European Union Says No To Spam

Peter Dyck writes: "CNN reports that the Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU) has agreed on Thursday to pass a new law banning the use of unsolicited e-mail. The resolution also bans the so-called inertia marketing for the promotion of financial services. This means that within the 15 EU member-states companies cannot resort anymore to direct marketing to sell their wares. Marketing is still possible, but the consumers must opt-in for it first." However, this is just one bend in a long and bureaucratic road.

Comments

Read the article?

[Contact]

I could be wrong, but the article strongly suggests that this ONLY BANS SPAM FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES... not all spam. It comments that a Europe-wide policy on spam in general will be debated next year.

Re:Read the article?

[Telek]

No, you're absolutely correct. Apparently Peter and timothy were too happy to actually read the article...

A directive regulating the distance selling of all other goods and services was adopted in 1997 and entered into force last year. Financial services were excluded from its scope since these were considered to require a separate set of rules. A law on unsolicited e-mail covering all other industries is expected early next year. The question of whether to apply opt-in or opt-out to e-mail marketing is provoking hot debate; the Commission favors opt-in, but many members of the European Parliament prefer the more industry-friendly opt-out approach.

So not only is the universal anti-email spam laws not on the table yet, but also neither of the laws have even been fully proposed yet, muchless passed. It's not a universal thing, and it has not even been drafted fully yet, nevermind passed.

As stated, industries much much much prefer the "opt-out" method, and thus since we know how much power the industry has over the laws, it's highly unlikely that they will be passed.

The only reason why the financial sector got this put into the bill is because the regulations for distance selling of their products were not decided in 1997 with the rest of the sectors because it was felt that finance required a different set of rules (why?) and since email marketing wasn't a problem 4 years ago, it wasn't an issue that needed addressing. It'll be interesting to see if it gets passed or just gets squashed or "removed at the last minute due to someone who was supposed to retype it" (a-la the "The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" in the states).

Re:Rock the fsck on!

[PinkStainlessTail]

Hold on there cowboy! All this seems to say is that EU countries won't be countenancing spam production in their own countries. People in the EU can still get Spam from around the globe.

Financial Products Only

[Conare]

Don't move yet...

This applies to financial products only, although they are talking about more comprehensive legislation later.

"A law on unsolicited e-mail covering all other industries is expected early next year. " (Last paragraph of article)

Not a law... yet

[rleyton]

Disclaimer: I'm not a legal or constitutional expert. Happy to be corrected by others.

For the Americans and non-Europeans amongst the /. readership, this doesn't in itself mean much (legally) right now. By agreeing on the directive, the member states of the EU have committed themselves to putting forward (similair) legislation in their respective national parliaments to the effect.

The council of ministers are simply ministers of the various memberstates having a chat about policy and direction. The European parliament doesn't really (unfortunately) have much bite (nor much of a bark either).

Don't hold your breath. Things move slowly at the EU level. But it's something, all be it small. Let's hope it's enforceable, too.

Ummno

[MotorMachineMercenar]

This bans spam only when selling financial services, hence the name "The Distance Selling of Financial Services" directive.

[insert compulsory commentary on how abhorrent it is that /. editors don't read and/or understand the stories their submissions point to]

Re:Um, this is impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

You've forgotten the international domain, .com. 50% of my friends who live in Europe use .com for their emails - one obvious example: @hotmail.com.

Re:How long before it's enforced?

[Masem]

Actually, it's not that the US has passed any (the only anti-spam like law on the federal level is the UCE 'junk FAX' law, which has yet to be applied to email); several states have tried to pass laws, some working and some not; I think the only one that's been successful is Washington state, but only because it applies to spammers in WA that spam WA state residents, and not to anyone outside (otherwise it because a Commerce issue and the state's power is overruled).

If anything, in the US, there's a common idea in most government's that any unsoliciated communication (telemarketing, spam, junk mail) is that a one-shot rule is applied; the end company may contact you once; if you wish to recieve no more from them, you can opt out at any time. However, the problem currently stems from the lack of significant enforcement of the opt-out rules; since particularly for email, the opt-out addresses can be invalid, and some marketers use the addresses on the opt-out lists to seed other lists, it's rather ineffective. Given the corporate nature of America, I very much doubt we'll see opt-in marketing, but a few effective rules for controlling opt-out will make good in the long run.

It has nothing to do with freedom

[Confused]

The so-called freedom argument is about the lamest thing I heard.

Do you have the freedom to slice the tires of random cars in the parking lot of your favorite mall? Is the gouvernment oppressing you by taking away from you that most basic freedom?

Every freedom in society basically needs to be balanced against the freedom of other people, because many interests are fundamentally opposing. (This concept is very hard to grasp for many americans, who never get past the 'I WANT' part). The role of the society is to provide with its laws and customs a stable framework to balance those interest.

For instance, you have the right to express your dislike of your neighbour, but you don't have the right to do it with your 5000 Watt amplifier set on maximum at 3 o'clock in the morning.

The same applies to spam and direct marketing. Under the proposed law, you can send your mail to anybody you want, as long as you don't have been told by him that he wants it. If he didn't give you that permission, you just have to assume that he doesn't want your fabulous offer.

There's nothing more to it.

Re:How long before it's enforced?

[AndroidCat]

After a bit of spammer LARTing, you learn how to read headers. I never pay attention to the From field because it's anyways fake.

It can be tough to track them when they use open servers in Korea or China -- But all spammers have one weak spot: They want your money. So if the email address isn't valid, they have to provide a physical address or a phone number.

Re: How long before it's enforced?

[mutende]

Well, here in the UK, we already have something called the TPS Register. Basically, you opt-in to this thing, at which point you are not supposed to get any telemarketing calls on your phone.

In Denmark we have a similar thing, affectively called "The Robinson List" by telemaketing people because in their opinion you're living on an island if you do not wish to receive their spam. Danish citizens who wish to opt-out from all snailmail, email and fax spam should read here and here, then contact the closest CPR register.