Slashdot Mirror
Spam And Alston - From Luddite To Pin-Up?
templeton069 writes "Alston (the Australian Communications Minister) has been lambasted as the 'world's greatest Luddite' for a long time but the spam bill introduced to the Australian Parliament last week seems to have struck an almost magical balance with everyone from the Internet Industry Association, the Coalition Against Bulk Unsolicited Email and the Direct Marketing Association, suggesting that it is about as good as it gets. So what's the story -- can you go from Luddite to pin-up in one step? And more importantly, does the legislation provide a template for other jurisdictions to implement low-pain anti-spam legislation?"
Non-profit groups are exempt.
Sorry, but I don't like spammers that are trying to save my soul any more than spammers who want to sell me placebos to increase my sexual prowess.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Anyone can blurt what he has, now lets see him execute it.
I don't see anything about drawing and quartering spammers in that legislation!
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
okThe real secret to this Luddite's success against spam is the provision in the bill banning spammers from possessing computers or electronic equipment of any kind. Apparently, he felt that carrier pidgeon would be the the best way to transport the spam of the future.
Reference the Do Not Call List earlier.
No more Micro$oft bashing from me. Its like bashing at the special olympics.
the bill can be linked to directly. If you want to get to it using the list liked to in the article then scroll down to number 124.
They don't mind banning those sleezy low-life spammers, but don't wish to restrict the targeted e-marketting of ethical businesses...
I suppose I should read the article, but I bet it takes less than a minute to find the escape hatch in this law. I'll be back...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
That Dingo stole my penis enlarger!
That is not redemption, that is buying a vote with an issue.
Just ignore it all. Everyone is making such a big deal of spam. A simple filter get's it all for me and I've got my email in some odd places. Why don't you focus that animosity towards something more damaging like the fricken flyers on every lamp post saying "10K+ a month, part time, work from home"???
-Tim Louden
Yes, the anti-spam bill is a good step, but he's still a Luddite.
On Microsoft closing chat rooms:
Senator Alston said other firms would have social obligations and legal concerns prompting them to take similar action.
Article
He thinks MS did this for the public good.
I don't think we'll see anything slow down until the first procecution.
Maybe we'll all have to put NO JUNK MAIL on our web pages to show we've put some effort into informing the miscreants.
It goes to show however, that once an IT issue directly annoys a minister it gets results. The more IT issues become mainstream the better.
That is not redemption, that is buying a vote with an issue.
I'd rather someone buy my vote with an issue than with money.
Have you tried Linux yet?
So.. does this mean that people running and/or responsible for open-relays aren't responsible for the traffic that goes through them?
That's Flipino lawyers, and I don't see the relevance. Everything's about race these days.
Yup. And it happens all the time. Single selfish issues that a person has will make them pick one candidate over another. Something as universally hated as spam will make people suddenly like you when you vote to stomp it out.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
"Spam And Alston - From Luddite To Pin-Up?"
Am I the only one picturing an older man in an undershirt, suspenders and short pants as a centerfold? (Not to mention a dozen broken monitors behind him.)
I want to be bought buy a platform, not by an issue.
I don't know about you, but this isn't my idea of a great pin-up.. but to each their own I guess.
It's interesting to note that selling address harvesting software will become illegal, and that selling email lists harvested by software will also become illegal. It will also be illegal to use the list even if you bought it overseas. The problem lies in proving that the list was obtained in this way.
You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
Fine, so you can be bought too, only your price is higher.
I want to be bought buy a platform, not by an issue.
Oh, good point.
I don't vote anyways, so I really don't know what I'm talking about.
I would, however, vote for a presidential canidate if they had a solid plan to use alternate energy sources.
Have you tried Linux yet?
This is not offtopic.
This is a referrence to said Ludite.
For moderators in the UK be advised the link does not advocate the P word.
His latest statement is here, where he claims that after Microsoft's closure of its chatrooms, more scrutiny will be placed on those of other ISPs
Microsoft's chat service closure was less to do with protecting children than it was a chance to start strangling their IM competition. The child protection thing was just pulling the wool over the public's eyes.
