This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
The Legal Ramifications of Call-Filtering Solutions
March/April 2010 (vol. 8 no. 2)
pp. 45-50
Christoph Sorge, University of Paderborn
Saverio Niccolini, NEC Laboratories Europe
Jan Seedorf, NEC Laboratories Europe
Spam-over-IP telephony (SPIT) is likely to have a significant impact on the usefulness of VoIP telephony solutions. Several research groups have started to address this challenge and have suggested methods involving automatic call filtering. From a legal perspective, these solutions might be problematic, particularly because they're likely to suffer from false positives. Also, because of VoIP communication's real-time character, the legal assessment of SPIT filtering differs from that of email spam filters. The authors give an overview of these legal issues and provide guidelines for providers wishing to protect their customers from SPIT and other forms of unsolicited real-time communication.

1. P. Gilles, "Recht und Praxis des Telemarketing," Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, vol. 41, no. 39, 1988, pp. 2424–2432 (in German).
2. "Telefonwerbung," Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen, vol. 54, Carl Heymanns, 1970, p. 188 (in German).
3. J. Rosenberg et al., SIP: Session Initiation Protocol, IETF RFC 3261, June 2002;
4. V.A. Balasubramaniyan, M. Ahamad, and H. Park, "CallRank: Combating SPIT Using Call Duration, Social Networks and Global Reputation," Proc. 4th Conf. Email and AntiSpam (CEAS 07), 2007;
5. J. Quittek et al., "Detecting SPIT Calls by Checking Human Communication Patterns," Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. Communications (ICC 07), IEEE CS Press, 2007, pp. 1979–1984.
6. J. Rosenberg, G. Camarillo, and D. Willis, A Framework for Consent-Based Communications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), IETF RFC 5360, Oct. 2008;
7. S. Niccolini et al., "Spam Feedback for SIP," IETF Internet draft, work in progress, Feb. 2008.
8. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, US Reports, vol. 447, 1980, p. 557.
9. Cyber Promotions Inc. v. America Online, Inc., Federal Supplement, vol. 948, 1996, p. 436.
10. M. Simon, "The Can-Spam Act of 2003: Is Congressional Regulation of Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail Constitutional?" J. High Technology Law, vol. 4, no. 1, 2004, pp. 85–115.
11. T. Fischer, Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze, 55th ed., C.H. Beck ser. Beck'sche Kurz-Kommentare. München: C.H. Beck, 2008 (in German).
12. J.M. Schmittmann, and B. Lorenz, "Die rechtliche Beurteilung von E-Mail-Werbung nach Inkrafttreten des TMG," Kommunikation und Recht, vol. 10, no. 12, 2007, pp. 609–615 (in German).
13. "OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data," Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Sept. 1980;,2340,en_2649_34255_1815186_119820_1_1_1,00.html .
14. European Community, "Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data," 1995; .
15. J. Seedorf et al., "Detecting Trustworthy Real-Time Communications Using a Web-of-Trust," to be published in Proc. IEEE Global Communications Conf. (IEEE GLOBECOM 09), 2010.

Index Terms:
SPIT, VoIP, law, spam, spam-over-IP telephony
Christoph Sorge, Saverio Niccolini, Jan Seedorf, "The Legal Ramifications of Call-Filtering Solutions," IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 45-50, March-April 2010, doi:10.1109/MSP.2010.54
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.