Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

EU to Require Opt-In for Commercial Email

Posted by michael on Thu May 30, 2002 11:41 AM
from the all-things-dull-and-ugly dept.
Spam
D4C5CE writes "EuroCAUCE (Usenet message below) and Heise (in German) report that the European Parliament has voted to ban spam by adopting the "opt-in" system for unsolicited commercial email, finally freeing the way for the entry into force of a "European Parliament and Council directive concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector". The news of the parliamentary U-turn comes after a recommendation by the "Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs" to permit "opt-out" marketing had received critical coverage, causing countless spam victims world-wide to alert the Members of the European Parliament to the big mistake they were about to make, and it is hoped to become the useful precedent of a workable approach for US lawmakers currently evaluating means to regulate spam as well." The Parliament's daily notebook has an overview. Individual EU countries still have to implement this with legislation before it is effective.

From: Beebit <beebit-u03@euro.cauce.org>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email, talk.politics.european-union
Subject: European Parliament Supports 'Opt-In' for Commercial Email
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:08:11 +0200

The European Parliament has decided to accept the Council's Common Position which would require senders of advertisements by "electronic mail" to have the recipient's prior consent. "Electronic mail" is defined broadly enough so as to include text messaging systems based on mobile telephony in addition to email.

The 'opt-in' requirement for electronic mail will be in Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the new Directive concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector which will enter into force following its publication in the Official Journal. The Directive will guide the enactment of legislation throughout the European Economic Area, which includes the 15 EU Member States and European Free Trade Association members Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. EU Members Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, and Italy as well as EFTA member Norway had already implemented 'opt-in' in their national legislation.

Further provisions in the same Article would allow companies to send advertising via email for their own products or services of a similar category to addresses which they had obtained in the course of a sale, unless and until the customer has registered an objection. Customers are to be given the opportunity to object "free of charge and in an easy manner" both at the time the contact details are collected and with each advertising message.

All in all, is an extremely welcome development, and should serve as an example and inspiration for legislators in other territories. We are absolutely delighted to see Parliament joining the Commission and the Council in taking a stand to protect European consumers and network users. It only remains to extend similar protection to corporate citizens. This will probably have to be within the framework of other legislation than that pertaining to the processing of "personal data".

~~~
The European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email is an all-volunteer, ad-hoc grouping of Internet users and professionals dedicated to bringing about an end to an unethical practice by technical and legislative means. http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/

+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

EU to Require Opt-In for Commercial Email 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Why must we be so behind the times when it comes to things like this?

    Oh, right. We don't want to interfere with business' right to annoy the hell out of us.

    • Re:damned america (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why must we be so behind the times when it comes to things like this?

      Oh, right. We don't want to interfere with business' right to annoy the hell out of us.

      Where are your manners? That's no way to talk about your masters, now get back to work and remember to tithe a substantial amount of your income to business approves products and services. Opinions like yours get in the way of buying elected officials and key appointments.

      If anything, the EU is years behind the USA in selling out to business and the wealthy. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go sell guns to school children.

  • I hope they require a proper click box for opt in, rather than imbedded in a clickthrough license agreement...

    Either way opt-in is the way to go wrt email from commercial interests, I hope my country (US) adopts such restrictions for its corperations.
  • I would find it extremely annoying (if it were the case that I was living in Europe, which saddly enough it isn't), if I started to receive e-mail in several different languages all trying to opt me into some SPAM-list.

    Achtung! Die spammingmessagezunzuzkriben is nicht fer yer fingerpokin! Clicken-zie to unsubzkriven spamhaus und wilkommen billiards und billiards of weightenlozen, Paenisenlonginment und CowboyNealen mail.

  • One reason the EU might be more advanced is because of the widespread use of mobile phones and the belief (one day) that a mobile device will be your main Internet connection. With per-minute or per-bit charges, getting spammed is going to end up costing people some serious coin if spam continues to grow out of control.

    I think this is a point a number of US politicians need to understand. With some of the charges proposed for 3G in the US ($2 a mb in some places) the end user could end up paying for a lot of crap e-mail.
    • And even without 3G, we're already paying for the medium - it's just cheaper. It's a no-brainer that systematic unsolicited communications where the receiver pays for delivery should be illegal.

