Comments on: ICSTIS investigate anonymous SMS services

By: Danny

Danny — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:01:22 +0000

I see they have decided to regulate with pre permission license, must send followup or contain information in the sent message with a non-PRS number to call: operator or IVR answered. Effective Jan 11th 2008

By: samia

samia — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:08:31 +0000

This approach is obviously aimed at avoiding the sending of abusive or threatening messages so it can only be positive. However, I object to the use of a non-PRS number, preferring instead a return path through which the recipient can send a STOP command and block future messages.

By: Danny

Danny — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:31:21 +0000

ICSTIS only cover premium rate SMS and telephone, so would websites such as the popular http://www.sharpmail.co.uk for sending anonymous email and SMS be excempt from any such ICSTIS legislation since they do not bill either the receiver or sender via premium SMS / telephone?

By: Dave Browne

Dave Browne — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:27:39 +0000

I actually thought anonymous text would be seen in a dim light by ICSTIS, but then I saw the public consultation, which seemed to be generally ok with it – so I immediately launched CloakText (www.cloaktext.co.uk) to provide a unique mobile-driven anonymous text service. I will of course comply with whatever regulations they bring into force, which looks like being no more than the requirement to send a follow-up message to the recipient to inform them that they’ve received an anonymous message.

By: John

John — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:39:59 +0000

That car crash one, ICSTIS found the service provider that enabled the message to be sent and charged for it weren’t at fault. Awesome!

By: tom gordon

tom gordon — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:30:13 +0000

I knew there was a reason I refused to touch these services with a REALLY LONG stick when people used to ask me to run them – the potential for abuse is immediately obvious, I’m jsut surprised it’s taken ICSTIS this long to notice…

By: Dan Lane

Dan Lane — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:29:36 +0000

This is great news, the general public aren’t allowed to go around spoofing CLID on voice calls willy nilly so why should they be allowed to falsify SMS headers!