Cauce director Neil Schwartzman blogs in his article “New fear-uncertainty-doubt about C-28″, the Canadian anti-spamlaw which is in parliament in Canada (for years) that the assumptions about the non-effectiveness of and anti-spamlaw are wrong. See: html#”><a href="http://www.cauce.org/2010/11/new-fear-uncertainty-doubt-about-c-28.
What is the Dutch experience? Maybe this can shed some light on the assumptions and see if Neils claims can be substantiated.
Anti-spamlaw experience in the Netherlands
Successes in spam fighting
OPTA, the Independent Post and Telecommunication Authority, was commissioned by law to fight unsolicited electronic communications (e.g. spam, automated calls, texting) and malware as of May 2004. By December 2004 100% certifiable Dutch spam had gone down with 85%. Why? Regular operating companies do not want to be involved in investigations and potential fines. What remains active is investigated and, when appropriate, fined. A Dutch spammers knows by now which risks he is running by his activities.
The same goes for unsolicited texting on fake prizes and “free” holidays. The worldwide top 10 malware spreader “Dollarrevenue” was taken down in 2006. Several hosting companies hosting foreign spammers were visited and “assisted” in taking the spamming operation down. Spam on a social network site investigated and subsequently fined.
So yes, an anti-spam law (and an agency able and willing to act upon it) does make a great difference. In fact, more countries should have one. Fast!
“SPAM IS INTERNATIONAL, WE CAN’T DO ANYTHING!?????
Well you can, by making sure that your anti-spam law provides for the exchange of information, both ways. Several international spam cases prove this.
So, Canada? What’s holding you up? My advice is to join the fun asap.
Wout de Natris,
Leiderdorp, 17 November 2010