|
Continued from
FrontPage of Article
Definition of spam
Part I of the Bill defines spam. A
message is ¡°spam¡± when it is an unsolicited commercial electronic
message sent more than 100 times, with the same or similar
subject-matter, during a 24-hour period, or more than 1,000 times
during a 30-day period, or more than 10,000 times during a one-year
period.
In setting the threshold figures cited
above, there is a need to balance the concerns of the individual
consumers versus legitimate marketing needs of businesses.
Although on the individual basis, users
are unlikely to receive this volume of spam within the period
stipulated, collectively, at the ISP or organisational server level,
the threshold figures do represent practical levels for intervention
if warranted.
This is also in recognition that while
an individual user can simply ignore and delete spam messages in his
inbox, the ISPs and organisations may incur costs to handle a huge
volume of spam on a regular basis.
Proposed spam control measures
An opt-out approach is adopted under the
Bill as it balances the need of companies and marketers to send
unsolicited messages for business reasons.
An opt-in approach was also considered
by my Ministry but this was not adopted because of industry feedback
received during public consultation which indicated that it would
impose an additional burden on legitimate businesses, especially
SMEs, while not significantly improving the situation for spam
recipients. This is because most of the email spam we receive
originates from overseas.
Total prohibition of unsolicited
messages disadvantages our local direct marketers and businesses
without eradicating the spam problem or effectively stopping foreign
spammers.
In order to balance between consumer
interests and industry needs the Bill will require that each message
contains a valid unsubscribe facility, an ¡®<ADV>¡¯ label to
mark it out as an advertisement, accurate header information or
subject titles and functional contact details of the sender. These
requirements are stated under the Second Schedule of the Bill.
The unsubscribe process has been
structured to be consumer-friendly so that even individuals who
receive small volumes of spam have a means of recourse, without
resorting to legal action. The Bill makes it mandatory for senders
to allow recipients to unsubscribe via the same medium through which
the spam was received. This ensures that unsubscribing from spam can
be done easily and conveniently by replying to an email or SMS.
The sender is also prohibited from
making the unsubscribe request a paid service. Likewise, the
information contained in the unsubscribe request cannot be disclosed
without the prior consent of the individual. Upon receipt of the
unsubscribe request, the sender has 10 business days to cease
sending further unsolicited messages to the individual concerned.
Dictionary Attacks & Address
Harvesting
Clause 9 of the Bill strictly prohibits
the use of Dictionary Attacks and Address Harvesting Software to
send spam. Spammers use such methods to generate or obtain large
numbers of email addresses and mobile telephone numbers. In doing
so, they can cause disruption to the recipient organisations, such
as ISPs, operators of email servers and mobile telephone service
providers. These recipient organisations may incur substantial costs
to receive and process the huge volume of spam messages. Hence such
methods are strictly disallowed.
Legal Action under the Bill
Part IV of the Bill describes the legal
action that can be taken by affected parties against spam sent in
contravention of any requirement in the Bill. Aggrieved individuals
or companies may be awarded an injunction, damages or statutory
damages.
Statutory damages of up to $25 per
message sent and not exceeding $1 million in total could be imposed.
If the plaintiff is able to prove that he suffered greater loss, he
could opt to sue for actual damages instead. In addition, the court
may order the defendant to pay the plaintiff¡¯s legal costs and
expenses resulting from the proceedings.
Members may ask why my Ministry has
chosen not to make spamming a criminal offence. Notwithstanding the
inconveniences that spam brings, spammers generally do not act with
malicious intent.
Furthermore, in the international best
practices which my Ministry had studied, no other jurisdictions have
criminalised the act of spamming per se.
While some overseas spam legislation may
contain criminal provisions, these are primarily linked to criminal
offences committed online. For instance, the US treats spam with
fraudulent intent as criminal acts.
In Singapore, spam sent with a
fraudulent or malicious component that results in a denial of
service is also criminalised under the Computer Misuse Act. The Spam
Control Bill should not be viewed in isolation, but rather, as an
addition to our total legislative framework against technology
abuses.
Other Provisions
Part V of the Bill empowers the Minister
to amend any Schedule by an order published in the Government
Gazette. This would allow for an expeditious modification of
guidelines relating to the unsubscribe facility and labelling
requirements when required. The Bill also provides for the industry
groupings to self-regulate by issuing codes of practice with the
approval of IDA.
The First Schedule of the Bill exempts
from the regime authorised messages sent by the Government or a
statutory body during a public emergency, in the public interest or
in the interests of public security or national defence.
This provision ensures that essential
public messages during a time of crisis may be transmitted
effectively and expeditiously without being impeded by legislation,
in the interests of public safety and well-being. This mirrors
similar provisions found in the Telecommunications Act and the
Broadcasting Act.
Conclusion
Sir, the Spam Control Bill is aimed at
reducing the spam problem in Singapore and preventing spammers from
abusing our world-class communications infrastructure to turn
Singapore into a spammers¡¯ haven. Spam is an issue that transcends
national borders requiring international collaboration to
effectively curb this abuse. This Bill represents Singapore¡¯s
efforts in doing our part as a member of the global community to
address the spam issue.
This Bill taken together with on-going
public education and concerted industry efforts to address the spam
problem as well as our other laws on technology abuses will
contribute to a holistic approach to address this growing problem.
Sir, I beg to move.
Source: www.mica.gov.sg
Media Release 12 Apr 2007
¡¡
|
Spam Control Bill 2007 passed
All rights reserved
