At the behest of the GSM Association (GSMA), fifteen network operators have founded a joint initiative against the spread of spam via mobile communications networks and published a “Code of Practice” (PDF file). All of the network operators in Germany except E-Plus and its parent company KPN have signed the agreement. The signatories include US mobile communications giant Cingular Wireless, the Hutchison Group, Turkcell and Indian mobile communications Group Bharti. According to GSMA, the fifteen mobile communications companies serve a total of around 500 million customers in more than 50 countries. The initiative is focusing on spam sent as a text message or MMS, which has been divided into three categories: first, advertising that the cell phone user did not request; second, messages that directly or indirectly lead to calls of expensive premium services; and third, fraudulent content, such as the spoofs familiar to users of fixed Internet.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The carriers are optimistic that they can keep the level of spam on mobile communications networks below the level of fixed Internet. Among other things, they believe that it makes a difference that text messages and MMS cost money. In addition, mobile network operators claim that they can keep much better control of their networks than the public Internet. At the same time, mobile communications companies realize the need to work together across networks to put an end to international spammers. They plan to have anti-spam passages put into contracts signed with commercial senders of mass text messages. But the initiative’s call to have laws that “hamper” the fight against spam repealed seems more problematic. Among other things, the carrier would like to do away with the regulations on data protection, such as the privacy of telecommunications. (Craig Morris) \/ (jk\/c’t) <\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.heise.de\/english\/newsticker\/news\/69684<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/733","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=733"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/733\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3220,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/733\/revisions\/3220"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}