Slashdot Mirror
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.
This is fine passing the laws, but if you dont give the people teeth or enforce the law it's worthless.
The US has some anti-spam laws, and we dont enforce them, or dont allow the law to have any teeth.
Most spammers couldn't care less if it's legal or not.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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)
Stop Continental Drift! Reunite Gondwanaland!
Disclaimer: I'm not a legal or constitutional expert. Happy to be corrected by others.
/. 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.
For the Americans and non-Europeans amongst the
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.
ooooooh! What does this button do? - DeeDee, Dexters Lab.
cd
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
But your honor! The plaintiff's e-mail address was subscribed to our "mailing list" already. If he didn't want the e-mail, he shouldn't have subscribed to begin with.
What? He didn't subscribe? Then it must have been some sort of practical joke by his friends (we get those ALL the time). He should really be more careful about who he calls "friend"...
Don't bet on it. .us only SPAM (e.g. with text "For US residents only" i the mail), to addresses ending i .dk. Spammers will send anything to anyone.
I receive plenty of
For a look at the mind of a spammer, take a look at Behind Enemy Lines
/Styx
> Most spammers couldn't care less if it's legal or not.
Yes, most spammers couldn't care less, but most spammers are sitting in the USA anyway. It seems, spam and bad elevator music is the only thing the USA is exporting these days..
Where this law will help most is to shoot down hare-brained schemes by soulless middle managers and marketroids. With this directive,I can tell them, to please check with the legal department if their last stupid idea conforms to the law. This usually stops them fast.
As a side note, such laws sometimes work. I'm living in Europe, and I've never been called by direct markeing organisations I've never heard of who try to sell useless junk. Not during the day, not in the evening. I guess, the laws against unsolicited call and calls by machines don't really hurt.
I am really sad to see laws against spam because it gives The Man control over something which puts their toes in the door.
I would prefer to fight spam privately. I do not like it, for I've been on the net since 1988, when spam was rare and the net was beautiful. But I do not think the solution is to make it illegal.
I think the blacklist sites are a reasonable, unmoderated, sensible approach that doesn't carry the curse of giving The Man more power over my non-spam actions.
-wp
information is immaterial
As much as I am anti-spam, there is an issue to be considered before banning spam outright: the exact definition.
Cold marketing is an accepted technique for generating interest and ultimately sales. Even though unsolicited faxes are not permitted in many parts of the world, cold marketing related material usually bypasses this restriction. Yet the distinction is a hair's bredth.
In most niche markets mass advertising is not cost effective. Cold marketing is often the most effective resort for business in such markets. I have over time had several unsolicited e-mails that I do not consider to be spam, but rather cold marketing. Why? Because they are targetted.
Should cold marketting be banned in an effort to ban spam? Or should the definition of spam be tightened up to refer not just to unsolicited marketting, but unsolocited and not relevant to the person/organisation.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
I'll put aside the fact that this happened in Europe, for a second to talk about free speech in the US. It's my understanding that the Gov. can restrict harmful speech as long as it is in a content-neutral manner. I'll give an example. I live in the very liberal town of Amherst, MA. There is a banner across a public road, which town residents can use for announcements, etc. But every so often, some nut rents out the banner and puts up strongly-worded anti-abortion messages such as "Abortion has two victims, one is wounded and the other is dead." Needless to say, this sentiment doesn't reflect the opinion of MOST of the town. Unless we want to eliminate the banner entirely, though, there's nothing we can do about it without infringing on someone's first-amendment rights.
There is nothing in a law that prevents sending UCE that is restrictive of your personal freedoms, as long as it's done in a content-neutral way. My view is that spammers are infringing on MY rights when they put their crap into my mailbox. I think I have a RIGHT to pay for my Internet access without paying for someone else to send me porno and get rich quick schemes. I think if ISPs and users were allowed to recoup the costs of receiving spam as damages, ISP rates would drop!
Your suggestion that you should be required to add a header to your e-mail is just as restrictive. I think ANY restraint of speech is a very serious matter, and deserves much debate. I equate spam with a type of speech that is wholly unwanted and unbeneficial to society. We have proven that self-policing of spam simply doesn't work. There are too many rogue networks and spam-friendly service contracts out there to stop it.
