I've never been tempted to get text messaging on my cell phone, and after reading this story, I'm even less inclined to do so.
Although few customers are receiving cell phone spam now, experts predict the onslaught will multiply to e-mail-sized proportions. Efforts to regulate spam thus far have been weak at best, and there is very little consumers can do to protect themselves.
Last week, cell phones were added to the Texas No Call list, with telemarketing companies held to the list's rules beginning March 2004. But many consumer advocates already criticize the current list because it has too many loopholes, enforcement is weak and the drawn-out process for handling complaints tilts too far in favor of telemarketers.
Regulators say the number of complaints has been hard to track because the problem is relatively new. But complaints have been increasing, as "texting" has become more popular.
"We're hearing more about it," said Rosemary Kimball, spokeswoman for the Federal Communications Commission.
Experts are drawing similarities between the growing popularity of texting and e-mail, and the similarities may soon include huge amounts of spam. Experts say consumers should be on the lookout for cell phone spam.
"It's a far better target for spammers than randomly generated e-mail addresses," Chamberlain said.
Cell phone numbers are assigned in blocks of about 10,000 units, Chamberlain said, making it easier to predict existing numbers. For example, if someone's last four digits were 1111, it is likely the same numbers would exist with the last four digits 1112, 1113 and so on, he said.
There are three ways to text message a cell phone: from another mobile phone, from a cell phone provider's Web site, or by e-mail. It is possible spammers will incur no cost for sending the message, but consumers may be charged a few cents for receiving it.
"Unlike Internet spam, wireless phone spam comes with an annoying beep on your phone and a direct price tag," said Janee Briesemeister, senior policy analyst with the Consumers Union in Austin. "Consumers aren't just getting an annoying message they didn't want, they are paying 10 cents for it."
I must confess, I don't get Radley Balko's objection to the national Do Not Call list. I'm sorry, but I consider my right to exclude whoever I want from my own home to be more valuable than MegaCorp's right to interrupt my dinner. Yes, Caller ID helps, but not nearly as much as you might think. For one thing, most junk calls come in as "Caller Unknown". I could ignore all of those calls, but unfortunately calls from my out-of-state parents also come in as "Caller Unknown". I don't want to have to make my folks start every call by talking to my machine in order to filter out sales calls. I agree with the commenter who says that this is the equivalent of putting up a "No Trespassing" sign. If that ain't libertarian, then being libertarian ain't worth squat.Posted by Charles Kuffner on June 29, 2003 to Technology, science, and math | TrackBack