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/
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.
One reason the EU might be more advanced is because of the widespread use of mobile phones and the belief (one day) that a mobile device will be your main Internet connection. With per-minute or per-bit charges, getting spammed is going to end up costing people some serious coin if spam continues to grow out of control.
I think this is a point a number of US politicians need to understand. With some of the charges proposed for 3G in the US ($2 a mb in some places) the end user could end up paying for a lot of crap e-mail.
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.
the same chunk of legislation also contains some truly dreadful provisions regarding retention of ISP traffic and logs - seven years, I believe, and I'm not sure if they've yet backed down from the original hilarious requirement that ISPs maintain archives of *all data* they transit for the same seven years. See extensive coverage from the last year or so at The Register and the BBC plus of course numerous issues of Need To Know.
What I don't understand is why "they" (gub'mint's everywhere) seem to think that the answer to the failures that lead to 9/11 is more of the same. Unless... but that would just be paranoia.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
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.
Two things.
1. Unless you're paying for your dialup "by-the-byte" (does anyone still operate that way anymore?), they're not spending your money. You've already spent it. Internet is flat-fee in the vast majority of areas.
2. Even your strong statement is not without precendent. See cell phones. If you're out of town, and I call you, YOU pay a long distance charge, just for answering your phone. Isn't this exactly analogous to checking your email? So yes, people can spend your money - it's not unheard of.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Two things.
1. Unless they've invented infinite bandwidth dialup, every kilobyte takes about a fifth of a second (assuming a good modem).
2. Phone companies in Europe (and elsewhere, excluding USA) charge by the second for local calls. It gets quoted by the minute (e.g. 2 eurocents per minute) but nowadays is calculated by the second (in NL on ISDN at least).
TANSTAAFL
Not only ISPs; all telecoms. All data. Seven years. The EU draftsman, Marco Capatto, is not happy with the data collection/retention clause, and has written a report on the proposal-- an interesting read. The problem is that this is a step away from the various governments independently deciding how to handle data collection and retention; the bill forces them to enact legislation that collects and retains in accordance with this bill. stop1984 has issued a press release on the subject.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
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.
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.
Germany has had a similar law before, and it didn't do anything.
I've reported spammers to the cops repeatedly, and usually got a letter 2 weeks later stating something along the lines of "yes, they violated the law, but we won't go after them for such a small offense because they're too busy with real crime (It's not like they're committing a major crime jike going 55 in a 50 zone, or crossing a traffic light 5 seconds after it turned red...)
I don't think this piece of legislation will be any different.
Legitimate businesses that may worry about their reputation never sent spam in the first place.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
The vast majority in Europe (which was part of civilized society, last I checked) pays by the second.
On the other hand, and provided you don't receive cell phone calls while roaming in other countries, cell phone reception is free as in beer.
Overall and givcen the really rotten mess called mobile phone services in the US, my assessment in that specific respect is:
Europe 1 : US 0
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk