![\"Good_Luck_I_m_Behind_7_Proxies\"](\"http:\/\/hidefideas.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/good_luck_i_m_behind_7_proxies.jpg\")
Spam laws are like an Air Supply LP: everyone\u2019s got one, but no one wants to admit it.<\/p>\nSpam laws are like an Air Supply LP: everyone\u2019s got one, but no one wants to admit it.<\/p>\n
Unless, of course, you\u2019re a small handful of countries<\/a> like Australia, the UK, and the US, and then you\u2019re dancing on a table belting out the soulful lyrics to \u201cAll Out of Love.\u201d (mental note: Air Supply\u2019s from Australia; that\u2019s odd. Could there be a connection?) The three aforementioned countries, of course, have been the Clint Eastwood of anti-spam advocates, taking down anyone who dares violate their space, and taking them down in style. And if you think that similes likening spam to Air Supply and Clint Eastwood in the same breath are one of the strangest things you\u2019ve ever heard, you\u2019re not alone.<\/p>\n But what happens when the world\u2019s largest producer of spam<\/a> has its own spam laws? And I\u2019m not talking about the US, because some recent reports suggest the country isn\u2019t actually a major spam producer, but a conduit for spam coming from elsewhere. China accounts for about 22% of all the spam email sent each year and is the de facto spam producer, but would it surprise you to know that they\u2019ve had anti-spam laws in place since 2006? And did you know that spammers, if caught risk being put to death<\/a>?<\/p>\n Well, you have to deal with spammers somehow<\/em>\u2026<\/p>\n But, as we\u2019ve seen \u2013 frustratingly \u2013 with Canada<\/a>, having a law does not mean actually imposing a law. And now that we\u2019re in 2014, there doesn\u2019t seem to be much about China\u2019s anti-spam law that looks like teeth, not even little mosquito teeth. According to the South China Morning Post<\/a>, an estimated 200 billion spam text messages alone were sent in the first half of 2013 from China. And while the anti-spam law doesn\u2019t appear to be in play much, last week the Chinese government \u201creleased [an amendment to the law] to solicit public opinion a week ago,\u201d the Morning Post reports. According to the admendment, \u201cthe sending of advertisements by any organisation or individual through e-mail or text message \u2018when the receiver has not agreed or made a request, or when the receiver has clearly refused\u2019, would be prohibited.\u201d<\/p>\n Sounds good enough, but what does \u2018prohibiting\u2019 the activity really mean? Tough words, but again, like Canada, you can talk as tough as you want as long until the other guy points out that he\u2019s holding a gun to your face and all you brought to the fight was a hockey stick. \u201cMedia outlets said that without rules outlining strict and workable punishments, the law would lack teeth,\u201d says the Post. \u201cSome added that there had been much crying but very little done in recent years to combat the problem.\u201d<\/p>\n And that might be why we\u2019re still seeing so much spam coming out of China instead of (ahem) spammers being put to death. \u201cThe amendment says those who breach the law should be punished according to related regulations on the telecommunications industry. The Beijing News<\/em> said this in effect downgraded the law to an industrial-relations issue. It warned that watchdogs for the telecoms sector did not have the staff to implement punishments in spamming cases.\u201d<\/p>\n