The hottest foreign borrowing legislation to deal

Some people joked that spam messages can be described as rats crossing the street, and everyone shouted at them; However, its vitality is as tenacious as that of a mouse. People are complaining, the media is constantly exposed, countless people give advice, many advanced patents and papers are born, and manufacturers provide n-many solutions. They can't effectively "kill" it. They can only see that "more and more technical parameters are reset according to the furnace chamber size, refractory materials, mud and other conditions"

how do other countries and regions deal with this "chicken rib"? Looking at it, it is basically the same. That is, through legislation, the obligations of operators will be clarified, the process of personal information disclosure and information reception will be changed from passive to active, and the containment of spam messages will be changed from shouting and killing to dredging according to the circumstances

United States: in June 2003, the Federal Trade Commission officially launched the "United States does not accept marketing list". Then in December, 2003, the federal government passed the first national anti spam act. The act stipulates that and users can list their numbers on the "list of unacceptable promotions in the United States" for free through or government stations, and then they can legally avoid the harassment of spam advertising information

Germany: the federal anti spam act was passed by the parliament in 2003, which stipulates that advertising messages that promote goods and services to users must obtain the written consent of users, and advertisements sent from 21:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. the next day need to obtain the consent of users again. Germany will impose a fine of up to 50000 euros (about 550000 yuan) on those who spam text messages

second Japan: as early as 2000, the Japanese government formulated and promulgated two important regulations, the law on special business transactions and the specific e-mail law. Japanese law stipulates that users have the right to refuse to receive unwanted messages, and once these messages are rejected by users, it is forbidden to send them again, otherwise Thomas swan will be punished for the crime of obstructing electricity, which encourages Thomas Swan to further study sub email communication

Hong Kong: call spam messages unsolicited electronic messages. It has formulated the unsolicited electronic messages Ordinance and the unsolicited electronic messages regulation. 6. According to these rules and regulations, the public should: (1) if they no longer want to receive the commercial electronic messages sent by the sender, they should send a request to cancel the reception to the sender; (2) If you do not want to receive commercial electronic messages from all senders (except those sent with your consent), you should add your fax and number to the rejection message register; (3) If the sender fails to comply with your request to cancel reception or reject the message register, he should report the violation to the Telecommunications Authority. The message sender should: (1) provide accurate sender data in the message; (2) Provide valid cancellation options and cancellation option statements in a clear and obvious manner; (3) Respect the receiver's cancellation requirements. It should not: (1) send messages to any fax number listed in the rejection message register unless the consent of the registered user of the fax number is obtained; (2) Use misleading email message titles; (3) When sending messages by fax or number, hide the caller line identification data

looking at these regulations, we can find a common point, that is, these countries and regions give the initiative to dispose of spam messages to users. If the recipient refuses all spam messages, and reports the number to the state for filing; If the recipient does not reject it all, the sender must first seek the consent of the customer before publishing the information, otherwise it will be deemed illegal. In addition, it is worth mentioning that users in many countries and regions have also been pulled into the interest chain from the position of bystanders and become benefit beneficiaries. For example, in the United States, users will be deducted corresponding consulting fees after receiving business text messages. Perhaps because of the lack of confidence in the interests of the thief ship, these places do not have much resentment against spam messages

while legislating to protect customers' privacy rights, these countries and regions have adopted an objective and pragmatic attitude towards spam messages, which many experts believe is the best policy. China has been cracking down on fake spam messages for many years. Why can't Telecom legislation enter people's lives? Communication world