Slashdot Mirror
UK And EU May Make Unsolicited Email Illegal
An anonymous reader writes "According to this BBC article the UK and the EU are planning to making unsolicited email simply illegal. This doesn't do anything for prevention practically, but it does legally pave the way for measures that do. Lord Sainsbury of Turville admits it will do nothing to stop spam from outside the EU."
Last time I checked, UK was a part of the EU, and has been for decades. :P
Ok I did not read the article yet ,but I always thought the UK was part of the EU (not the EMU though)?
- In Memoriam: Jeroen de Bruin (1972-2004), bye bro
In Denmark it is already illegal for companies(but not people) to send out SPAM.
:-)
If the EU makes SPAM illegal, then spammers cannot SPAM from the EU.
US is also trying to stop SPAM.
Lets say these countries are the only ones to do something. It will still work!
Currently I put everything from china into my SPAM-folder and by golly, I'll just blacklist every country that doesn't have anti-SPAM laws.
Problem (almost) solved
-- Make software not war
EU has already made unsolicited commercial email (UCE) illegal, see article 13 of the Directive on privacy and electronic communications (2002/58/EC), after intense lobbying e.g. by EuroCAUCE.
The directive must be implemented by the member states by 31 October 2003.
(I just wrote statement [in Finnish] to the Finnish ministry of transports and communications on behalf of Electronic Frontier Finland of our proposed local implementation of the directive (which at the current form would allow ask-permission-spam (i.e. you would be allowed to send spam to ask permission to send more spam. :( )))
Both services take about three months to fully kick in following registration.
There's a loophole in the mailing one though, and a comment in another thread some time ago mentioned a way round it. Junk mail may still be delivered to 'The Occupier' by the Royal Mail. Someone a while ago mentioned there was a service to stop this too - haven't been able to find that one. Anybody know?
Cheers,
Ian
That is to say, we'll suddenly see a lot more careless e-mail blocks being placed on large swaths of entire countries, some by individuals, and most likely often by ISPs.
Which reminds me; could you all kindly remind your ISP's that APNIC's address space is not JUST China, Korea and the Phillipines. It includes some friendly, non-spammy countries too (NZ and Australia).
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
This directive was first published in the middle of last year, I don't know why it's suddenly become newsworthy. The anti-spam campaigners have done well, though. As far as EU companies go, email will be opt-in for the whole European Economic Area (which includes the European Union). I'd like to thank the people who have put in so much effort to bring about this result.
Another interesting legal change comes with the Electronic Commerce Directive, which removes ISP's liability when they are acting as a "mere conduit" for illegal information. This is already in force, and marks the end of Godrey v Demon.
This article is from Jyllands Posten, the largest newspaper in Denmark. I'm quite surprised it hasn't been mentioned on Slashdot, but here's my chance to karma-whore I guess. Freely translated by me, I'm sure some Dane will correct me. [Source] ============= Headline: Expensive to spam Text: In the first case about violating the marketing law regarding spam via email or telefax, the company Fonn Danmark A/S have been handed a fine of 15000 Dkr [= 2020]. More cases are waiting in other juristriction. 100 Dkr [= 13,46] per illegal email or telefax. That's how the Sea- and Merchant Court judged a case against Fonn Danmark A/S for violating the marketing law regarding transmittal of unrequested adverts as email or telefax. The case is the first in Denmark regarding so called spam adverts. Even though the Consumer Ombudsman had demanded 200.000 Dkr [= 26,935] from the Norwegian company, Consumer Ombudsman Hagen Jørgensen is still happy about the fine, which the court settled at 15000 Dkr. "We would have liked to see a larger fine, but considering how small the company is, and the fact that the judgement is for 156 spams only, the fine isn't that bad", says Hagen Jørgensen. Reasons for the size of the fine are many. Amongst others the Sea- and Merchant Court have considered the concrete number of violations, if the company has known about the laws regarding this issue and the size of the company's revenue. Consumers not pleased While the Consumer Ombudsman seems reasonable pleased, the judgement makes Aktive Forbrugere [Active Consumers] shake their heads. "It cannot be considered fair that a company can transmit large amounts of