Taiwan

8.2 Taiwan

In order to advance substantial public interest, our country has adopted some restrictive measures on regulation of speech. Following the frequency of e-commence, our country has put more stress on spam, and referred to other countries’ legalizations and drafts “ Regulations Governing Abusing of Commercial Emails”.

It is my opinion that the subject under these draft regulations is not as board as those under regulations of the USA or EU. Our draft regulations are limited to email and do not include other subjects transmitting spam such as mobiles, Instant Messaging, SMS, MMS, VOIP, Bluetooth and so on;

therefore, there will be a loophole in these regulations. The competent authority should consider expanding the subjects. In addition, the remedy under these draft regulations is the claim for civil damages against infringement. However, unlike the USA, which sets the injunction against spammers, infringers in this country may continue to transmit spam to users if he/she releases his/her property from liabilities. Finally, as in the USA and the EU, though the draft regulations may require correlative groups to set National Do Not Email Registry proposed by the competent authority, this information can also be used by those spammers if we can not trace the identification of spammers technically.

Reference:

Periodical (English):

1. Adam Mossiff, Spam-Oy, It’s such a Nuisance (2004)

2. Cooley Alert, the Can-SPAM Act How it affects You, Cooley Godward LLP (2004).

3. Don Passenger and Jeff Kirkey, Information Technology Law:

un-canned Spam: getting it back in the tin, 82 MI Bar Journal (March, 2003)

4. False Claims in Spam, a reported by the FTC’s Division of Marketing Practices, April 30,2003.

5. Gray J. Fechter and Margarita Wallach, Spamming and other advertising issues: banner and pop-ups, ALI-ABA course of study materials, April 2005.

6. Fair Trade Commission, National Do Not Email Registry, a report to Congress, Federal Trade Commission, June 2004.

7. Nicola Lugaresi, European Union v. Spam: A Legal response, Trento University, Law School

8. Spam Issues in development countries, Directorate for science, technology and industry committee on consumer policy, committee for information, computer and communication policy, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(May 26, 2005)

9. Task Force on Spam, Anti-Spam Regulation, Directorate for science, technology and industry committee on consumer policy, committee for information, computer and communication policy, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (Nov. 15, 2005)

10. Nettleton Ewan, Legal update: getting though on Spam? The Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, Volume 12. Number 4 (2005)

11. MessageLabs Intelligence 2005 Annual Security Report.

12. Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, 15.11.2006, COM (2006) 668 final.

13. Jorg Hladjk, Effective EU and US approaches to spam? Moves towards a co-ordinated technical and legal response-Part II, Communication Law, Vol.10 No.4 (2005)

14. Enrico Blanzieri and Anton Bryl, A Survey of Anti-spam Techniques,

Department of Information and Communication Technology, University of Trento (2006)

15. Political Email: Protected Speech or Unwelcome Spam? Duke L. &

Tech. Rev, 0001 (2003)_

16. Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the committee of the Regions on Fighting spam, spyware and malicious software, COM (2006) 688, Brussels (2006).

Chinese:

1. 王郁琦、陳炳全，濫發網際網路廣告信相關法律問題之研究，月 旦法學雜誌，81 期(2002)。

2. ISP 業者中華電信與和信多媒體代表於行政院經濟建設委員會財 經法制協調服務法協中心與工商時報共同主辦「ISP 業者對濫發 電子郵件之建議與期許」座談會發言紀錄 (2003)。

3. 行政院經濟建設委員會，濫發電子郵件行為之管理與法制規範研 究期末報告(2003)。

4. 林子儀，商業性言論與言論自由，美國月刊，二卷 8 期(1987)。

5. 李婉萍，防堵垃圾郵件立法審議中，RUN！PC (2005)。

6. 洪志郎，你有權拒絕 Spam 造訪你家，網路資訊(2006)。

7. 高銘鍾，病毒傳播篇-擊潰病毒與垃圾郵件的聯手攻擊(2005)。

8. 楊正瑀，返垃圾郵件 政府，網路使用者皆有責任，Source 週報 (2003)。

9. 我們應訂定返垃圾郵件法圖利 ISP 嗎?資安觀察(2005)

10. 黃立、蔡欣惠，從美國聯邦貿易委員會研究報告看「未經邀約的 商業電子郵件」表示主旨欄之必要性，律師雜誌 311 期(2005)。

11. 黃菁谧，「濫發商業電子郵件管理條例」草案再檢視，律師雜誌

311 期(2005)。

12. 網路花絮:垃圾郵件一年花你 30 小時，政府機關資訊通報(2005)。

13. 劉邦典、林俊宇，垃圾郵件的氾濫宇危害分析，績效與策略研究 (2005)。

14. 簡維克、林雅惠，小心！垃圾電子訊息正侵入你的手機-以財產 權及隱私權面向論立法規範垃圾簡訊之必要性，清華科技法律與 政策論叢(2005)。

15. 賀祥宏，中華民國憲法，來勝出版，93 年 8 月。

16. 蔡甘子，亞洲垃圾郵件面面觀，網路通訊雜誌(2005)。

17. 蔡蕙芳，與垃圾郵件有關的刑法問題，律師雜誌 311 期(2005)。

18. 周慧蓮，行動簡訊國際規範趨勢，律師雜誌 311 期(2005)。

19. 馮震宇，論網路電子商務發展與相關法律問題(上)，月旦法學雜 誌，36 期(1998)。

20. 誠君，以白名單和過濾器防止垃圾郵件氾濫，Hope Net 科技月刊 (2004)。

21. 戴君豪、黃菁谧，淹沒稻穗的雜草-談垃圾郵件法律管制策略，

研考雙月刊(2005)。

22. 畢建同，挑戰 Anti-spam 的技術極限-現實與理想之間的距離，網 路資訊雜誌(2004)。

Internet:

1. http://www.cpc.gov.tw The Consumer Protection Commission, Administrative Yuan.

2. http://www.ftc.gov Federal Trade Commission

3. http://www.epic.org/reports/sufer-beware.html Super Beware:

personal privacy and the Internet, electronic privacy information center

4. http://www.gigalaw.com the impact of state anti-spam laws

5. http:// www.ftc.gov/os/2004/10/041012londonactionplan The London Action Plan on International Spam Cooperation Enforcement Cooperation

6. http://www.edu.tw/DEU_WEB/EDU_MGT/MOECC?EDU06990 01/tanent/tanet-IPR/94plan/06_02_09.htm940119 濫發商業電子 郵件管理條例草案行政院第 2924 次院會通過版

7. http://www.fcc.gov Federal Communication Commission