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.
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.
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?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).
If God gave us curiosity
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.