The government is not telling you that there is a subset of users who you cannot e-mail. You are being told that if your e-mail is of a commercial nature, you can send it to ANY user who has agreed to receive e-mail from you, and to NO user who you are simply marketing to. Would this law prevent you from doing something that you presently do? If it would, then you are probably a spammer. If not, what are you worried about?
This isn't like encryption, or spying on citizens, or taking away your guns (although they already did that in Europe). You have a right to those things. You do not have a right to be a nuisance to millions of others.
European spamming laws would not be very useful as such, as most world-wide spammers are Americans. But, I have a plan.
We could arrange a "conference for spamming professionals" in Europe and call spammers from all over the world. When they arrive at the conference location, we would arrest them.
I doubt Americans could complain about the immorality of the procedure...
A cool idea, not?
What I'd prefer to see is an approach like this:
- Corporations must obtain a consumer's explicit consent before sending an advertisement via e-mail.
- This consent may not be a part of any other agreement, i.e. it must be obtained separately from any other agreements made (in other words, no hiding it in the fine print).
- This consent is not transferable to any other entity; if a list is sold to another entity (person, corporation, or whatever), that entity may send a single notice asking for permission, but no more until permission is gained. Failure to respond to that notice must be taken as denial of permission.
- The permission given must be revocable at any time, and all advertisements must send clear and valid instructions on how to revoke that permission, should the user desire to do so.
- If an entity starts sending e-mail to a user without their permission (aside from the single notice mentioned above), the person has the option to press charges of harassment. Note that I said the option.
The idea is to require online advertising to be opt-in, without specifically banning any types of messages. I'm not certain how workable it is; ideas?I propose banning all non-consentual commercial communication. That means public billboards, telephone calls and spam. etc etc.
Why should the population have to endure a bombardment of unwanted messages when they almost universally detest them?
Consumption (demand) drives capitalism, what are we going to do now that we understand the planet will never enable an equal opportunity (exploitation of the poor is the method that NorthAmericans and the G8 use to facilitate our own unreasonable waste and consumption)... let alone that the planet is incapable of supporting 6 billion 'NorthAmerican lifestyles'.
So, here is the problem, we allow* business to lie (market) in every way, using every channel at their own desire, to drive UP consumption - making our very real problem worse.
I recognize that telling the sheeple they need to consume *less* is very difficult to do, but allowing a powerfull elite (plutocrats) to prevent a more sobering message, one encouraging reduction/adjustment/re-alignment/reassessment, does not play well... especially echoed in a chorus of 'buy now buy now buy now buy now buy now buy now buy now'.
So, back to my original point: If we are to ever make reason again of our modern society we must come to grips with rampant consumerism. In order to do this we must re-assess the benefits our community - as a whole - gains by accepting the very real manipulation that un-solicited commercial messages manufacturers.
Would we be able to put a computer in every north american home, which allowed for open and full discourse on the marketplace of both products and ideas if we chose to spend our resources there instead of say, 20" x 40" billboards blaring garbage at the population.
Which would people prefer? Certainly the former - but without a realistic approach to the marketplace, one that dosnt simply encourage mindless consumption (which leads the planet to literal oblivion) - where to begin? how do you change the course of the economy without being slaughtered under the ignorance of ignorant, misinformed, mislead masses.
Without restraining the ability of a reckless, self-interested minority (the powerfull rich) to restrict and contain public discourse, how do you ever have a public debate on the issue itself... its is a mind-numbingly inescapable rabid incestuous viscious circle.
So again, in order to break this circle, we should, as a community, dissolve the practice of allowing ignorant, unhealthy messages to be broadcast (in all channels (spam, billboards, bench-ads) to our community....
* Sounds radical dosnt it... im very serious. There are surely to be alot of free-market libertarians to take serious offence to this idea... but again, free-market libertarians believe voting-with-your-dollars is an acceptable way to run a democracy... and no, that is not flamebait, it appears as the basic ideal behind alot of arguments ive heard in the past.
I know this idea is a bit radical, but it certainly is not flaimbait... so moderators, please weigh your disagreement with the idea against your desire to stiffle the idea and remember the purpose of moderation is not the latter.
I think one of the potential problems with Spammers is their progression towards legitimate markets. Take monsterhut, a huge spamming company that slashdot has featured before. I know the owner and "brain" behind monsterhut, and truthfully, he could care less. If he were to go out of business, a hundred others would jump in to take his place.
