Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 24 February 2004
108 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the procedures in place to monitor compliance with the new EU regulations to control the creation of spam e-mails; the action which should be taken by a recipient of spam; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5860/04]
View answerDirective 2002/58/EC, the directive on privacy and electronic communications, was transposed into Irish law on 6 November 2003 by the Electronic Communications (Electronic Communications Networks and Services) (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 2003, S.I. No. 535 of 2003. The regulations provide for restrictions on unsolicited direct marketing by telephone, fax, automated calling systems, e-mail, SMS and MMS.
One effect of the transposition was to make it illegal within the EU to send unsolicited commercial e-mail, UCE, to individuals-natural persons. Spam, unsolicited e-mail marketing, sent to individuals, with a limited exception, covering existing customer relationships, is only allowed with prior consent. The regulations also provide for enhanced protection for business users.
Monitoring compliance with these new EU regulations with regard to controlling the creation of spam e-mails is a function of the Data Protection Commissioner's office. I have no function in this matter. Recipients of spam originating in the EU can contact the Data Protection Commissioner's office, with whom responsibility for investigating suspected breaches of the regulations lies.
Summary proceedings for an offence under the regulations may be brought and prosecuted by the commissioner. The maximum fine on conviction for such an offence is €3,000. The sending of each offending message constitutes a separate offence. Under draft primary legislation currently being prepared in my Department, breach of these regulations and all communications regulations could constitute an indictable offence.
Due to the global nature of the problem of spam the solution lies in international co-operation. My Department and the Data Protection Commissioner's office have participated in events at EU, OECD and international levels in a bid to develop a solution. I have raised the matter on a number of occasions at different fora.
It is good to hear progress has been made at European level. Our colleague, Deputy Coveney, brought forward a Bill in the middle of last year and indicated at the time that it would be superseded by EU legislation. However, much of the rubbish which appears on screens does not come from the European Union but from the United States. Recently, we have all been plagued with letters from Africa or wherever telling us that we have just become the guardians of millions of euro and asking us to send back our credit card or bank account number. Has the Department done research on the cost of spam, in terms of time and hassle, to business? Is there a more dramatic initiative the Minister could take at international level, particularly in regard to the United States and elsewhere, to ensure this plague affecting the conduct of our daily business is removed?
We have raised this matter in the EU, the OECD and other fora. Discussions are going on between the EU and the US. It is accepted that this issue will only be dealt with on a worldwide basis. Last week a delegation from the US Congress visited Ireland and we raised the issue with them. They fully accept that whatever regulations the EU brings in will only relate to the EU so, ultimately, this issue will be solved on a worldwide basis. On the cost to business and the community generally, I do not have the information available but there are some estimates. If I can, I will pass them on to the Deputy.
What scope has the Minister and his colleagues in organisations like the OECD to take action against portals, servers and major software companies which are gateways for this nuisance?
If one can get agreement at international level, the issue will be enforcement. One must enforce criminal sanctions against the country and the origin of the spam. It is the same here as in the EU. We need to reach agreement worldwide, or at least among the countries from which this emanates, including the US and now, unfortunately, Asia. The step taken at EU level is a small one but it shows how insistent it is in this regard. Our US colleagues were much more reticent about intervening and criminalising unwanted e-mail communication between business given that they have probably the most open economy in the world. They were reluctant to come down too heavily on what they would regard as advertising but which the Deputy and I might regard as spam.
