Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam

1999-04-26

Spam is back in the news again. Not special american processed meat, as I’m sure you know, but unsolicited email. How this won the name “spam” is lost in the mists of dog time, but it shares some characteristics with its namesake – instantly recognisable, unavoidable and often without taste. So – whilst Software Warehouse is saying that it probably can’t take Insight to court for spamming the former’s customers (with a dubiously obtained database), the European Parliament has voted against an anti-spamming amendment to the eCommerce bill.

In fact, in a funny way, it is Software Warehouse (or their ISP, Planet Online) that should be in the dock as well as Insight. According to UK Data Protection law, the keeper of personal data is held responsible for its upkeep and security so, in a case like this, they should carry the can. There have been several cases in the past, however, of information being obtained form ISPs, which are a common target for hackers. It is probably unfair to expect any ISP to somehow be able to secure this information when there is a global network of internet junkies conspiring together to look for security holes. The odds are undoubtedly stacked against ISPs.

It is probably also true to recognise that spam is a global problem. The Internet is too complex to be shored up against the distribution of unsolicited information from any far-flung corner of the world-wide web.

Given the current inevitability of spam, however, we should not sit idly by - legislation is still necessary. National and international laws currently lag far behind the technology curve, but efforts should continue to ensure that this gap is closed. Long arm laws, which enable prosecutions across international boundaries, are being implemented in the US and this concept should be extended to our own shores to counter the web’s global nature. Information misuse laws need to be modified and extended to take into account the new possibilities afforded by technology. The biggest problem here is one of timeliness - law-making cycles should permit the development of a flexible, responsive legal framework which keeps its currency against a fast-moving technological background. Otherwise, unscrupulous users of the Internet will be permitted to keep one step ahead of the law, conducting injustices without ever committing a crime.

(First published 26 April 1999)