Slashdot Mirror


French Legislators Vote to Ban Spam

mlawmlaw writes "The Herald is reporting that France's National Assembly has voted 'in favor of banning unsolicited e-mail sales messages.' This is an admendment to a law to 'increase confidence in the digital economy.' This would ban 'direct marketing, notably advertising, via electronic messages' to individuals who had not given consent. The article is light on details, but it's nice to see France taking a step to reduce spam."

70 comments

  1. Keep the government out of this by GuyMannDude · · Score: 1

    The article is light on details, but it's nice to see France taking a step to reduce spam.

    Yeah, that's just what we need -- governments passing laws to outlaw things that the majority of the population doesn't like. I wonder other unpopular things they're looking at banning. At least Ashcroft hasn't labeled spammers as enemy combatants engaged in cyberterrorism and shipped them all off to Guantonomo Bay without a trial -- yet.

    Surely there must be a way to reduce spam without getting governments involved.

    GMD

    1. Re:Keep the government out of this by radicalskeptic · · Score: 1

      It isn't just a matter of not liking spam, it is a matter of what spam is doing to ISPs, and how useful the e-mail will be to everyone in the future. Spam drains massive ammounts of resources from servers and bandwidth. The complaint againt spam isn't just "oh, I don't like it!" It is also causing big problems for a lot of people.

      --
      WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
    2. Re:Keep the government out of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually, I'm sure spamming already falls under the new definition of terrorism in the U.S. After all, getting together in a public place with a few buddies will qualify you as one. Making any effort to "coerce" the population qualifies you as one. I'm sure spamming qualifies under that category.

    3. Re:Keep the government out of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I heard they are building a Maginot Firewall.

  2. Spammers declare war. by StupidEngineer · · Score: 1, Funny

    Am I the only one that's thinking the french will fold once the spammers declare war on them? :)

    1. Re:Spammers declare war. by crow · · Score: 1

      No, the French will just delay enacting the ban for an additional four months while they investigate the problem further.

    2. Re:Spammers declare war. by LucVdB · · Score: 1

      No, this is not funny. It's, at best, a trite way of showing ignorance.

    3. Re:Spammers declare war. by jpkunst · · Score: 1

      Sigh ... I wish I had mod points to mod this down. Those "the French surrender" jokes are getting really old. It's about as funny as "First post" if you ask me.

    4. Re:Spammers declare war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean l'ignorance? Come on, admit it ... you're FRENCH aren't you?

    5. Re:Spammers declare war. by nlvp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know if he's French, but I am, and yes, it is ignorant. And yes, it is old. And yes, it is insulting. And no. It's not funny, nor is it smart.

    6. Re:Spammers declare war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Even more famous than amazing performance of the French Army is the incredible ability of the French people to laugh at themselves.

    7. Re:Spammers declare war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: Hey, why does the French version of Slashdot have a big picture of a tree on the front page?

      A: So the German army can moderate them down in the shade.

    8. Re:Spammers declare war. by LucVdB · · Score: 0

      No, I'm not French actually, I'm from Flanders in Belgium. This 'French are cowards' joke is not funny, it's insulting and racist.

    9. Re:Spammers declare war. by StupidEngineer · · Score: 1

      hehehehe... nice evolution...
      Ah well. But as for the good old classic joke of the french surrendering died a horrible death.
      I only meant it in jest, but it just seems to me that people are being too sensitive. That the whole europe vs america tiff on iraq is just blurring into everything.
      Hell, I made this joke all the time with my french friends (they moved back to paris though), and they make american jokes.
      But hey, I guess there's always someone out there that is pissed at whatever you do.

    10. Re:Spammers declare war. by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      Just wait until the Germans begin spamming...

    11. Re:Spammers declare war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude... go take a shower... then come back and maybe we'll talk. Well, most likely we'll just make fun of your pathetic excuse for an army, but I'm sure a good time will be had by all!

    12. Re:Spammers declare war. by LucVdB · · Score: 1

      Hah! Must be my lucky day then!

    13. Re:Spammers declare war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, nobody has said that the French are cowards. We all know that it takes a hell of a lot of courage to stick your head up on the battlefield, not knowing if they saw the white flag or not.

    14. Re:Spammers declare war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      French is not a race of humanity, you moron. It's a skin condition.

    15. Re:Spammers declare war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be insulting and racist but it also happens to be quite true.

