IN DEPTH: BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO COMPUTER SECURITY
Protect your inbox
CBC News Online | Feb. 18, 2005
Stop spam
"We're seeing computers infected with worms or viruses that turn them into spamming devices..."
|
In its mildest form, unsolicited commercial e-mail, or spam, is annoying, cluttering your inbox. At its worst, it can plant viruses, spyware or Trojan horses.
"Spam is a huge business. It's all profit driven. They're getting out millions of pieces of marketing propaganda a day at little or no cost," says Tom Copeland, president of the Canadian Association of Internet Service Providers.
The latest development, says Copeland, is that spammers and virus writers have got together: "We're seeing computers infected with worms or viruses that turn them into spamming devices, or what we call spam zombies."
TOP 10 SOURCES OF SPAM
(Feb. 17, 2005)
|
| 1. |
USA |
| 2. |
China |
| 3. |
South Korea |
| 4. |
Russia |
| 5. |
Brazil |
| 6. |
Canada |
| 7. |
Taiwan |
| 8. |
Japan |
| 9. |
Argentina |
| 10. |
Hong Kong |
| Source: Spamhaus.org |
Spam zombies are infected computers used by spammers to send out a few or thousands of pieces of e-mail. Home users with compromised systems are unlikely to realize they're part of a spamming network. What they may notice is that their machine is slower than normal.
More than 30 per cent of the world's spam comes from personal computers infected with viruses that transmit spam without the owners' knowledge, according to anti-virus company Sophos.
"Right now, the biggest problem that we have on the internet are literally tens of millions of infected home computers," says Neil Schwartzman, president of the Canadian Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (CAUCE).
Copeland points out that ISPs spend millions of dollars a year to prevent spam from getting to the user. Abuse of e-mail forces the ISP to increase its bandwidth, hire more customer complaint staff, and install new technologies for filtering and managing the ever-growing volume of e-mail.
Option Consommateurs December 2003 survey
|
Asked about controlling spam:
- 36 per cent said it depends on the improvement of filtering technologies.
- 24 per cent said a law should be passed.
- 24 per cent said a direct marketing industry code of conduct needs to be adopted.
- 12 per cent said international cooperation was needed.
Asked about the government's role in controlling spam:
- 42 per cent agreed that spam should only be allowed if consumers clearly consent to receive it (opt-in approach).
- 26 per cent said that all unsolicited e-mail should be required to be marked "spam".
- 24% said that there should be a way for consumers to opt out of spam mailings.
(Based on 2002 telephone interviews)
|
This cost ends up getting passed on to the home user, says Schwartzman. "The cost of spam to consumers: their computers are getting inundated and infected, and $5 a month of your ISP bill goes to fighting spam."
Security experts also warn of the recent rise of a common type of spam called phishing, which can cost consumers their privacy. Phishing can lead to theft of a user's personal details such as credit card numbers or banking information. Find out more about phishing in our Protect your personal information section.
According to Option Consommateurs, a non-profit consumers rights association, spam accounts for nearly 40 per cent of total e-mail volume. The organization commissioned Environics to conduct a Canada-wide survey on spam in December 2003. Of 2002 respondents, 87 per cent said they ignore spam; 55 per cent said they use filtering software, and six per cent nationwide stated that they respond to spam.
The government's role
There's no regulatory body dictating operational issues to the ISP industry, though it's common practice, says Copeland, for most ISPs to provide abuse addresses for users to send spam to.
What is the government's role in fighting spam?
|
As for what the government's role is in the battle against spam, Copeland says Ottawa's struggling. An anti-spam task force set up by Industry Canada is looking at using existing Canadian laws instead of creating new ones, according to Copeland, who also sits on the task force.
 MORE: Government's role in cyber security
"Sixty per cent of all spam is fraudulent in nature," says Copeland. "We have the
Competition Act that would deal with false, misleading information such as those purporting to increase body parts' size. Companies must have data to prove their claim. They're required by law before they start marketing."
The other existing law that could be used to fight spam, according to Copeland, is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, also known as PIPEDA. Under it, e-mail addresses are considered to be private and personal information. Companies are not allowed to harvest or use addresses without permission from the customer.
In 2003, the U.S. introduced the CAN-SPAM Act (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act). Critics say that the major problem with the U.S. law is that it requires users to "opt out" of spam. Consumers have to receive the e-mail first before they can tell it to go away.
HOW TO FIGHT SPAM
|
Protect your computer:
- Install up-to-date anti-virus, anti-spam software and a firewall. Find out more in the Top tips section.
- Verify attachments with senders. Scan for viruses before opening.
Protect your e-mail address:
- Keep one e-mail address for your trusted personal and business contacts. Use a separate, disposable e-mail address for other online uses.
- Don't post your e-mail address anywhere on the web. That will only attract spam.
Protect yourself:-
Delete spam.
- Don't open, don't buy, don't click in any links and don't reply to spam. This will help prevent you from receiving more spam in the future.
- Never respond to e-mail inviting you to be taken off their list. This only confirms your address is active and makes your e-mail address even more valuable.
- Don't be "phished" in. Phishing is fraudulent e-mail designed for identity theft. Find out more in the Protect your personal information section.
Source: stopspamhere.ca
|
That's not the route Copeland wants Canada to follow: "Anti-spam laws won't make spam go away. What they showed in the U.S. was that there was more spam. What it did was legitimize a certain type of spam."
Copeland says he's not yet convinced Canadians need a spam-specific law. He thinks that if a law should be pursued, it should include other cyber crime: "The crime should be infection not specifically spam itself. If we get to the point where existing laws aren't sufficient, forget about targeting small parts of internet nuisances. Look at the big picture. Follow the money. Who's benefiting from it?"
Neil Schwartzman, who also sits on Canada's special task force on spam, has a different take on legislation and spam. While he agrees with Copeland that the law in the U.S. basically legalized spam, he thinks the government has a responsibility toward legislation: "There's no one solution to spam. We're not going to find a law that is going to stop murder any more than it's going to stop spam. What it does is allow us to punish those who do spam and dissuade a lot of us from doing it, as well."
"We're the only industrialized country in the G-8 that doesn't have a law against spam. We need a specific anti-spam law."
Schwartzman wants Canada to pattern its future legislation on Australia's spam act, which threatens to fine professional spammers up to $1 million a day. Supporters of the law say that since the legislation came into effect in April 2004, the country has seen a reduction in spam to Australians by Australian spammers.
Schwartzman points out that home users have to realize what spam is costing them and that they have to take action.
A lot of users install anti-virus programs and figure that's the end of their problem, and the end of their responsibility, says Copeland. "When you buy a motor vehicle, GM is not responsible for the ongoing safety of your vehicle. Your computer's the same. Users have to see it that way. Not only can your computer be used as a spam zombie, but your computer could be used to send damaging data. People are not getting readily available and easily implementable solutions."
NEXT: WEB SAFETY FOR KIDS
^TOP
|
|
 |
 MENU |
|
|
RELATED CBC
BACKGROUNDERS: |
|
|
| EXTERNAL LINKS: |
|
|
| MORE: |
|
|
|
CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites. Links will open in new window.
