From: Rowan Rafferty [rowan@wine-region-tours.com]
Sent: Monday, 20 October 2003 5:54 PM
To: ECITA, Committee (SEN)
Subject: Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Regulation of Electronic Junk Mail (Spam)

Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Regulation of Electronic Junk Mail (Spam)

SUMMARY
 
Australian Governments, Businesses - particularly ISP's and associated businesses such as Domain Name registries - and the public need to put macro and micro mechanisms in place to reduce or eliminate SPAM. Mere legislation making it illegal within Australia is nowhere near enough. Any legislation and regulatory mechanisms need to be visionary in their commercial and future impact.
 
ASSUMPTION
 
I commence with the assumption that the idea of this inquiry is to reduce the amount of SPAM being received by Australian Internet users and those that may choose to use Australian ISP's, although they may reside elsewhere, outside Australia.  It is unfortunate that Australia has never acted to regulate/restrict other forms of Junk Communication from Direct Distribution Houses and Telemarketing businesses, which has helped create the moral and legal environment conducive to SPAM.
 
BACKGROUND
 
As a small business who is entirely reliant on internet services and who has received over 1200 SPAM messages during the last month at an estimated cost of $400 per week (in time, ISP charges, mistaken deletion of messages and lost business), and who uses the email to legitimately market my services, I could not be more concerned about every aspect of the SPAM menace.
 
SUBMISSION

1. Most SPAM emanates from international, not domestic sources, and whilst Australia needs to show it "has done the right thing" as a global citizen, it also needs to ensure the impact of our legislation goes beyond Australia's borders.
 
2. Any Australian citizen or business involved in Spamming, no matter where the SPAM originates, should be dealt with as harshly as the law will allow (See also #5), including the individual or company appearing on a publicly accessible database, even if they are dealt with in absentia by the ACA.
 
3. All Australian ISP's must be given the right and mandatory obligation to monitor all email traffic to establish the origin of SPAM.  This would include an optional SPAM reporting system from ISP's users so the ISP's have some validation of what their users consider SPAM.  ISP's are the appropriate starting point to collect the data to analyse, assess and report on the problem. If ISP's do not wish to participate, shut them down, they are part of the problem, not the solution. The principle here is straightforward: if my water supply company sends me dirty water, they fix it and provide clean water, if my ISP sends me 1000's of SPAM messages, they (currently) profit from it.
 
4. A globally accessible database should be established  to which all (Australian) ISP's report origins of SPAM. ie. IP addresses of known Spammers, and details of the Country of Origin of those IP addresses and details of offending companies and individuals. If this could be expanded into a global effort, so much the better.
 
5. A body (part of the ACA perhaps) should be established with appropriate resources and charged with the monitoring and analysis of the SPAM information collected by ISP's. See work done by SpamCop.net in the USA.  Any government, business or individual found to be associated with the Spammers should then also be publicised and required to show cause why they should not be debarred from doing business within Australia's legal jurisdiction for at least 10 years. This would include ISP's who are known to provide access to Spammers and refuse to stop them, having all their services blocked to the extent possible by Australian ISP's. I would also suggest this information would be useful in the lobbying of governments declining to take action against Spammers. This may include the threat to bar internet services from that country, to the extent that is technologically possible.
 
6. It is essential that Australia makes a concerted and co-operative effort to reduce or eliminate SPAM through mechanisms designed to make the best use of all organisations and technical resources, both government and private and not leave dealing with the SPAM menace to individuals. The proliferation of SPAM with it's attendant offence to some, spread of viruses and sheer nuisance value, make this essential.  There is, as always, an appropriate level of personal responsibility to be taken here.
 
7. Telstra's recent push to capitalise on the misfortune of it's customers, rather than take a co-operative and holistic view of how to attack the base problem is nothing short of disgusting; they and other ISP's make profits, by default, from SPAM.  Blatant profiteering in such a calculated manner is despicable. The "it needs to be an 'opt-in' service" excuse is very shabby (See correspondence below) and reflects the lack of sophistication of the single mechanism being offered. The need for an ongoing, more universal and technically sophisticated approach by all ISP's is very obvious.
 
8. As Australia has several private organisations working commercially to intelligently address the SPAM problem e.g.. MessageCare aka SpamTrap, surely it is possible to bring these resources to bear on the problem in a more cogent and effective manner. Preferably subsidised by, or at least in co-operation with, the ISP's who currently profit from SPAM. Australian consumers should be given the choice through their ISP's of screening mechanisms, not one, imported simply for the sake of appearing to offer a "service".
 
9. Potential exists for Australia to lead the world in offering "clean" email services, which could be exported with great gains to our economy. 
 
10. I presume the Senate Committee will acknowledge the issues raised herein, unlike the many Federal politicians who do not seem to want to know about the SPAM problem.
 
11. In closing, I trust the Committee recognises the potential of legislation to vastly increase costs for legitimate Australian businesses simply wishing to draw attention to their services, in a controlled and appropriate manner.
 
Rowan Grant RAFFERTY
Home: 42 McCracken Street, Kensington, VICTORIA 3031
Postal Address:PO Box 7505, Melbourne, VICTORIA 8004
Phone:  03 9376 7877
Mobile:  0417 763 825
*******************************************************************************************************************************
 
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: Rowan Rafferty
To: daryl.williams.MP@aph.gov.au
 
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: TELSTRA & SPAM - part of the problem, not the solution

The Honourable Daryl Williams MHR
Minister for Communications (Designate)
 
Dear Sir
 
As Telstra is one of the "targeted" ISP's for SPAM, it is amazing that it has the gall to attempt to charge consumers an extra $2.50 a month to protect them from this menace. http://www.bigpond.com/internetplans/additional/security This is absolutely outrageous!
Whilst I applaud any efforts Telstra and others may make to reduce SPAM, this should not be a discretionary "added cost" to customers, just part of the service; not an opportunity for even more revenue. 
 
Telstra is already reaping the benefit of windfall revenue by the quantity of SPAM it downloads to it's users either by bandwidth charges on Broadband Services or time charges on Dial-up; TELSTRA's attempts to capitalise further on this "fortuitous" revenue by preying on those who will simply "comply" with their grab for more money is appalling.
 
As I am sure that there is an added marginal cost to Telstra to provide this service, why can't they just do it, comprehensively.  Add the cost to the normal provision of service, but please, not at $2.50 per month.
 
That amount is more than many retail anti-SPAM services currently available, let alone the free services provided by those seriously trying to eradicate the problem not just exploit it, such as TELSTRA is doing.
 
The economies of scale TELSTRA could bring to combating SPAM and providing a SPAM free (or SPAM reduced) service to customers is obvious. 
 
Instead, Telstra is simply playing to the fear, uncertainty and doubt of many internet users who do not have the knowledge to appreciate the insidious nature of what they are doing by the very nature of "adding" this service in this manner.  TELSTRA is now part of the SPAM industry.
 
In short, TELSTRA is now actively part of perpetuating the SPAM problem, and is not part of any real solution. TELSTRA should start providing the service consumers could reasonably expect, and not buying-in to profiteering from SPAM !
 
Please assist by raising this critical issue with Telstra in any way you can.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Rowan Rafferty
Managing Director
wine-region-tours.com pty ltd
P: +61 (0)500 888 073
F: +61 (0)500 888 074
M: +61 (0)417 763 825
E: rowan@wine-region-tours.com
W: www.wine-region-tours.com
Your Tour, Your Way, Our Expertise
...are You with Us?