      If is was not true it'd not be a cliche and it'd not be widely repeated.

    16. Re:Spammers declare war. by freestyle-fiend · · Score: 1

      > It may be insulting and racist but it also happens
      > to be quite true.

      Rascist comments are, by definition, untrue.

    17. Re:Spammers declare war. by LucVdB · · Score: 1

      Ah, 'racist' is indeed not the term for it, I'll give you that much.
      Though it's so close as to make no difference.

    18. Re:Spammers declare war. by jjo · · Score: 1

      Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to change a lightbulb?

      A: That is a stupid question, reflecting the profound and abysmal ignorance of every American regarding Europe in general, and France in particular. And besides, THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

  3. The French are so transparent by sydlexic · · Score: 1

    It's obvious they're anti-spam because it's an American invention. In fact, I think George Bush invented it (shortly after Gore invented the internet).

  4. No way to enforce thhis by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am completely in agreement with the idea of outlawing spam and have long wished for such a law in the US. Unfortunately, the more I think about it, the more I realize, there's just no way to enforce such a law.

    First, in order to enforce such a law you would have to create some sort of governmental agency where you would send your spam complaints and they would go after the spammers. This, of course, results in the creation of another bloated government bureaucracy fincanced by your tax dollars. This raises a number of issues -- not the least of which is "how much benefit will you really get in return for the millions of dolars that will be spent".

    The second problem, and the most frustrating, is one that I have run into in my own attempts at fighting spam. When I trace the IP addresses of the spam which arrives in my inbox daily, I find that more and more are originating from foreign countries, including Korea, China, Spain and Brazil.

    So, no matter how tough your anti-spam law may be, it's worthless when spammers cant take advantage of open relays in foreign countries.

    1. Re:No way to enforce thhis by samhalliday · · Score: 1

      > Unfortunately, the more I think about it, the > more I realize, there's just no way to enforce > such a law. there is no way to enforce it in a grand scale; but at least ISP's will be able to do a little more than just cut connections when they find abusers of their networks. At least this way, if you ever check the senders IP to be from France, you can contact the ISP in charge and log a complaint which may be followed up legally (at least partial evidence in a legal case)... only problem is, we need to speak french; you all know how they can be ;-D (and rightly so!)

    2. Re:No way to enforce thhis by jalet · · Score: 4, Informative

      > First, in order to enforce such a law you would
      > have to create some sort of governmental agency
      > where you would send your spam complaints

      Fortunately for us, in France, we already have such an agency since 1978. It's called the CNIL (http://www.cnil.fr) for "Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés" (National Commission for Computing an Liberties), and principally deals with privacy issues and personnal information storage and retrieval.

      Last year they opened a spam mailbox, for people to forward them spam messages, expecting about ten messages a day or so, but in a few days the mailbox quota exploded with more than 65000 messages...

      Now they ARE aware !

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    3. Re:No way to enforce thhis by matts.nu · · Score: 1

      You don't need a new government agency. If it's illegal to spam then law enforcement should take care of it, just like any other crime.

      Tracing the spam is indeed diffcult, but the police wouldn't have to use that approach. They could instead "follow the money." Since every spam has a payment button, you just have to send them some money and arrest the person who receives the money.

      Think of how law enforcement would act if somebody was selling kiddie porn or assasinations or drugs. They could use the same method when dealing with spammers, if the laws were properly written.

      Complain to your congressman, not your ISP!

    4. Re:No way to enforce thhis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, there's no way France can make it illegal in other countries to send spam to France.

      And, with France's pussy-ish attitude about this whole Iraq thing after all America has done for them, I think it is every person's duty to spam the hell out of France.

  5. Yes, there is by sydlexic · · Score: 1

    Surely there must be a way to reduce spam without getting governments involved.

    It's called vigilanteism. Let's all gang up on the bastards and give them a little taste of community justice. 'Cause if it isn't against the law, what other incentive do they have to stop.

  6. French Government by Old+Uncle+Bill · · Score: 1

    I guess the French government is not owned by the corporations? Man, that is refreshing. Where did they come up with that one. Shit, I'll drop my rifle and run any day for that.

    --
    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
    1. Re:French Government by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Viva La France!

      --
      How ya like dat?
    2. Re:French Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not viva. It's not Spanish. You need to do the French conjugation, from vivre.