adverts and get off with a fine of 15000 Dkr. Neither can it be considered fair that it is the consumers who need the do something to raise a case like this", says Ole Tange, IT executive at Aktive Forbrugere. In the case versus Fonn Danmark the company has admitted to transmit 10000 to 15000 emails. Nevertheless the judgement considers the 156 documented emails only. Part of the case is that Fonn Danmark several times were told that they were violating 6a of the marketing law, which clearly states that without prior consent, companies are not allowed to contact someone by electronic mail, automatic dialing systems or telefax for the purpose of selling goods or services. In the reminder from the Sea- and Merchant Court it was told that Fonn Danmark was also punished for unnecesarily having stolen peoples' time by forcing them to read and process the unrequested adverts. But Ole Tange feels that the notion of making a distinction because of Fonn Danmark's size and the number of documented spams opens the floodgates for future abuse of spam emails since it is hard to imagine cases where consumers or the Consumer Ombudsman manages to collect the 100000 of emails which are apparently necesary to increase the size of the fine to a level where it becomes unattractive for companies to speculate in spam-emails. With last Thursday's judgement, the Consumer Ombudsman hopes companies will think again before they push the button and send unsolicited emails. Ready for more cases If the companies dare it anyway, the Consumer Ombudsman is ready to sue. If sent by smaller companies, the Ombudsman will typically contact them and remind them of the law, while larger companies will usually face the police immediately, Special Consultant for the Consumer Office Peter Fogh Knudsen tells. He was the one running the case against Fonn Danmark. At the moment, Peter Fogh Knudsen estimates that 3 to 4 similar cases are running in other juristrictions. The Consumer Office also requests Danes to forward spam to spam@fs.dk because that is the most effective way of collecting the documentation for possible violatings of the marketing law. This judgement for the Danish market comes at a time when Microsoft, AOL Time Warner and Yahoo jointly exclaim spam as the largest threat against the IT sector. =============
> Joe comes across slashdot and, offended by the diatribe, writes an angry flame in disagreement and e-mails it to Bill
(40) Safeguards should be provided for subscribers against intrusion of their privacy by unsolicited communications for direct marketing purposes in particular by means of automated calling machines, telefaxes, and e-mails, including SMS messages. These forms of unsolicited commercial communications may on the one hand be relatively easy and cheap to send and on the other may impose a burden and/or cost on the recipient. Moreover, in some cases their volume may also cause difficulties for electronic communications networks and terminal equipment. For such forms of unsolicited communications for direct marketing, it is justified to require that prior explicit consent of the recipients is obtained before such communications are addressed to them.
> excuse for the idea that Bill has entered into a business relationship with it, and then sends Bill spam forever without a clear sign of how to remove himself from their lists?
(41) Within the context of an existing customer relationship, it is reasonable to allow the use of electronic contact details for the offering of similar products or services, but only by the same company that has obtained the electronic contact details in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC. When electronic contact details are obtained, the customer should be informed about their further use for direct marketing in a clear and distinct manner, and be given the opportunity to refuse such usage. This opportunity should continue to be offered with each subsequent direct marketing message
It talks about direct mailing. Anyway, a EU Directive is not law; it is just a set of guidelines for member states to make their own laws. For reading the directives, some browsing from http://europa.eu.int will be enough :-)
A train tunnel. No cars driving through the tunnel, if you want to bring your car through the tunnel, it gets loaded onto a train waggon.
Whether the trains drive on the wrong (opposite of right) side in the UK, I don't know.
Freely translated by me, I'm sure some Dane will correct me. [Source]
=============
Headline: Expensive to spam
Text:
In the first case about violating the marketing law regarding spam via email or telefax, the company Fonn Danmark A/S have been handed a fine of 15000 Dkr [= 2020]. More cases are waiting in other juristrictions.