      I think the U.S. ultimately likes it because legislators are being told these kinds of communications are good for the economy because they stimulate business by creating new transactions. But of course, you could say the same for legalizing fraud. Both approaches have long term conseunces which are bad in the end.

      -David
  • I've tried chasing down spammers, even going so far as to contact Canada's Competition Bureau. The information I received back indicated that there are no laws in Canada prohibitating any kind of unsolicited commercial email. That means, they are not obligated to use a valid return email address, they're not obligated to inform you of how they got your email address, and they're not obligated to provide a valid phone number. This is in contrast to the relatively strict rules governing telemarketers.

    I wish our wishy-washy Liberal government had the guts to extend the telemarketing rules to spam emails. I say "good show" to the EU for setting a precedent.

    • I wish our wishy-washy Liberal government had the guts to extend the telemarketing rules to spam emails. I say "good show" to the EU for setting a precedent.

      Ontario is drafting a proposal [gov.on.ca] which would:
      - require express positive consent before any personal information could be used for any other purpose than completing the initial transaction
      - require express positive consent before any personal information was disclosed to a third party for marketing purposes
      - means you will have to contact all of your existing customers and get their express positive consent before sending them any further marketing material.
      - Extends the definition of personal information to include any information about an individual that can be manipulated and used to identify or contact an individual
      - etc

      Please note that not ALL corporations (in Canada, US or any other location) are interested in abusing the email system for quick-&-dirty profits. Many recognize the value of Doing The Right Thing(TM).

  • I have seen several opt in schemes which have tricked users into opting in, or have been fraudulantly opted in, and its then a pain in the backside to opt out again...

    Is it gonna be mandatory that if someone wants to get away from something they opted in to that they can quickly and easily?

  • Part of a very bad Bill (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cally (10873) on Thursday May 30 2002, @11:51AM (#3610163) Homepage
    the same chunk of legislation also contains some truly dreadful provisions regarding retention of ISP traffic and logs - seven years, I believe, and I'm not sure if they've yet backed down from the original hilarious requirement that ISPs maintain archives of *all data* they transit for the same seven years. See extensive coverage from the last year or so at The Register [theregister.co.uk] and the BBC [bbc.co.uk] plus of course numerous issues of Need To Know [ntk.net].
    What I don't understand is why "they" (gub'mint's everywhere) seem to think that the answer to the failures that lead to 9/11 [bbc.co.uk] is more of the same [theregister.co.uk]. Unless... but that would just be paranoia.
    • Not only ISPs; all telecoms. All data. Seven years. The EU draftsman, Marco Capatto, is not happy with the data collection/retention clause, and has written a report [statewatch.org] on the proposal-- an interesting read. The problem is that this is a step away from the various governments independently deciding how to handle data collection and retention; the bill forces them to enact legislation that collects and retains in accordance with this bill [eu.int]. stop1984 has issued a press release [stop1984.com] on the subject.

  • It's gotta be done right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by teslatug (543527) on Thursday May 30 2002, @11:53AM (#3610184)
    They should have to show in some way that you have opted in in the e-mail itself. Some sort of unique number that you gave them (or even an IP address, but this wouldn't be good enough). They would then have to have an e-mail AND some number to match up. There must also be a huge fine to back this up. This way, any business that sends an e-mail that says you opted in, can be automatically fined.
  • I think the beneficents of this will be lawyers who target the deep pockets - ISPs - and try to hold them liable.

    Spam is nearly impossible to stop via laws - I think the market will and is solving this problem with more intelligent filters that will make it un-rewarding.

    • That's just it. Spam will always be worth it, because you can send it to tens of thousands instantly and free. All you need is one nitwit to but the latest get-rich-quick scheme and the ad is paid for.
  • Unfortunately the same legislation also allows police forces to demand that ISPs retain logs of customer activity. The BBC [bbc.co.uk] has a more detailed story.
  • How in this enforced with respect to locations? Is this only applicable to domain names hosted in europe or if I claimed I was from Europe when I signed up for my hotmail account would I be protected by the Opt-in clause. If so how would they regulate this, do I have to be a resident of an European nation or do I merely need to route my e-mail through there? This decision is a great start but does anyone know if it will be truely effective and if so how can we on the other side of the pond benefit as well.
