Senate anti-spam bill would give ISPs policing power over spam

Internet providers should be able to police spam, according to a senator who has introduced anti-spam legislation in the upper chamber. It’s the second anti-spam bill to hit Parliament in less than a week. Liberal Senator Yoine Goldstein tabled his anti-spam legislation on February 3 and appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications on April 28 to explain the benefits of Bill S-220 versus those of C-27, a similar bill that was introduced by the ruling Conservatives in the House of Commons last week. Section 26 of Bill S-220 proposes to give ISPs greater power to block spam without the need for regulatory authorities or other government agencies to intervene (below is exact text of Section 26). “Legitimate Internet service providers, or ISPs, would be permitted to stop spam, filter it, and stop the sending or the receipt of spam messages from any other ISP who is the host for the spam,” Senator Goldstein said. “That would put the Internet service providers in Bulgaria, Ukraine and Russia in a position where Canadian ISPs would be able to stop all the messages from those people who include spam in their services.” There is evidence that this type of ISP spam policing can work. According to Goldstein, the amount of worldwide spam decreased by about 25% on November 12, 2008 after two US ISPs cut off McColo, a web hosting firm engaged in spam. “What message does that give us? It tells us that private enterprise is the best place and person to put a stop to spam. That is what Bill S 220 does and that is what, with respect, Bill C 27 does not do,” Goldstein said. Bill S-220 aims to solve the problem of non-Canadian entities sending spam to Canadians by labeling any spam message received by a Canadian to be deemed sent within Canada. “One has to somehow overcome the problem that over 95% of spam emails received in Canada are sent from abroad,” he said. “Canadian ISPs must be given a similar legal framework to isolate cybercriminals.” The government’s anti-spam bill doesn’t propose to give ISPs this type of policing power. Rather, it would allow the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the Privacy Commission of Canada to enforce the law. Goldstein isn’t so sure this approach will work. “My experience with multiple levels of bureaucracy has frequently been that each takes the position that any particular problem belongs to the other,” he said in a response to a question. “The intent of the bill (S-220) is to create a liability for those who are the beneficiaries of these various products and services that are promoted in spam messages,” said Goldstein. “The bill itself empowers citizens, and especially Internet service providers, to take legal action against spammers and to seek damages without having to wait for authorities to intervene or to do so.” As with C-27, S-220 relies on an opt-in approach, meaning consumers have to give their consent to receive messages. Political messages, charitable organizations, polling companies as well as groups with existing business relationships would be exempt from the Senate bill, but consumers could still opt-out of receiving messages from these types of organizations. Goldstein also raised the possibility of trying to combine the best of both C-27 and S-220 into a single piece of legislation. “I think the bills can be dissected and the best of both can be taken and we can come up with a superbill for the protection of Canadians,” he said. Tom Copeland, chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), agrees with the concept that ISPs might be better suited to reducing spam than regulators such as the CRTC, the Competition Bureau or the Privacy Commissioner. But, he adds, the devil is always in the details. “Typically we haven’t yet seen all traffic outright blocked up until incidence, but that is certainly in the extreme a logical progression,” Copeland tells Network Letter. “I would think that we will certainly see some of that if some of these folks don’t just step in line and get with it.” The CAIP chair agrees with Goldstein that the CRTC is not necessarily the right body to take on the added responsibility of policing spam. He points to troubles the commission has had in enforcing its own decisions and the problems experienced with the National Do-Not-Call registry. Moreover, if an agency is created to deal with spam, it shouldn’t be one from the private sector. “I would really not want to see any private agency be the policing factor because we then get into arguments about the private sector being the long arm of the law and that always gets people worked up,” Copeland says. Industry Canada is the logical choice, Copeland says, because that’s where all the anti-spam experience lies. However, he adds, this would require a change for the department, which is largely a policy maker not a regulator. The costs of dealing with spam can be huge According to Goldstein, estimates show that 15 minutes per day of dealing with spam can cost businesses $3,200 dollars per employee per year in lost productivity. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has estimated that spam cost the global economy US$20.5 billion in 2003, a level that is likely considerably higher now. Ferris Research says spam will cost a total of $130 billion annually worldwide by the end of 2009. ISPs will also see increased costs resulting from spam, and according Goldstein, the global cost of filtering spam was estimated to be almost 750 million in 2004 and is projected to rise to $2.6 billion this year. Section 26 26. (1) A telecommunications service provider may, upon giving reasonable notice, refuse or cancel service or access to any person who has been convicted of an offence under this Act or who sends commercial electronic messages that the provider has reasonable grounds to believe are sent in contravention of this Act. (2) A telecommunications service provider may, upon giving reasonable notice, filter or block some or all commercial electronic messages originating through another telecommunications service provider that hosts or facilitates any person who sends commercial electronic messages that the first-mentioned provider has reasonable grounds to believe are sent in contravention of this Act. (3) A telecommunications service provider acting in good faith under subsection (1) or (2) is not liable to any person for any loss or damage resulting from the refusal, cancellation, filtering or blocking.

Senate anti-spam bill would give ISPs policing power over spam

News | 05/04/2009 6:17 pm EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us