Week 5 will cover the three related issues of SPAM, CRIME and PHISHING
You should review the following for some background understanding (as well as the material referred to in the study guide):
Spam
Spam Act
ACMA
IIA Code
Crime
Australian Federal Police
Costs - UK
On the rise - US
Recent case
Phishing
Anti-Phishing
Westpac
SARS
Is legislation or technology/awareness the solution? Which countries have attempted to combat phishing by legislation?
A blog relating to Internet legal issues by Professor John Swinson, University of Queensland
Adsense HTML
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How should damages be assessed for privacy and cybersecurity breaches
Listen to this podcast where I discuss how damages should be assessed in privacy and cybersecurity lawsuits. The Lawyers Weekly Show host J...
-
The United Nations intellectual property agency (WIPO) is the latest front in the US-China trade war. http://www.theage.com.au/world/sad-am...
-
The issue of content regulation in China was mentioned in this blog last year . In the last few weeks, this issue has once again pushed into...
-
Finally, what is called direct registration of domain names is coming to Australia. See https://www.auda.org.au/statement/australias-interne...
3 comments:
Both the United States and the UK have introduced legislation to combat phishing (Anti-Phishing Act and the Fraud Act respectively). In Australia we have introduced the Spam Act, but as the act is geared towards discouraging unsolicited commercial electronic messages, it is not clear to what extent it applies to criminal and fraudulent activity such as phishing.
What is interesting about the Spam Act is that only civil penalties apply to breaches. And in accordance with the Spam Act Virgin Blue has given an undertaking not to send unsolicited commercial electronic messages- see: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_312071
The Courier Mail on Saturday had an article about Virgin mobile phones and how they had breached spam rules and sent messages to mobile users to check if the user was still certain they didn’t want to receive e-messages after they had already chosen to not receive messages. The ACMA Chairmain Chris Chapman, was quoted as saying that “Commercial electronic messages cannot be sent without the consent of the recipient”. Virgin, was in fact fined $AUD22,000. I feel that this was appropriate action and is a good example for other mobile companies so that they don’t follow the example of Virgin. Source “The Courier Mail” p.65 and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/19/virgin_mobile_spam_fine/print.html
As a post script, as noted in class, the US Anti-Phishing Act was not passed. However US citizens do have some protection from cybercrime and online theft with the Identity Theft and Assumption
Deterrence Act.
Post a Comment