest obstacle in the path of a spam-free inbox. The problem clearly lies in the lack of willingness to enforce the existing laws.
In the future, Canada must consider implementing aggressive nation-wide anti-spam enforcement or concede that we will continue being high producers and recipients of the most annoying kind of electronic pollution. We have an opportunity to live in a spam-free nation, all we need to do is utilize our existing laws.
This week a New York state man, known as the "Buffalo Spammer", was sentenced to three-and-a-half to seven years in prison for sending out millions of spam emails to unsuspecting recipients.
Howard Carmack of Buffalo received his maximum sentence less than a year after losing a $16.5 million civil court ruling to Internet service provider Earthlink. Carmack set up more than 300 false email accounts to send more than 825 million emails using Earthlink resources, starting in March of 2002. Found guilty of violating state forgery and identity-theft laws, the ruling is just part of an ongiong crusade to eliminate spamming.
"We're satisfied that today's sentencing sends a strong message to spammers, and Earthlink will continue to investigate spammers and work with law enforcement," said Earthlink General Council Karen Cashion.
However, with the Buffalo Spammer conviction making headlines south of the border, Canadians are left to wonder what measures are being taken to minimize our own influx of spam.
The United States, European Union, South Korea, Australia and Japan have all taken legislative steps to combat spam. Ranging from labeling requirements, prohibitions on false header information, bans on email address harvesting, the creation of do-not-spam lists, and penalties for commissioning spam, these nations have set the wheels into motion to minimize and eventually eliminate spam. Some countries, such as the U.S., have adopted an opt-out approach to spamming, while other legislative bodies like the European Union have implemented a strict opt-in.
While Canada has yet to implement any specific anti-spam legislation, Canadian agencies are far from powerless when it comes to dealing with this problem. According to an article in The Toronto Star written by Michael Giest, Canadian law features similar power against spamming as those found elsewhere. Private sector privacy legislation, deceptive practices legislation and the application of the Criminal Code give prosecutors the artillery to go after spammers.
The Telecommunications Act, in particular, allows prosecutors to prohibit or regulate spammers' use of Canadian ISPs if doing so would "prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance," while obviously still adhering to freedom of expression.
Another powerful impediment to spamming, also sourced from Giest's article, is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). PIPEDA can be used to prohibit the collection of personally identifiable email addresses through harvesting, demand opt-in consent in certain circumstances, and to ensure that organizations honour requests to opt-out of spamming.
Canada's Criminal Code, specifically section 380, covers fraudulent conduct, which means spammers can be prosecuted for accessing computer servers without permission.
According to a study conducted by the security firm Sophos, Canada produces the second-most spam of any country in the world (although while this nation produces 6.8 percent of the world's spam, the U.S. took the lead by sending out a whopping 56.7 percent). Why then, one might ask, does Canada lag behind its counterparts in its prosecution of spammers? And, if the laws are in place, how do you explain the mountain of spam in your inbox every morning?
With CRTC, PIPEDA, Criminal Code legislation in place to sway spammers, the lack of specific anti-spam legislation is not the greatest obstacle in the path of a spam-free inbox. The problem clearly lies in the lack of willingness to enforce the existing laws.
In the future, Canada must consider implementing aggressive nation-wide anti-spam enforcement or concede that we will continue being high producers and recipients of the most annoying kind of electronic pollution. We have an opportunity to live in a spam-free nation, all we need to do is utilize our existing laws.