Alston would like nothing more than to have every unmoderated chat service shut down.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
As another has pointed out, there are a number of exemptions:
Eg. Schedule 1, Object, Note 2:
Designated commercial electronic messages are exempt from section 16 (unsolicited commercial electronic messages must not be sent) and section 18 (commercial electronic messages must contain a functional unsubscribe facility).
Those 'designated commercial electronic messages' include:
Government bodies, political parties, religious organisations and charities
(a) the sending of the message is authorised by any of the following bodies:
(i) a government body;
(ii) a registered political party;
(iii) a religious organisation;
(iv) a charity or charitable institution; and
(b) the message relates to goods or services; and
(c) the body is the supplier, or prospective supplier, of the goods or services concerned.
Educational institutions
(a) the sending of the message is authorised by an educational institution; and
(b) either or both of the following subparagraphs applies:
(i) the relevant electronic accountholder is, or has been, enrolled as a student in that institution;
(ii) a member or former member of the household of the relevant electronic accountholder is, or has been, enrolled as a student in that institution; and
(c) the message relates to goods or services; and
(d) the institution is the supplier, or prospective supplier, of the goods or services concerned
Factual information
(a) the message consists of no more than factual information (with or without directlyrelated comment) and any or all of the following additional information:
(i) the name, logo and contact details of the individual or organisation who authorised the sending of the message;
(ii) the name and contact details of the author;
(iii) if the author is an employee--the name, logo and contact details of the author's employer;
(iv) if the author is a partner in a partnership--the name, logo and contact details of the partnership;
(v) if the author is a director or officer of an organisation--the name, logo and contact details of the organisation;
(vi) if the message is sponsored--the name, logo and contact details of the sponsor;
(vii) information required to be included by section 17;
(viii) information that would have been required to be included by section 18 if that section had applied to the message; and
(b) assuming that none of that additional information had been included in the message, the message would not have been a commercial electronic message; and
(c) the message complies with such other condition or conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations.
After all that, I don't really see how it will help one bit. To my interpretation (wrong though it may be) we can still get spam but we have to know who it is coming from, and if it is from a business (for profit) it may not be more than a business card. On the other hand, from a govt body, political party, religious crazies (or otherwise), and charities, you den't even need to be able to unsubscribe. It must relate to goods or services (uh huh... big protection there. The catalogues in my mailbox do that too) and they must be the prospective supplier. That's what they are hoping, anyway.
Also, a uni, or school, may cheerfully spam all their students. What fun.
All seems to be a waste of time to me.
As for Alston... if anyone sees him, punch him in the face for me, or somesuch.
For those that dont remember, Richard Alston is the Communications Minister that spent $4 million on a website. I dont car how many good deeds he does, he is still the worlds worst luddite. References for those who dont remember: $4 million website or $4 million website And he couldnt even spend that money on the local economy. His view of technology is that it has to be done with the big multi-national companies, local ones dont even get a look in (see the whirlpool link). Obviously the companies prefered are the ones that are likely to hire him as a consultant either now or later on.
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
Actually, as he is a senior Minister in the Australian government, he would have had the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts write the bill. And after they did the initial drafting, it would have gone to the Attorney General's Dept for conversion into legalese, i.e. to keep the language tight and to make sure it only allows/disallows the things that it is intended to.
Regardless, Alston would still have had the final say and would have checked off on every aspect of the bill before it went to Parliament.
It's not like America here - there aren't a great number of aides (political staff) and they don't generally write bills - most of that kind of work is done by public servants.
wow you used buy instead of by, great pun, i commend u, you made me chuckle.
Perhaps here is a nice summary
Where ever I go, there I am
I'm looking for ways to get hits on my site, and, that $50 for 300,000 targetted opt-in emails is looking better all the time.
All this legislation does is make it more expensive for spammers, not less likely. Right now, because email is so cheap, eventually spammers will succumb under their own weight because they can't make a profit in an industry where price competition exists.
But now, with opt in mailing lists, you've created a thing of value for spammers to own, and to sell or rent.
Way to go spam legisltatures. You've just turned a nuisance into the next mega industry!
This is my sig.
I will admit I only read the "Simplified Outline", but from what I saw there, my only grip with this bill is this:
"Address-harvesting software must not be supplied,
acquired or used."
