*********************************************************
Following is a question by the Hon Sin Chung-kai and a written reply by the Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology, Mr Henry Tang, in the Legislative Council today (June 11):
Question:
It is learnt that the Australian National Office for the Information Economy released a research report on the social impacts of e-mail spamming in April this year. According to the report, e-mail spamming has brought about various adverse impacts which include losses in production and internet bandwidth, dispersal of pornographic materials, internet frauds, money-laundering activities and so on. In this regard, the Australian government will enact legislation to regulate email-spamming activities. The government of the United Kingdom also plans to amend its legislation to regulate usage of information on personal e-mail addresses. In response to my questions raised in April and May last year, the Government advised that the Office of the Telecommunications Authority was currently reviewing the effectiveness of the Guidelines for Senders of Fax Advertisements (the Guidelines) published in July 1999 regarding junk fax, and was working with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data and the Hong Kong Internet Service Providers Association ("HKISPA") to review the effectiveness of the Code of Practice for Prevention of E-mail Spamming ("the Code") issued by HKISPA in February 2000 to decide on the need for legislation against junk fax and e-mail spamming. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the countries and regions which already regulate or plan to regulate against junk fax and e-mail spamming;
(b) whether it has conducted a study similar to that in Australia to assess the economic and social impacts of junk fax and e-mail spamming on the local economy; if it has, of the findings of the study; and
(c) of the progress of the respective reviews on the Guidelines and the Code; and whether the report on the reviews concerned will be published?
Reply:
Madam President:
(a) Different countries adopt different regulatory measures to tackle the problem posed by junk fax and e-mail spamming. The US, UK and Japan have enacted specific legislation for such a purpose. Legislation in the US and UK regulates both junk fax and e-mail spamming, while that in Japan covers e-mail spamming only.
(b) Although we have not carried out a detailed study similar to that conducted in Australia, we have been monitoring the local situation regarding junk fax and e-mail spamming in Hong Kong closely. We note that quite a large number of small and medium enterprises use fax and e-mails to promote and publicise their business or that of their clients. In so doing, they reap the benefits of Hong Kong's low telecommunications costs and high penetration of fax terminals and personal computers/mobile phones. On the one hand, if such activities are not properly carried out, they create nuisance to the receivers. Junk faxes also involve paper printout by receivers and therefore incur extra costs to them. On the other hand, we need to ensure that any regulatory measure must not stifle legitimate business activities.
(c) As part of the review of the Guidelines published by the Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) in 1999, OFTA commissioned the Chinese University of Hong Kong in August 2001 to conduct a survey regarding the attitude of the public towards the junk fax problem in Hong Kong. The views gathered were diverse. 33.1 per cent of the respondents considered the existing administrative measures effective in tackling the problem, while 31 per cent thought otherwise. In view of the outcome of the survey, OFTA considers it necessary to deliberate further on a range of possible measures to combat the problem, including the enactment of legislation and the strengthening of current guidelines/code of practice. It is considering these issues in consultation with the industry and relevant government departments.
End/Wednesday, June 11, 2003
NNNN