  • There aren't really that many spammers. Look at how few different spams there are. If each country in the EU and each state in the US jailed one spammer a month, the problem would be gone in a year.

    Jailing white-collar criminals is incredibly effective in stopping specific types of activity. You put one CEO in jail, and it really gets the message across. When some GE executives went to jail for antitrust violations in the 1960s, it stopped antitrust problems for almost a decade.

  • I just don't know how any kind of legislation could ever stop or even noticeably slow spam. And I wonder how tightly you'd have to word something like this so you didn't go after legit mailers. I run an ultra-low volume mailing list at work and I get semi-indignant messages all the time from people saying they never signed up, when in fact they've usually forgotten they signed up in the first place (we don't do any address gathering or harvesting).

    I always honour the unsubscription requests, even going as far as sending a note of apology, so I wonder how this would affect folks like me that try to be responsible. Having said all that, I'm still all for trying this out, on the off chance it actually works.

    And I guess the spam opt-out should be in Esperanto to make sure we can all read it. :P

  • Reason #1 is Belgian beer.

    Mmmm. Belgian Beer.

    I knew I lived here for a reason. See reason #1 for why I'd forgotten :)

  • Spam used to get me mad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ansible (9585) on Thursday May 30 2002, @12:29PM (#3610479) Homepage Journal

    Spam used to get me really mad and/or annoyed. I thought about the scammers out there, I thought about my wasted time, I thought about wasted resources, etc.

    Recently, I've installed Spamassassin [spamassassin.org], and I've been running it for a few months.

    Nowdays, spam doesn't bother me too much. Spamassassin tags nearly all of it. Deleted without much trouble or effort on my part. I still report the ones that get through the filter. I haven't had much of a problem with false positives either.

    These days I'm thinking that passing more laws to stop spam isn't the answer. I'd rather we use technological solutions for now. If/when we finally all start using authenticated, encrypted e-mail, spam will cease to be a problem at all. In the mean time, a good filter aleviates the need for legislative solutions, in my opinion.

  • It won't help though (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bero-rh (98815) <bero@ r e d h at.com> on Thursday May 30 2002, @01:15PM (#3610835) Homepage
    Germany has had a similar law before, and it didn't do anything.

    I've reported spammers to the cops repeatedly, and usually got a letter 2 weeks later stating something along the lines of "yes, they violated the law, but we won't go after them for such a small offense because they're too busy with real crime (It's not like they're committing a major crime jike going 55 in a 50 zone, or crossing a traffic light 5 seconds after it turned red...)

    I don't think this piece of legislation will be any different.

    Legitimate businesses that may worry about their reputation never sent spam in the first place.

    • How is keeping mail that I didn't ask for, don't want, and have to pay for out of my inbox an "unconstitutional restriction on speech"? If they want to put their shit in my mailbox, they can at least have the good graces to pay the (e-)postage themselves.

      The right of someone else to spend my money without my permission is exactly nil.

      • The right of someone else to spend my money without my permission is exactly nil.

        Two things.

        1. Unless you're paying for your dialup "by-the-byte" (does anyone still operate that way anymore?), they're not spending your money. You've already spent it. Internet is flat-fee in the vast majority of areas.

        2. Even your strong statement is not without precendent. See cell phones. If you're out of town, and I call you, YOU pay a long distance charge, just for answering your phone. Isn't this exactly analogous to checking your email? So yes, people can spend your money - it's not unheard of.


        • they're not spending your money

          Of course they are. Spam=bandwidth. Wasted bandwidth means either more equipment is required to carry the same amount of useful data OR you suffer from reduced bandwidth. Either way you end up with reduced bang for your buck.
          • Spam, while obnoxious (especially HTML emails) is not the biggest unsolicited waste of money/bandwidth, at least not that I'm experiencing.

            Byte for byte, the largest wastes of bandwidth I'm experiencing can be attributed to two categories: 1: Windows SysAdmins who refuse/don't know how to patch their systems against the likes of nimda and code red. They also waste space in /var with their own little morons_log which seems to update every second. 2: Klez. Average number of klez-bearing emails recieved per day across the network-15.(And it's a SMALL network.) Klez contains attachments of variable sizes. Average number of minutes spent per day reassuring panic-stricken family members/co-workers/non-techie friends: 5. Cost of antivirus software per Windows compuer on network: $50. Time spent downloading antivirus updates--too much.

