Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Anti-Spam Ruling Nullified on Appeal
dex@ruunat writes: "Today, the Amsterdam court nullified an earlier ruling by a lower judge that that spam outfit AbFab is forbidden to send spam to customers of the Dutch ISP XS4all. According to the XS4all website (Dutch only), the judge ruled that spam doesn't cause very much inconvenience, and that people who want to get rid of it can easily change their email address. XS4all considers appealing to the Dutch high court. There's one other ray of hope though: in 15 months, the new European spam directive will come into force, effectively outlawing all spam." A prize of zero dollars to the reader who can suggest the translation engine which does the best job with Dutch :)
This translation brought to you by WorldLingo's free machine translation service:
18 July of 2002
The Court court Amsterdam today cut down sentence in the business of Abfab the US XS4ALL and 4 customers. The court destroys the diction in short lawsuit in which Abfab become forbidden still longer unasked commerciele e-mails (spam) to send to customers of XS4ALL, under penalty of a penalty payment of EURO 50 by bulletin. The possibility leaves the court in order continue if in the general spammers to she gives rise to nuisance; "In the case of the type spam which looks after for nuisance, is proportionaliteits-eisen in the lawsuit and can at niet-inachtneming from that it of onrechtmatigheid talk be. "
The court enters vastly on several layers on which the spamverbod had based XS4ALL, namely telecommunicatie-wetgeving, privacy - and (netwerk-)eigendomsrechten. Unfortunately concludes the court which does not satisfy none of these layers in order call a halt behaviour of Abfab, very the undesirable in the eyes of XSÂLL, to.
Simply rash XS4ALL the official report of the court which considers the violation on the privacy of the addressees is relative small. In to understand with difficulty a reasoning to the court notes that then a e-mail address is less given public (woon-)adres, and therefore certain a confidential character has, but that would cause the leaking out of it on the other hand less damage then a real address, because for each easy and against small costs of e-mail address can change. In the eyes of XS4ALL blijk of small opinion in the value give the court those internetters suture to conservation of their e-mail address as digital identity. More certainly now much internetters change, broadband Internet, go up it moreover in order change address strong overstapkosten in order of to.
XS4ALL are disappointed concerning this negative diction and have themselves recommended concerning the possibility in cassation go. The new European directive for privacy in the telecommunication sector issues an explicit prohibition on impeding internetters with unasked bulkmail. The European Council accepted the final text meanwhile and publication in the officiele publication booklet of the EU become thus expect in the short term. Afterwards it the member States have implement still 15 months the time the prohibition to. The court recognizes this and puts: "The problem of XS4ALL and [ the 4 customers ] himself, to himself now let aanzien, vanzelf to solve. "XS4ALL had hoped save Abfab and similar digital marketing companies of harte her customers with immediate entrance further nuisance of, but customers can now only to help with establishing technical spamfilters to the access to keep to serious communication.
More information regarding opt-in the spamfilters of XS4ALL:h tml
http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/spamfilter.
The sentence:. html
http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/abfab180702
July 18th 2002 ...not important, tells that really annoying spam can be forbidden or something)"
The Amsterdam court today ruled in the case of Abfab vs XS4ALL and 4 customers. The court destroys the ruling which forbade Abfab to send unsollicited commercial e-mail (spam) to customers of XS4ALL, with a punishment of 50 EURO per message (that had to be paid of Abfab did send spam). The court does leave the possibility to sue spammers in general if they cause severe interference ; "In the case of the type of spam which causes interference, the proportionality-claims (?) are in place and
The court extensively talks about the different grounds upon which XS4ALL had based the anti-spam ruling, namely the telecommunication-law, privacy- and (network ) ownership rights. Unfortunately the court concludes that none of these grounds justify the stop of Abfabs very -according to XS4ALL- unwanted behaviour.
XS4ALL really doesn't agree with the Court's finding that the breach of privacy of the adressees is relatively small. In a hard to understand point of view the Court concludes that an e-mail address is less of a a public given than a (mail-)address, and thus surely has a more confidential character, but that the publication of it on the other hand would cause less damage than a real address, because you can easily and at low costs change e-mail adresses. In the eyes of XS4ALL the Court hereby shows little insight in the value netizens attribute to the conservation (transl?) of their e-mail address as a digital identity. Especially now when lots of netizens are moving to permanent, broad-band internet, costs of changing address rise.
XS4ALL is disappointed about this negative ruling and is asking advise about the possibility to go to the supreme court. The new European Guideline for Privacy in the Telecom-sector explicitely forbids interference of internet-work with unwanted bulkmail. The European Counsil has accepted the final text and the publication of in the official publication of the EU is therefor expected soon. After that the member states have got 15 months to implement the prohibition. The Court acknowledges this and says: "The problem of XS4ALL and [the 4 customers] will fade, as the situation looks now, away automatically." XS4ALL had hoped wholehartedly to immediately help her customers avoid this kind of interference from Abfab and other similar digital marketing companies, but can now only help customers installing technical spam filters to maintain access to "serious" communication.