Slashdot Mirror
EU to Require Opt-In for Commercial Email
From: Beebit <beebit-u03@euro.cauce.org>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email,
talk.politics.european-union
Subject: European Parliament Supports 'Opt-In' for Commercial Email
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:08:11 +0200
The European Parliament has decided to accept the Council's Common Position which would require senders of advertisements by "electronic mail" to have the recipient's prior consent. "Electronic mail" is defined broadly enough so as to include text messaging systems based on mobile telephony in addition to email.
The 'opt-in' requirement for electronic mail will be in Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the new Directive concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector which will enter into force following its publication in the Official Journal. The Directive will guide the enactment of legislation throughout the European Economic Area, which includes the 15 EU Member States and European Free Trade Association members Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. EU Members Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, and Italy as well as EFTA member Norway had already implemented 'opt-in' in their national legislation.
Further provisions in the same Article would allow companies to send advertising via email for their own products or services of a similar category to addresses which they had obtained in the course of a sale, unless and until the customer has registered an objection. Customers are to be given the opportunity to object "free of charge and in an easy manner" both at the time the contact details are collected and with each advertising message.
All in all, is an extremely welcome development, and should serve as an example and inspiration for legislators in other territories. We are absolutely delighted to see Parliament joining the Commission and the Council in taking a stand to protect European consumers and network users. It only remains to extend similar protection to corporate citizens. This will probably have to be within the framework of other legislation than that pertaining to the processing of "personal data".
~~~
The European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email is an
all-volunteer, ad-hoc grouping of Internet users and professionals
dedicated to bringing about an end to an unethical practice by
technical and legislative means.
http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/
Why must we be so behind the times when it comes to things like this?
Oh, right. We don't want to interfere with business' right to annoy the hell out of us.
--
pants ahoy
How is keeping mail that I didn't ask for, don't want, and have to pay for out of my inbox an "unconstitutional restriction on speech"? If they want to put their shit in my mailbox, they can at least have the good graces to pay the (e-)postage themselves.
The right of someone else to spend my money without my permission is exactly nil.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I have seen several opt in schemes which have tricked users into opting in, or have been fraudulantly opted in, and its then a pain in the backside to opt out again...
Is it gonna be mandatory that if someone wants to get away from something they opted in to that they can quickly and easily?
As has been said many times before, but which is obviously worth repeating here:
It is NOT a restriction on speech, because unsolicitied commercial email places a financial burdern upon the recipient, where the recipient has NOT consented to undertake that burden.
That is, they often have to directly pay to receive what they never requested. It is somewhat akin to having someone send you a magazine in the mail, and then bill you for it.
They should have to show in some way that you have opted in in the e-mail itself. Some sort of unique number that you gave them (or even an IP address, but this wouldn't be good enough). They would then have to have an e-mail AND some number to match up. There must also be a huge fine to back this up. This way, any business that sends an e-mail that says you opted in, can be automatically fined.
Spam is nearly impossible to stop via laws - I think the market will and is solving this problem with more intelligent filters that will make it un-rewarding.
Never complain about spam unless you can verify with 100% certainty that the address you are complaining about is the actual address of the spammer. Doing otherwise will just harm innocent spam victims.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
Face it, by putting up an email server, you are consenting to receive email.
Yeah, and she dressed like a slut, too.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
See cell phones
Not forgetting that with WAP handsets, you can collect your email on your mobile. For example, on my T68i, that involves downloading the headers and disconnecting, then reconnecting if you wish to collect the body of the message(s). By the time you've downloaded the headers, even if the subject line is obviously spam, you've still wasted airtime charges in collecting the spam mail header(s).
Spam, while obnoxious (especially HTML emails) is not the biggest unsolicited waste of money/bandwidth, at least not that I'm experiencing.
/var with their own little morons_log which seems to update every second. 2: Klez. Average number of klez-bearing emails recieved per day across the network-15.(And it's a SMALL network.) Klez contains attachments of variable sizes. Average number of minutes spent per day reassuring panic-stricken family members/co-workers/non-techie friends: 5. Cost of antivirus software per Windows compuer on network: $50. Time spent downloading antivirus updates--too much.
Byte for byte, the largest wastes of bandwidth I'm experiencing can be attributed to two categories: 1: Windows SysAdmins who refuse/don't know how to patch their systems against the likes of nimda and code red. They also waste space in
Spam can be blood-boilingly infuriating and push us to the point of wanting to ressurect public hangings, but I think that by and large the two categories I list are the biggest wastes of everything... And I'll be damned if I can find a way to opt out.
-Sara
Spam used to get me really mad and/or annoyed. I thought about the scammers out there, I thought about my wasted time, I thought about wasted resources, etc.
Recently, I've installed Spamassassin, and I've been running it for a few months.
Nowdays, spam doesn't bother me too much. Spamassassin tags nearly all of it. Deleted without much trouble or effort on my part. I still report the ones that get through the filter. I haven't had much of a problem with false positives either.
These days I'm thinking that passing more laws to stop spam isn't the answer. I'd rather we use technological solutions for now. If/when we finally all start using authenticated, encrypted e-mail, spam will cease to be a problem at all. In the mean time, a good filter aleviates the need for legislative solutions, in my opinion.
Face it, by putting up an email server, you are consenting to receive email.
That's like saying:
"Face it, by installing a telephone, you are consenting to receive obscene phone calls at 3:00AM."
"Face it, by putting up a pool, you are consenting to let random strangers hop in and piss in it."
"Face it, by storing your lawn mower outdoors, you are consenting to let your neighbors use it whenever they want to."
I put up a mail server so that I could invite specific people and organizations to communicate with me. I did not put it up so that I could receive random ads from every yahoo in a trailer park that wants to rope me into his Herbalife scam.
My server. My connection. My monthly bill. My decision.
No, actually, it's not.
But I have the option not to answer, and thus not to pay.
By the way, have you heard the latest ruse with cell phones? Some packages now let you subscribe to information services that charge you for using them, and apparently most mobiles are vulnerable to having someone dial you and then bill your account as if you'd subscribed to such a service, without any consent on your part at all. This is already happening, and is where unsolicited commercial messages are headed. Do you really, really think this is a good thing, and just like answering a long-distance call?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
But I do want an easy way to inflict a large burden on those who send it to me repeatedly, especially if they continue to do so after I request that they stop.
The problem right now with SPAM is that the SPAMMERS are preying on morons who think that SPAM works. These poor home-based business owners really think that SPAM companies are going to send their adverts to 5 million real people, as opposed to 1 million dead addresses, 1 million duplicate addresses, 1 million domain-name registrants (or ex-registrants), and 2 million people who will instantly trash the message. Maybe the best course of action is a crackdown on fraud laws?
I just had to cancel my email address of 5 years due to being overspammed. I was deleting mail that I needed because I was deleting blocks of 10, 20, 30 at a time. And now I will lose contact with old friends for a while. I would really like to be able to make some of those cocksucker spammers pay for it.
-dbc
Not true. Slashdot openly invites posts from anyone and everyone. They advertize themselves as a public venue. An email server which only services its own subscribers, whether it is connected to the Internet or not, is still private. Simply being connected to the Internet does not make a system fair game for any and all activity.
No, it isn't. The government is not deciding which emails are accptable and which are not. You can still opt-in to receive the emails. What the government is (would be) saying is that the sender of a certain type of message has to have the recipient's permission before sending that message. Here's an analogy: I tell my best friend he is welcome to come over any time and have a beer at my place. I have given him permission to enter and have accepted financial responsibility for any beer he might drink. But if a solicitor comes over, he has to obtain my permission to enter my house, otherwise he's tresspassing or burglarizing (which one depends on local laws). If the solicitor then proceeds to drink one of my beers, that's theft. The government hasn't prohibited the solicitor from attempting to sell his wares or from drinking beer, it has simply required him to obtain permission from the parties he may adversely affect.
Another analogy: I have CallNotes from the phone company, so when I'm not home and someone leaves me a message they're using the telco's eqiupment on which to store the message. It's a service I pay for, just as my email account is a service for which I pay my ISP. The message doesn't go directly to an answering machine in my house. However, the fact that I don't own or directly control the equipment on which the message is left does not circumvent the law(s) that say someone can not leave a message threatening my life. The caller is responsible for the message which is intended for me, whether or not the message is left on equipment I own.
Simply put, requiring opt-in for spam is not prior restraint. Prohibiting all spam under all circumstances would be.