I have no problem banning the USAGE of harvested lists. But banning the software?? hmmmm it reeks of censorship to me. Personally, I'd rather be free and spammed than to be sliding down slippery slopes that are completely spam-free.
But maybe that's why I hang out here instead of the local pub.
Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Harvesting? HARVESTING? I hate that term because it implies that the addresses are the spammers' crops and they are simply collecting their own property.
In reality, the spammers are stealing the addresses. So why not use a term that is closer to the mark, such as "address looting", "address pillaging" or "address plundering".
Dictionary.com says:
Loot:
1. Valuables pillaged in time of war; spoils.
2. Stolen goods.
3. Informal. Goods illicitly obtained, as by bribery.
4. Informal. Things of value, such as gifts, received on one occasion.
5. Slang. Money.
Pillage:
1. v. tr. To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; plunder.
2. v. tr. To take as spoils.
3. v. intr. To take spoils by force.
4. n. The act of pillaging.
5. n. Something pillaged; spoils.
Plunder:
1. v. tr. To rob of goods by force, especially in time of war; pillage: plunder a village.
2. v. tr. To seize wrongfully or by force; steal: plundered the supplies.
3. v. intr. To take booty; rob.
4. n. The act or practice of plundering.
5. n. Property stolen by fraud or force; booty.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
You are also exempt if:
the message relates to goods or services; and
(c) the body is the supplier, or prospective
supplier, of the goods or services concerned.
Holy Shit. That means that I have the right to send you email if I have something that I want to sell you, or think I might want to sell you. I think I might want to sell a penis enlarger. I will now email these 2 million people to see if they would be interested. Hey, the law lets me do it as long as I let you unsubscribe and say who I am.
You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
A man that thinks broadband is just for games, introduced unworkable Internet censorship and thinks Telstra is doing a good enough job to become 100 percent public is still a Luddite.
Lots of organisations are still digesting this bill, and are yet to issue a response. But groups may well come out swinging against:
It's a step in the right direction, but this bill is far from perfect.
Exception--conspicuous publication
(2)However, if:
(a)a particular electronic address enables the public, or a section of the public, to send electronic messages to:
(i) a particular employee; or
(ii) a particular director or officer of an organisation; or
(iii) a particular partner in a partnership; or
(iv) a particular holder of a statutory or other office; or
(v) a particular self-employed individual; or
(vi) an individual from time to time holding, occupying or performing the duties of, a particular office or position within the operations of an organisation; or
(vii) an individual, or a group of individuals, from time to time performing a particular function, or fulfilling a particular role, within the operations of an organisation; and
(b) the electronic address has been conspicuously published; and
(c) it would be reasonable to assume that the publication occurred with the agreement of:
(i) if subparagraph (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) applies--the employee, director, officer, partner, office-holder or self-employed individual concerned; or
(ii) if subparagraph (a)(vi) or (vii) applies--the organisation concerned; and
(d) the publication is not accompanied by:
(i) a statement to the effect that the relevant electronic account-holder does not want to receive unsolicited commercial electronic messages at that electronic address (emphasis mine); or
(ii) a statement to similar effect; the relevant electronic account-holder is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have consented to the sending of commercial electronic messages to that address, so long as the messages are relevant to:
(e) if subparagraph (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) applies--the work-related business, functions or duties of the employee, director, officer, partner, office-holder or self-employed individual concerned; or
(f) if subparagraph (a)(vi) applies--the office or position concerned; or
(g) if subparagraph (a)(vii) applies--the function or role concerned.
So, in other words, if I don't put a big notice on my e-commerce website saying "Don't even think about spamming these contact e-mails," I can expect to have to muck out the mailbox three times a day, as usual. Oh, wait; per the law, it will all be relevant to my business, and therefore legitimate.
Sorry, buddy. Spam is spam, no matter how it's sliced.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=79689&cid=7039 062
With bayesian filters, more junk mail implies more accurate filtering. If the amount of junk e-mail is reduced by legislation, that could have the side effect of making bayesian filters less accurate and thus getting MORE spam.
I will never call this man a pinup.... NEVER do you hear me?!
