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.
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.
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.
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 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.