            Spam can be blood-boilingly infuriating and push us to the point of wanting to ressurect public hangings, but I think that by and large the two categories I list are the biggest wastes of everything... And I'll be damned if I can find a way to opt out.

            -Sara
        • cell phones. If you're out of town, and I call you, YOU pay a long distance charge, just for answering your phone.

          That's not entirely true. The cell phone will show the caller's number. If it looks like long distance or someone unknown, the receiver can let it drop into voice mail, which can be accessed for free.
        • Unless you're paying for your dialup "by-the-byte"

          Two things.

          1. Unless they've invented infinite bandwidth dialup, every kilobyte takes about a fifth of a second (assuming a good modem).

          2. Phone companies in Europe (and elsewhere, excluding USA) charge by the second for local calls. It gets quoted by the minute (e.g. 2 eurocents per minute) but nowadays is calculated by the second (in NL on ISDN at least).

          TANSTAAFL

        • See cell phones

          Not forgetting that with WAP handsets, you can collect your email on your mobile. For example, on my T68i, that involves downloading the headers and disconnecting, then reconnecting if you wish to collect the body of the message(s). By the time you've downloaded the headers, even if the subject line is obviously spam, you've still wasted airtime charges in collecting the spam mail header(s).
        • Unless you're paying for your dialup "by-the-byte" (does anyone still operate that way anymore?), they're not spending your money. You've already spent it. Internet is flat-fee in the vast majority of areas.

          No, actually, it's not.

          1. Many places outside the US don't have flat rate access.
          2. Most flat-rate packages cost more than the equivalent metered account for low-bandwidth users.
          3. Many ISPs offering flat rate connections do actually cap your time on-line and/or bandwidth. Always on is something else, but most people don't have that.
          4. If you've been following the news, you'll notice that many flat rate and always-on providers are either changing their conditions just now, either capping transfer volumes or putting up prices. Gee, I wonder why that could be? Here's a clue: half of it's people downloading illegal music and movies, and the other half is spam mails going out to half a million unwilling recipients at a time.
          If you're out of town, and I call you, YOU pay a long distance charge, just for answering your phone.

          But I have the option not to answer, and thus not to pay.

          By the way, have you heard the latest ruse with cell phones? Some packages now let you subscribe to information services that charge you for using them, and apparently most mobiles are vulnerable to having someone dial you and then bill your account as if you'd subscribed to such a service, without any consent on your part at all. This is already happening, and is where unsolicited commercial messages are headed. Do you really, really think this is a good thing, and just like answering a long-distance call?

        • You're wrong on two counts:

          The vast majority in Europe (which was part of civilized society, last I checked) pays by the second.

          On the other hand, and provided you don't receive cell phone calls while roaming in other countries, cell phone reception is free as in beer.

          Overall and givcen the really rotten mess called mobile phone services in the US, my assessment in that specific respect is:

          Europe 1 : US 0

    • As has been said many times before, but which is obviously worth repeating here:

      It is NOT a restriction on speech, because unsolicitied commercial email places a financial burdern upon the recipient, where the recipient has NOT consented to undertake that burden.

      That is, they often have to directly pay to receive what they never requested. It is somewhat akin to having someone send you a magazine in the mail, and then bill you for it.
        • "where slashdot has NOT consented to undertake that burden."

          Hm. How much do you pay for the premium "no post or reply button" /.?

        • Re:I can't see this ever working in the US (Score:5, Insightful)

          by 1010011010 (53039) on Thursday May 30 2002, @12:18PM (#3610388) Homepage
          Face it, by putting up an email server, you are consenting to receive email.

          Yeah, and she dressed like a slut, too.

        • Re:I can't see this ever working in the US (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fmaxwell (249001) on Thursday May 30 2002, @12:47PM (#3610619) Homepage Journal
          Face it, by putting up an email server, you are consenting to receive email.