This doesn't actually change anything for the public except to ensure that absolutely all of the revenue generated by these sites is directed offshore... nice one...
Q.
Insert Signature Here
While 20.2 says the following, I don't think it helps:
The mere fact my search request contained a DNS name and an '@' character could be construed as grounds to suspect that I might use the results for spamming.
.. is that day I stop calling Alston a luddite.
Sigh. Just because an idiot does one smart thing doesn't mean he's not an idiot anymore.
This luddite:
* spent AU$4 million website
* thinks broadband is for gambling and pr0n
* believes Telstra is doing a good job with its 3Gb/month cap.
The only way to convince me that he's no longer a luddite is when the average Aussie broadband is more than a 3Gb/month cap.
It's hard to imagine that he personally understands the issues involved. It seems more likely that he's been given advice, and not gotten involved or objected because it's all gone way over his head.
It's when he makes off the cuff comments that his general cluelessness about IT is revealed - he didn't earn the title of "Biggest Luddite in the World" for nothing. Aside from the comments on closing chatrooms that several other posters have mentioned, he's also recently been taken to task over comments he made in the Senate about Electronic Frontiers Australia. There was a story in the Register only a few days ago. EFA were permitted to publish a reply in the parliamentary records, objecting to his description of them as "spokespeople of the porn industry".
Highten S/p/i/r/t/u/a/l satisfaction, 1 0 0% Safe hgyu5767hgh
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQ'D: download new soul patch
bertsimpson,Where you go when you die
Amazing small digital bible!
bertsimpson,It doesn't^H^H^H get better than this
Doesn't California have an anti-SPAM law
...while New Zealand saved money by
with teeth already? I'd bet Australia is
just following such leads, not innovating
OT, but IMO:
The governing liberal party (of which
I understand Alston is a member) may
be under some pressure in the next
Australian federal election.
The Anti-SPAM bill may be part of the
government's attempt to lay the ground-
work for its re-election.
I hope Aussies (and others) -won't-
forget:
- refugee children still (after years) in
detention, in remote parts of Australia
(our hot counterpart of USSR's Siberia)
In the gov'ts "Children Overboard" spin-
doctored telling of the refugees arrival,
the refugees held children overboard for
a few moments...
In reality, that same gov't has held
those same children - & a lot more -
in psychologically dangerous detention
centers... at great cost (in $$$'s &
reputation) to Australians & our image.
allowing -its- refugee families out
in the community, to earn their own
livings, in peace, without all the
emotional & physical scarring
- Australia sheepishly went into Iraq,
by coincidence, just before talks on
a free trade agreement with USA began
(No agreement has yet been won by this
rush to war, however... Australia has
positioned itself as a puppy that comes
back even after being kicked... again &
again...)
(Singapore had not need to commit any
troops, but has their free-trade already)
It's worth noting that a lot of the "world's greatest luddite" stuff that's flinged at Richard Alston is just BS made up by his political opponents.
For example, he's not against broadband, he just spoke out against a bad plan for broadband rollout that the opposition came up with, and rightly so.
Don't believe everything you read by or about politicians.
Here's the story behind Alston's spam decision and his response to media coverage. http://www.apcmag.com/alstonresponse
All in favour...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
This bill needs to be taken alongside the context of the privacy act.
The privacy act means that companies can only use information colelcted for the purpose that it was collected, unless the person who's information is collected agrees for it to be used for other specified and explained purposes.
The SPAM laws are basically enforcing the opt-out option, and making it easier to prosecute people who abuse the privacy laws (eg companies acquiring harvested lists from overseas organisations who are not subject to our privacy act) and then using the information to spam).
On its own this bill is toothless, but when combined with the Privacy Act it is a significant weapon.
In this case I think this bill will actually help.
lounge around on the blue couch
because teachers are often pedophiles
with a comment as ridiculous as that who are you to be calling anyone an idiot?
I think you have misread the definition. Your quote is part of the definition of a designated commercial electronic message, which are messages from the government, charities, educational institutions, etc. These are exempt if they comply with the definition.
If you were to send a penis enlarger mail, it would be a commercial electronic message. If the mail was unsolicited, you would be breaking the law.