      You want the French equivalent:

      Vive la France!

  7. So the French are good for something after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, and French Fries too.

    1. Re:So the French are good for something after all by MarvinMouse · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually french fries weren't made by the french in france, but rather Belgium (source).

      even then though, the evidence is sketchy. In reality the reason they are called French fries is because the way of cutting the potatoes is called "to french". Cutting a potatoe in long, slender slices is to french the potatoe. (Not to be confused with a different more modern "to french").

      Just some interesting facts.

      --
      ~ kjrose
    2. Re:So the French are good for something after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. How about:
      French toast?
      Chicken cordon bleu?
      French kiss?

      They must have some redeeming quailities.

    3. Re:So the French are good for something after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hirsuite?

    4. Re:So the French are good for something after all by ufoo · · Score: 1

      Remember when everyone was giving VP Dan a hard time about misspelling tomato? It turns out that it is a fairly common stupid mistake.

      --

      --
      Annotateit at Annotateit.com
    5. Re:So the French are good for something after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Cutting a potatoe in long, slender slices is to french the potatoe

      I thought that was called julienne?
    6. Re:So the French are good for something after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cutting a potatoe in long, slender slices is to french the potatoe. (Not to be confused with a different more modern "to french").

      Also not to be confused with a different way of spelling "potato", Mr Quayle.

    7. Re:So the French are good for something after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Potatoe is spelt with an e in Canada, Mr. American.

  8. finally... by maniac/dev/null · · Score: 1
    at least they can take a stand on SOMETHING...

    but seriously, why would france want to attack its best oil supplier? they aren't chickens, they're smart business men who just happen to deal with tryannical dictators.

    1. Re:finally... by freestyle-fiend · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > but seriously, why would france want to attack its
      > best oil supplier?

      Also, US oil companies stand to gain from this war. If it is acceptable for the US to act in its own commercial interests, then why is it not acceptable for France to protect its business? (I am not saying the right course of action will not coincide with anyone's business interests, just that the parties involved have too much of a conflict of interest to be trusted).

      > they aren't chickens, they're
      > smart business men who just happen to deal with
      > tryannical dictators.

      Much like US governments who have illegally overthrown democratically elected governments in the name of democracy, supported Saddam Hussein when it suited them to, funded Al Qaeda, backed Isreal's war of aggression against Palestine, permitted its citizens to fund terrorism against Britain, supported dictators in Saudi Arabia and human rights violations in Turkey and imposed poverty on Cuba through unwarranted sanctions. All done in accordance with US business interests.

  9. this legislation doesn't solve anything by w00dy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This would ban 'direct marketing, notably advertising, via electronic messages' to individuals who had not given consent.

    The problem with legislation like this is that most people opt-in on a specific site, but that list gets sold. You don't know what the buyers are using that information for so consent was given, but not necessarily to the people sending. US laws have a very similar problem.

  10. Oh, in Europe it does by smcv · · Score: 1

    In Europe, we have data protection law (google for Data Protection Act to see Britain's implementation, but it's an EU thing, so the other European countries have very similar laws with the same purpose).

    Companies that deal with "personally identifiable information" have to be registered with a central authority (the Data Protection Registrar, a government office), and have to give a reason why they want to keep the information. If a company passes on the information, or even just uses it for something other than its original purpose, they're already breaking the law, so no new law is necessary.

    (The registration thing might be different outside Britain, but the principle is probably the same in France)

    1. Re:Oh, in Europe it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same exists in France (see http://www.cnil.fr) since a law passed in 1978.

  11. Legislation Realistic? by n-baxley · · Score: 1

    You can always count on the French to take the idealistic option.

    1. Re:Legislation Realistic? by Zutroy+Of+Earth · · Score: 1

      It's better then preemptively bombing all countries that have open relays :p

    2. Re:Legislation Realistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You can always count on the French to take the idealistic option.

      Sure, like heroically insisting on blowing up Pacific islands to test their nuclear weapons...

  12. Banning Spam?!?! by slagdogg · · Score: 0

    This means war! Oh wait ...

    --
    (Score:-1, Wrong)
  13. BFD by ufoo · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who cares. They'll never do anything about it, and even if they do they'll mess it up. They voted to pass resolution 1441, but they haven't backed it up. And frankly, I'd say that VX nerve gas would be a tad more disruptive to the average French citizen than a little unsolicited spam. Hell, I may just dig out my old french books and see if I can sell some wine and cheese via the internet.

