34 from their computers and the content may be objectionable (see discussion of “unacceptable” content, below). One of the more recent legislative initiatives is that of Australia, the Spam Act 2002. The Act prohibits unsolicited electronic messages; in addition, commercial electronic messages must contain accurate information about the sender and a functional way for recipients to indicate that they do not wish to receive such messages in the future. Address harvesting software is forbidden. The Act does not impose any liabilities on Internet Service Providers for the transmission of spam, but the Australian Communications Authority is working with ISPs to develop industry codes of practice regarding acceptable use policies for consumers and the use of anti-spam filters. The Act applies to all Australian residents and any person sending an electronic message to an address that has an Australian link; the government recognises that extra-jurisdictional enforcement will be weak in the absence of increased partnerships with foreign countries and organisations to reduce spam. 4.3.20 In dealing with such matters as spam, it is important to make legislative or other rule provisions as technically neutral as possible—mobile phones, for example, are now capable of sending and receiving spam or being used in other ways that invade privacy. The European Commission’s Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications extends controls on unsolicited direct marketing to all forms of electronic communications, including mobile phones, and introduces controls on the use of cookies on websites. Cookies and similar tracking devices will be subject to a new transparency requirement that provides information and allows users to refuse to accept them if they wish. EC Members were required to implement the Directive by December 2003. 4.3.21 The South African Electronic Communications and Transactions Act regulates spam, among other matters; unsolicited electronic communications are not illegal, but they must contain an opt-out and disclose where they obtained the address when requested. The drafting of the statute has been criticised for lack of specificity regarding opt-out previsions, and lack of clarity regarding the definition of “sender” which could leave ISPs liable for what is sent. In the U.K., the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 are also aimed in part at spam, but have been criticised for weak and unwieldy enforcement provisions, which require filling out a five-page form and mailing it with a stamp to the Information Commissioner. In response to the increasing problem of spam, the OECD has recently set up a Task Force to co-ordinate the fight against spam and has called on governments to step up their fight against spam.