In fact, he was excited when Slashdot did an article on Monsterhut - any fame is good fame when it comes to Spamming companies - because legitimate companies more and more are looking at Spam as a legitimate advertising medium.
I think what *would* happen if these laws were passed however, would be that the Spamming companies may still be allowed to operate - but they would have to operate their servers in foreign countries and effectively Run from law enforcement. This in turn would scare legitimate business away from spammers, reducing their market and leaving Spam open only to small timers who don't have the resources to generate huge email lists or fight court cases.
The trick I think is not to go after the Spamming companies directly, but to pass legislation that allows the gov't to go after any companies who knowingly use Spamming agencies - most companies dont' see "Spamming" or 'advertising" as their business, so they won't look any further into promoting themselves through their own Spam - business just tends to use what's available when it's outside their knowledge base.
Ace
I mean, there are some problems with spam:
So spam can be stopped at serverlevel, but how do you do that?
First of all make sure that the email server is'nt set to forward mail coming from "outside". If that is the case, use the "relay control"-function. And also make sure you upgrade old servers that does'nt have this kind of protection. Configurate "reverse lookup" for the server in the dns. With reverse lookup your email server can verify that the sender really is who he claims to be. That should stop alot of spam.
Happy anti-spamming
Maybe we should have laws that "nails" people who has'nt configured their mailservers the rigth way, that oughta do it..
2 reptiles beneath your current threshold.
I propose banning all non-consentual commercial communication. That means public billboards, telephone calls and spam. etc etc.
Oh really? So my local pizza shop can't have a sign that says "pizza" because I haven't agreed to it in advance? Or maybe they can have a sign that says pizza, but not one that says "enjoy a Coke with this pizza." Or maybe they can have the sign but only if it is small. Give me a break.
Can the homeless guy ask me for money? Can a busker advertise his or her CD?
Why should the population have to endure a bombardment of unwanted messages when they almost universally detest them?
I don't detest billboards. I find them mildly ugly and occasionally useful.
Consumption (demand) drives capitalism, what are we going to do now that we understand the planet will never enable an equal opportunity (exploitation of the poor is the method that NorthAmericans and the G8 use to facilitate our own unreasonable waste and consumption)...
Capitalism gave you the computer you are typing on and the network we use to communicate. There is a pretty clear correlation between democratic capitalism and prosperity. How would it help the third world if we scaled back our lifestyle to be equivalent to theirs? We could shut down all of our sweatshops and they could have no jobs, rather than poor jobs, and no food, rather than little food.
Do you advocate an alternative to capitalism? If so, please name it. If you don't have an alternative then I'd suggest you stop trashing capitalism.
let alone that the planet is incapable of supporting 6 billion 'NorthAmerican lifestyles'.
The North American "lifestyle" is not a constant. It adjusts to fit the times. Many of our machines are much less resource intensive than they were fifty years ago. Non-polluting energy sources are on the horizon. Capitalism is the framework for discovering these solutions to problems. Have shares in a fuel-cell company because it helps me make money, it helps the environment and it helps feed the employees of the fuel-cell company. Capitalism is the solution, not the problem.
Polluting cars are a problem. But guess, what, non-capitalist countries have had polluting automobiles also. In fact they tend to pollute worse than ours! Once again, capitalism is the solution, not the problem. California's tough emission laws harnassed capitalism to funnel billions of dollars into alternative energy systems. Democractic capitalism offers the best hope of solutions to problems because it is a great mechanism for encouraging creativity and innovation.
If you want to be part of the solution you'll investigate ways to make capitalism compatible with the environment rather than trashing the only economic system that has ever been demonstrated to work consistently.
So, here is the problem, we allow* business to lie (market) in every way, using every channel at their own desire, to drive UP consumption - making our very real problem worse.
"We allow". Have you heard of rights? It is a fundamental human right for each individual or organization to communicate in almost any way with every other individual or organization. Although there are some limits at the margins (e.g. cigarette advertising is limited in many countries) the overall system is free. If you truly try to implement a system where unsolicited commercial communication is disallowed, you will need scores of draconian laws and thousands of policemen enforcing them every day.
The ironic thing is that you are quite open about your goal: you want to prevent corporations from encouraging certain patterns of thought. In other words you want to restrict free speech because you do not like what is being said. Does that sound right to you?
If you have a message that you want people to hear: shout it loud. But don't try to do so by shutting up your opponents through coercive laws.