Attendees of yesterday`s Spam Summit agreed that while legislation will not stop spammers, it is possible for the industry to fight back.
The Electronic Communications and Transactions (ECT) Act has been described by lawyers as "toothless" when it comes to prosecuting spammers.
"Spamming only becomes an offence at the time where the spammer does not give details for where he got your e-mail address or remove you from his mailing list at your request," says Lance Michalson, of Michalsons Attorneys. "It does not outlaw that very first e-mail, there is no obligation to provide a proper opt out, there is no obligation for the sender to provide a physical or even virtual address, there are no definitions of 'sender`, 'prior relationship`, 'commercial` or 'communication`."
While many regard this as a glaring hole in the ECT Act, Michalson, who was involved in its development, points out that at the time the law was drafted, spam did not present the problem it does today. "In June 2001, spam was not the scourge it is now," he says. "It was not a crime or a commercial offence. Only at the last minute did we decide that it needed to be criminalised."
While it might not be possible to stop spam at its source due to difficulties with legislation and jurisdiction, Michael Judin, senior partner, Goldman Judin Maisels, firmly believes that establishing an industry code of conduct will go a long way to regulating this phenomenon.
"The Advertising Standards Authority self-regulates one of SA`s most dynamic industries with a living, breathing code that is updated on an annual basis," he says. "This has set a very good precedent for self-regulation, and I believe that in this way, we could have positive and informative control of spam."
In the meantime, delegates conceded that the best response to spam was to hit "delete".
Share
