March 2009

Editors Letter
Spammers beware: Canada’s Bill S-220 is almost law (yawn…) Pat Atkinson

For those of us who are regularly hearing about abuses to Canada’s DNC registry (which now boasts nearly six million Canadians who object to telemarketing calls at home but continue to receive quite a few anyway), learning that Bill S-220 aka “the Anti-Spam Act” has been reintroduced in the Senate does little to elicit excitement.

While it is true that the inexpensive and ubiquitous nature of e-mail has been exploited by spammers to the degree that spam has developed into a significant commercial and social concern, I wonder whether we will be able (or even willing) to enforce the currently proposed legislation should it pass. Prosecuting spammers is notoriously difficult, even for countries that have had anti-spam laws on the books for years. (Might I add, these laws are often derided for their lack of “bite.”)

In the first place, spammers are hard to find. (According to Wikipedia) this is because they use a collection of compromised computers (aka Zombies) running software which is usually installed via worms, Trojan horses, or backdoors—under a common command and control infrastructure which likely involves some offshore servers. Bill S-220 intends to “cover” any message received by a person in Canada—regardless of the sender’s location. Are we seriously proposing to dedicate the requisite resources to interdict spammers operating from other countries? (What if those countries refuse to cooperate?)

Not to worry. Senator Yoine Goldstein, the Liberal party senator for Rigaud Quebec—who gave the opening speech for the Bill’s second reading in the Senate on February 5—proposes to make those who hire spammers to do their nefarious business equally guilty under the law. Goldstein says that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will also be able to deny service to suspected spammers, and individuals will be able to sue those responsible for spam. Again, it will be interesting (and potentially expensive) to determine whether prosecutors will have the proverbial “leg to stand on” when they attempt to make such charges stick. Moreover, how are the courts supposed to handle the influx of litigation such actions could generate?

If S-220 passes, commercial e-mail will become permission based. That is, except for exempt messages to people with whom the sender has a business relationship. Ditto for public-opinion polls, political e-mail, messages from non-profits and e-mail from educational institutions to households in which a member or former member has been or is enrolled. (Sound familiar?)

Since Canada is the only remaining G8 nation without anti-spam legislation, Goldstein believes that it is time for us to “take action.” If S-220 passes, the vote will likely be the only action Canadians ever see related to this subject. Truth be told, if we’re too weak or too tired to enforce the laws we pass, we probably still need to see those five or six Viagra e-mails we get every month.