    --

    --
    Annotateit at Annotateit.com
    1. Re:BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most French cannot tell the difference between VX nerve gas and Pepe Le Pew.

  14. French Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, don't knock the French army. The French army did a great job of defending the Hutus in Rwanda during genocide of a half million Tutsis. Sure, the Hutus were killing people, but they spoke French, so who cares?

  15. In related news by sheddd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    No to be one-upped by the French, President Bush has promised to ban Entropy in the US.

    1. Re:In related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And France responded by banning Bart Simpson!

  16. The Irony by KurdtX · · Score: 1

    First, let me state that I hate spam as much as anyone else, and would very much like to see it disappear. But let me play devil's adovcate for a second. One thought has occured to me:

    How is spam different than bulk mail? You still have to look at it, still have to throw it in the trash, and still don't read the messages inside. And what are the complaints against spam? "It wastes server space. It wastes bandwidth." Oh, now those are certainly precious, non-renable resources. Not like the millions of trees that are cut down daily for bulk mail. (Yes, I'm ignoring the cost difference, but the point is still the same)

    Just wondering.... Btw, is there any reason we (or the French) can't outlaw any type of unsolicited (e)mail?

    --

    Kurdt
    I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
    1. Re:The Irony by DroppedPacket · · Score: 2, Interesting
      How is spam different than bulk mail?

      Let me count the ways... And you did itemize some of them.

      Bulk mail (i.e. junk mail) is sender paid

      I get more Spam than junk mail

      Junk mail isn't always trying to sell me sex. Er, ignore the Victoria's Secret catalog for a minute. That's literature

      I can always find out who sent me junk mail

      I get junk mail once a day. I get Spam throughout the day.

      Spam clogs the internet and slows down the transfer of useful pr0n

      Faked headers and bounces, etc., can lead to a lot of wasted disk space and admin time, overflow of legitimate mailboxes, etc.

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    2. Re:The Irony by mcmay · · Score: 2, Informative

      First: Bulk snail mail is controlled in other civilized countries like the Netherlands. You can put a sticker on your mail slot to say you don't want to receive it. Just because something is a certain way does not suggest that it or its derivatives should be that way. That's called a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

      Second: The resources consumed in snail mail are compensated for in the form of postage to the carrier. It is comparatively zero cost to the recipient. Spam is paid for by people providing service to themselves, not to the person or bot sending the spam.

      And then there's the situation regarding sites being bombarded with spam. I've received hundreds of messages in a tight timeframe (i.e., minutes). That's different from the onesie-twosie nature of most bulk snail mail. I suspect that if some jackass started walking up to your mailbox and stuffing it with 300 letters, all requiring sorting and inspection to ensure that good email isn't being thrown out unread, you'd probably be begging for this kind of restriction in The Real World(tm) as well.

  17. More Proof by bwt · · Score: 0, Troll


    I'm surprised that France didn't ask for more proof that spam was a problem.

    On the other hand, what happens if you ignore France and keep violating the law? Are you guaranteed they'll perpetually seek a "diplomatic solution"?

    1. Re:More Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to killing the spammer? I hope so.

  18. Way too limited by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    "It wasn't selling anything, it was offering a free tour!"
    useless law.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  19. Wrong: French Govt bans spam not in French languag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another fine and stupid idea from the French "Ministry of Language"

  20. do not rejoice that much by sxpert · · Score: 1

    yeah, but it has strings attached such as making ISP responsible for policing user web sites (hell, think about censorship coming). more info here (in French, but you can have a good laugh using google translation services ;-) )

  21. Lets spam those French idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's their e-mail address ?

  22. Continuing the War On X by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Let's ban drugs, that'll make them disappear forever.

    Government just never learns from its past, does it ?

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  23. Spam, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're banning Specially Processed American Meats?

    Fine. Next time those cheese eating surrender monkeys are invaded by a Totalitarian regime, and are starving..

    Let them eat cake. *snort*

  24. Re:A great BELGIAN invention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interestingly, the article above mentions French Fries being offered in London in the 1800s by Joseph Malines.

    Malines in a town in Belgium, about 10 miles form Brussels. Probably, thats where Joseph came from.

    AC (TLTL - too lazy to log)

  25. Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then the process repeats, thus causing an infinit loop.