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?"
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
The problem is the definition of consent which says: consent that can reasonably be inferred from: (i) the conduct; and (ii) the business and other relationships This is weaker than the notions of opt-in and opt-out being used in Europe and due to come into law this year. If you register on a supermarket's web site for home delivery, that supermarket can send you special offer emails because it might be inferred you are interested in them. The new European legislation requires such emailing to be explicit and selectable at time of registration. Simon.
This would favour main-sleaze emailers who have other ways to get your email than "millions" CDs. The DMA sometimes accepts restrictions, but only to preserve your PC as their advertising channel. (Didn't say that on the box when I bought it! "Athlon Advertising Channel"? Nope.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.