100 Dkr [= 13,46] per illegal email or telefax.
That's how the Sea- and Merchant Court judged a case against Fonn Danmark A/S for violating the marketing law regarding transmittal of unrequested adverts as email or telefax.
The case is the first in Denmark regarding so called spam adverts.
Even though the Consumer Ombudsman had demanded 200.000 Dkr [= 26,935] from the Norwegian company, Consumer Ombudsman Hagen Jørgensen is still happy about the fine, which the court settled at 15000 Dkr.
"We would have liked to see a larger fine, but considering how small the company is, and the fact that the judgement is for 156 spams only, the fine isn't that bad", says Hagen Jørgensen.
Reasons for the size of the fine are many. Amongst others the Sea- and Merchant Court have considered the concrete number of violations, if the company has known about the laws regarding this issue and the size of the company's revenue.
Consumers not pleased
While the Consumer Ombudsman seems reasonable pleased, the judgement makes Aktive Forbrugere [Active Consumers] shake their heads.
"It cannot be considered fair that a company can transmit large amounts of adverts and get off with a fine of 15000 Dkr. Neither can it be considered fair that it is the consumers who need the do something to raise a case like this", says Ole Tange, IT executive at Aktive Forbrugere.
In the case versus Fonn Danmark the company has admitted to transmit 10000 to 15000 emails. Nevertheless the judgement considers the 156 documented emails only.
Part of the case is that Fonn Danmark several times were told that they were violating 6a of the marketing law, which clearly states that without prior consent, companies are not allowed to contact someone by electronic mail, automatic dialing systems or telefax for the purpose of selling goods or services.
In the reminder from the Sea- and Merchant Court it was told that Fonn Danmark was also punished for unnecesarily having stolen peoples' time by forcing them to read and process the unrequested adverts.
But Ole Tange feels that the notion of making a distinction because of Fonn Danmark's size and the number of documented spams opens the floodgates for future abuse of spam emails since it is hard to imagine cases where consumers or the Consumer Ombudsman manages to collect the 100000 of emails which are apparently necesary to increase the size of the fine to a level where it becomes unattractive for companies to speculate in spam-emails.
With last Thursday's judgement, the Consumer Ombudsman hopes companies will think again before they push the button and send unsolicited emails.
Ready for more cases
If the companies dare it anyway, the Consumer Ombudsman is ready to sue. If sent by smaller companies, the Ombudsman will typically contact them and remind them of the law, while larger companies will usually face the police immediately, Special Consultant for the Consumer Office Peter Fogh Knudsen tells. He was the one running the case against Fonn Danmark.
At the moment, Peter Fogh Knudsen estimates that 3 to 4 similar cases are running in other juristrictions.
The Consumer Office also requests Danes to forward spam to spam@fs.dk because that is the most effective way of collecting the documentation for possible violatings of the marketing law.
This judgement for the Danish market comes at a time when Microsoft, AOL Time Warner and Yahoo jointly exclaim spam as the largest threat against the IT sector.
=============
"The envelope is the part of message that contains information such as the sender, the subject, from where the message came, and so on."
Huh? I thought the envelope just contained things like MAIL FROM: and RCPT TO:. The body (DATA) contains all the other headers such as subject and from. See how the from field can be different between the envelope and headers, although most MUAs don't allow this even if the MTA does.
Try telneting in to an SMTP server and yourself emails. You'll find that you can create all the headers you want in the DATA section - just leave a blank line between them and the body of the message.
You are right; they have to specify the type of mail. And "commercial" alone won't do it. Think of your unsolicited phone calls. In addition to salesmen, you have surveys and other junk.
Due to postings on usenet for a couple of years in the mid-90's, my school email address is registered in a million databases as open to receiving religious mail. Every week I get somebody else deciding to add me to their daily devotional list. That's not commercial, but it's just as unwelcome.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.