Luddites were a group of social reformers, read your history. Alston is a moron.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
We already have a national do-not-call list, and it works a treat. The only unsolicited calls I now get are pollsters, and them rarely.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You didn't understand the clause.
In simple English
If the message comes from one of the listed orgs (party, etc) AND concerns goods or services FROM the listed org, then its okay.
Still, if your church is producing penile extenders, then its exempt.
Your suggestions are just as perjorative and excessive. They have not 'stolen' anyones email any more than it would be reasonable to refer to breach of copyright as 'theft'. We all know how propagandist that one is.
Why not just call it 'email address gathering' or 'collecting'?
...and Linux is the only OS to have actually implemented it.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...and at least one of 'em 'll hit the enemy sooner or later.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I think the IT industry needs to recognise that standards like SMTP need overhauling. They were never designed with the insight required to recognise potential mis-uses. The world should not go the way of the USA in attempting to fix all problems by turning society into one bit letigious mass.
Here is a copy of a letter which i sent to the Australian Government in relation to this matter which was published in the the Australia IT.
This email is intended for Minister Richard Alston, but is applicable to any persons within the Australian government who are responsible for administering, overseeing, and maintaining Australia's Information Economy.
Whilst I applaud the Australian Government's strong stance on SPAM email and its recent decision to fast track legislation to prevent it, I am gravely concerned by the nature of this legislation with regard to its stance on list-generating software.
At face value it may seem as though it is a good idea to prevent people from mining email addresses from the Internet, however upon closer inspection I hope that you will come to see it as I do, shortsighted, dangerous, and detrimental to the Information Economy.
My concerns arise from a fundamental view of what the Internet is and what it represents. Without a doubt the Internet has become much more than its designers ever envisaged, the current day invocation of Internet is as a medium for the publishing and sharing of information and, perhaps more importantly, it is also a medium for free speech and dissemination of data.
By moving to restrict the ability to harvest this information, the Australian Government will be unwittingly placing restrictions not on what is published, but rather how it is allowed to be received and distributed. This course of action may have far reaching implications and consequences for the Information Economy which the Australian Government is poorly equipped to understand.
From a technical perspective the Internet is still in its infancy, its current invocation will not last for ever, and so legislation which effects the flow of information needs to be carefully considered for the implications it may have on the future evolution of the Internet and therefore the Information Economy.
The Internet is an architecture built on flexible and generic standards, for instance an email address is actually a subset of a much wider standard for representing information called a Universal Resource Locator (URL)* which in itself is derived from a wider and even more generic standard called a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).
* Please refer to http://www.w3.org/Addressing/ for more technical details on the URI and URL.
By attempting to legislate against software which extracts email addresses from web pages or other content on the Internet, the Australian government is potentially legislating against software which harvests any kind of information based the URI/URL standards. Much of the software which performs such data mining activities is used for generating indexes of the Internet for use in search engines.
Search engine technology, and therefore data mining, is the most critical and heavily used application on the Internet today. Whether it be individual users, small business, corporate entities, or governments, they are all heavily dependent on search engine technology. Without such technology and the freedom to produce new innovative software utilising Internet standards, the Information Economy would surely be doomed.
What the Australian Government may not be aware of, and what the legislation probably overlooks is the fact that software designed to support the URI/URL standards will often not distinguish between and Email address (i.e. mailto:oof@foo.org) and a conventional HTTP address (i.e. http://foo.org).
The Australian Government cannot pass legislation which will effectively stifle existing search engine technology and future innovation in that area. Data mining based on existing Internet stand
...but they did it politely.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Start here.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
D. Duck, 1970-something, duelling rehearsal
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Next time any government wants to pass a new bill, post it on slashdot! All the users will poke holes in it and then it can be rewritten. You guys should get paid dammit!