          That's like saying:

          "Face it, by installing a telephone, you are consenting to receive obscene phone calls at 3:00AM."

          "Face it, by putting up a pool, you are consenting to let random strangers hop in and piss in it."

          "Face it, by storing your lawn mower outdoors, you are consenting to let your neighbors use it whenever they want to."

          I put up a mail server so that I could invite specific people and organizations to communicate with me. I did not put it up so that I could receive random ads from every yahoo in a trailer park that wants to rope me into his Herbalife scam.

          My server. My connection. My monthly bill. My decision.

          • If putting up a publicly accessible server, offering user accounts to anyone who signs up, and even allowing people who have no account to post as Anonymous Coward, does not constitute Slashdot's consent to undertake the burden of allowing someone's post, then what does?

            Sendmail is a publically accessible service, and it allows people who have no account to post using any arbitrary psudonym they want. That also constitutes consent to undertake the burden of allowing someone's email.

    • One must ask oneself, if an unsolicited email system is completely opt-in, is it still unsolicited?

    • Re:I can't see this ever working in the US (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Coward, Anonymous (55185) on Thursday May 30 2002, @12:04PM (#3610283)
      What you say is protected by the constituion, how you say it is not. I am legally forbidden from spraypainting words onto your car, nor can I shout them through a megaphone at 3:00 AM into your bedroom window. I'm not even allowed to urinate a speech into the sidewalk or tap morse code into your forehead. There's nothing unconstitutional about banning spam. We already ban methods of communication which are annoying, the above being only a partial list of illegal methods of communication.
    • Opt-In is going to change things, ie. making non-opt-in commercial emails (adverts) illegal, making it possible to prosecute the violator. It's already illegal in .fi but I'm not sure if there are any suitable precedents.

      There's also a loophole (I think) in that the Finnish law only forbids spam to personal email-accounts. I've gotten my share of Finnish webmaster@blaablaa.com spam.
    • What's changed is that when this put into law it is concidered a fellony when they send spam to people that did not opt-in. Opt-out is something entirely different. Now they when they can be charged a fine if they spam you without your consent (as if someone want's to be spammed explicitly..)

      This means a significant win. Up until now spammers could do whatever they wanted because nothing was regulated about this subject. Now it is.
    • Why is that insightful? If someone claims to have your permission, or that you've opted in, challenge them on it. It'll soon be illegal to send spam without permission, so if they can't prove it, they get fined.

      The type of emails you're taking about also tend to claim compliance with a fake US statute, and refer to various laws which were never passed. This is known as lying, or "fraud" on a commercial scale, which is presumably illegal anyway for legitimate companies emailing from Europe.

      (In the US it doesn't really matter what's illegal anyway, just because of the cost of legal action to get anything done)

      We'll still have to block CH/TW/KO/JP, because they'll keep sending the "you have elected to receive..." emails (hint: that's a good phrase to regexp on and delete the email)

      Otherwise a pity there're so many people I need to talk to in the US, otherwise I'd be able to block email from America too, and live in a spam-free virtual Europe.

      • I've started taking the email addresses of the spammers and signing them up for "opt-in" email. Whether this is enough to keep them busy is anyone's guess.
        Hopefully you don't just use the From-address? Spammers often pick their From-addresses randomly from their list of email addresses to spam. The innocent individual whose email address is used as From-address is harmed much more than the other spam recipients since lots of people will report them to their ISPs, send them angry mails, or... sign them up for opt-in email.

        Never complain about spam unless you can verify with 100% certainty that the address you are complaining about is the actual address of the spammer. Doing otherwise will just harm innocent spam victims.
    • Europe and the US need to stop ganging up on legitimate businesses.

      Yeah, that'd be nice. Not sure how it's relevant to the topic, though, as unsolicited email is an illegitimate business practice. As evidenced by the bastards who do it.

    • Just my $0.2 cents.
      Actually it's not your two cents. Email is postage-due mail, and therefor it's my two cents that paid for the bandwidth and my $1.50 that paid for the time it took for me to read it.

      BTW, spammers and organized crime are the only two business models that use the word "legitimate" to describe themselves. If you were a real business, you would be using words like "synergy" and "innovative." The fact that you needed to throw that word in there is very telling.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.