Spam fighting Europeans must do better

happygeek 0 Tallied Votes 699 Views Share

The European Commission has called on EU member countries to do more, and do better, in fighting spam and other online privacy threats. In a newly published study, commissioned by the EC, it was revealed that almost all EU countries have at least one spam, spyware or malware reporting site for members of the public.

Yet the actual number of prosecuted cases, or occasions of imposed sanctions against privacy lawbreakers, varies considerably from member country to member country despite the EU-wide ban on spam. European law has actually banned spam and spyware since 2002, although you wouldn't know it considering that some 65% of European citizens are still plagued by both. And, of course, that apparent different interpretation of the law between members.

In the report an analysis of some 140 enforcement cases from 22 different member countries highlights the considerable differences between the number of cases per country and the fines imposed. The highest numbers of cases were reported in Spain (39), Slovakia (39) and Romania (20). The highest fines were imposed in the Netherlands (€1 000 000), Italy (€570 000) and Spain (€30 000). However, spammers in countries such as Romania, Ireland, and Latvia received modest fines ranging from hundreds to several thousand Euros.

The EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, Viviane Reding, says that the figures "show that several EU countries are doing more to enforce online privacy rules" but concedes "spam is an area where we can and must improve for the benefit of internet users in the EU".

Reding argues that the EU needs to step up the fight against spammers and make sure that it adopts "legislation that provides for strong civil and criminal sanctions against spammers".

Not least, I would have thought, a better system of Europe-wide cooperation between countries in order to enforce the law and brings perpetrators to book. The report suggests that the level of cooperation also currently differs strongly between EU countries, with agreements existing in Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania and the UK. Luxembourg and Malta, however, rely purely on informal cooperation. Others seemingly do not cooperate at all.

"I call on EU countries to reinforce their national efforts to fight on-line privacy threats such as spam, spyware and malicious software" Reding concludes "If we can end the spam plague within Europe we will set the example for our neighbouring countries and other parts of the world which are as responsible for spam we receive in Europe".

With spam figures rising and the spammers always quick to adapt to changing market conditions, something needs to be done and done soon.

Dani AI

Generated

As observes, the core problem is less "spam exists" and more that enforcement and cross‑border cooperation are uneven. Practical progress comes from three things working together: clear, harmonized rules; fast, repeatable operational responses; and widely adopted technical standards that make abuse harder and easier to trace. The notes below are intended as an evergreen, practical complement to the report you cited.

To answer : spam is unsolicited, usually bulk, communication sent without the recipient's consent. It ranges from simple unwanted advertising to phishing, scams and messages carrying malware. Red flags include unexpected senders, generic greetings, urgent requests for money or credentials, and links or attachments you didn’t ask for.

Practical steps that reduce spam and make enforcement effective:

  • Technical hardening for mail: publish SPF, sign outgoing mail with DKIM and roll out DMARC (start with monitoring, then move to quarantine/reject). These reduce spoofing and make attribution easier.
  • Outbound controls for providers: rate‑limit SMTP, detect sudden send spikes, block known botnet IPs, and quarantine accounts that suddenly send large volumes.
  • Shared reputation and takedown workflows: use multi‑source blocklists and abuse feeds; agree standard complaint formats; create fast takedown channels with registrars and hosters.
  • Make reporting useful: simple user reporting that preserves headers and timestamps, and automatic routing of complaints to the right national team or CERT.
  • Consumer measures: two‑factor auth on mail accounts, phishing awareness, and not reusing passwords reduce account compromise (a common spam source).

Cautions: avoid laws that are so broad they ensnare legitimate marketers or impede freedom of expression. Enforcement must be predictable, proportionate and supported by clear evidence‑gathering rules so cross‑border cases can be pursued.

Bottom line: durable improvement needs coordinated policy, fast operational cooperation, and basic technical protections deployed everywhere.

kofi kingston 0 Newbie Poster

what is spam?

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.