Karma: -2^0.5 . Mainly due to the imbibing of dihydrogen monoxide
Per the TCPA (47 USC 227) prerecorded calls may be made by, or on behalf of, non-profit organizations. Since debt-consolidation agencies have to be non-profit there are people that create or run two companies for the purpose of getting around this. Integrated Credit Solutions (Flagship) is engaged in the business of marketing and providing call center support for tax-exempt organizations such as Lighthouse Credit Foundation. Lighthouse Credit Foundation, is the "tax-exempt non-profit organization" in whose "behalf" ICS makes the calls.
c h8_02.htm1 =Press+Releases§ion=5i dalegal.com/lit_ec.nsf/0/96159EA0F81 DA9E885256A8700650763?OpenDocumentp ://www.ago.state.mo.us/071201.htm
They are located in the very same building, have the same in-house counsel, and are breaking the law by trying to use smoke and mirrors. Each have their hands in the pockets of the other, and it isn't just to take a dollar out. Of course most aren't buying it, including the attorney generals of several states;
New York http://www.state.ny.us/governor/ltgov/press99/mar
Massachusetts http://www.ago.state.ma.us/press_rel/ics.asp?head
Florida
http://myflor
Missouri
htt
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
Was I the only one who read that as "Spamela Anderson - From Luddite To Pin-Up?"
I don't think I want a Alston as a pinup.
This is the guy who, quote "made it illegal for any Australian to forward an email to someone else because of copyright laws. Any violation would result in a Au$60,000 fine or five years in jail. Not content with this madness, he then proposed fines of up to Au$10,000 against any individual that posted material on the Internet that the police deemed unsuitable to be seen by minors." Gee, I just forwarded an email to someone the other day "Dick". Do I owe you 60 grand now? Honestly, if this guy is proposing anti spam laws, it's probably because he just thinks it's a good thing to do and will appease the Liberal voters. Sing with me "Australia, Australia uber alles."
Ok, so this bill has some bad:
"Address-harvesting software must not be supplied, acquired or used"
Making a class of software illegal regardless of its use or usefullness is wrong. Period.
As to address-harvesting, I've written my share of address-harvesting software that was for perfectly legitimate reasons (statistics usually, though for anti-spam reasons in one case).
There is good in the bill though. It seeks to regulate a few things oddly (e.g. requiring "unsubscribe" facilities is pointless when almost all mailings are one-time events) but does avoid trying to regulate the way mail is formed and does leave legitimate forgery available to the average mail sender. There is one common form of forgery that this makes illegal, and I might have to have a talk with our legal counsul about it (since the law covers mail originating in Australia, not just mail recieved there). Our anti-virus software may be violating this law...
Still, it's less draconian and less spam-industry-friendly than many ill-conceived laws I've seen.
I'd still rather that governments stay out of it, or just fund the open source development of reputation-based anti-spam mail server software, but I guess that's a lost battle and everyone is too spooked by spam to see the long-term anymore.
He was referring to the gesture which everyone flips at lawyers.
The article did not include a link to the pin-up.
Usually, a Slashdot signature link brings in a healthy trickle of traffic, not a torrent like a front-page posting.
Well at least it's better than spam.
Will I retire or break 10K?
He's not the only idiot.
Toronto Police issued a challenge yesterday to other internet providers to follow Microsoft's lead and shut down free, anonymous chat rooms
But then again, I haven't been lurking at the easy to find chat rooms that morons like Microsoft and the like have been making available. Maybe there are chat rooms out there that are all dressed up and easy to find for children (like at disney or the cartoon network) that have no controls and that are simply just too easy for predators to infiltrate (unlike IRC where ops and network admins prevent spamming, and the technology isn't as exploitable as Microsoft's crap, and you have to be pretty clue'd to find the place anyways as opposed to an 8 year old neophyte on a web board).
There's also a "child exploitation conference" going on in Toronto this week, the Toronto Police probably just spouted that crap off to look good.
everyone is decended from criminals (or fammine refugees from Ireland).
Yes.
Section 3, Simplified Outline, states
"Address-harvesting software must not be supplied, acquired or used"
and
Section 4, Definitions: defines "address-harvesting software" as
"...software that is specifically designed or marketed for use for:
(a) searching the Internet for electronic addresses;
and
(b) collecting, compiling, capturing or otherwise harvesting those electronic addresses."
Unless refined, this seems to imply that metadata harvesters and many other legitimate harvesters will become "illegal". Which seems a little counter-productive.
Good, Get all the child exploiters in one spot. Send Darl from SCO, dressed as a child!
Highlights: