European Union Says No To Spam 235
Peter Dyck writes: "CNN reports that the Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU) has agreed on Thursday to pass a new law banning the use of unsolicited e-mail. The resolution also bans the so-called inertia marketing for the promotion of financial services. This means that within the 15 EU member-states companies cannot resort anymore to direct marketing to sell their wares. Marketing is still possible, but the consumers must opt-in for it first." However, this is just one bend in a long and bureaucratic road.
Rock the fsck on! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Rock the fsck on! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Rock the fsck on! (Score:2)
And most of my daily spam comes from America. I'm in Germany.
Re:Rock the fsck on! (Score:2)
Fact is: Most of my spam comes from the US. I have the numbers to back it up.
How long before it's enforced? (Score:3, Insightful)
The US has some anti-spam laws, and we dont enforce them, or dont allow the law to have any teeth.
Most spammers couldn't care less if it's legal or not.
Spammers and the law (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, most spammers couldn't care less, but most spammers are sitting in the USA anyway. It seems, spam and bad elevator music is the only thing the USA is exporting these days..
Where this law will help most is to shoot down hare-brained schemes by soulless middle managers and marketroids. With this directive,I can tell them, to please check with the legal department if their last stupid idea conforms to the law. This usually stops them fast.
As a side note, such laws sometimes work. I'm living in Europe, and I've never been called by direct markeing organisations I've never heard of who try to sell useless junk. Not during the day, not in the evening. I guess, the laws against unsolicited call and calls by machines don't really hurt.
Re:Spammers and the law (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice bit of sophistry - but it is rubbish.
The UK law on this is fair reflection of the relevant EU directives.
Firstly - not all calls are barred - merely calls for marketing purposes. A distinction which does not cause too many problems in practice (even if there are some issues with market research calls - which are currently being worked on)
Secondly - the people it is against the law to call are people who have registered that they do not want to receive this kind of call. They have a telephone in their house, they are willing for their number listed but they are not willing to have companies waste their time and disturb their peace with aggravating marketing calls.
In practice "rights" almost always amount to a balancing exercise between competing rights. My "right" to make music may damage my neighbours "right" to peace and quiet.
The Balance we have chosen here is that you can make marketing calls - but not to people who have chosen to opt out. This seems a perfectly reasonable compromise to me. It's worth remembering that the right to "free speech" should never equate to a right to demand that people must listen. I get one or two junk calls every YEAR - and when I do get them - the organisation which made them invariably ends up being sorry (and a lot poorer).
NB - the above is only about telephone calls. I believe there are some very signficant differences between email spam and junk calls - differences which mean that an "opt out" is workable and reasonable for one but not for the other.
When people in Europe look at America certain "themes" keep appearing. One of them being that we frequently regard the "rights" of individuals a little higher relative to the "rights" of corporate bodies. Which works best depends on what criteria you judge the results by.
From the POV of the corporation - does it really make sense for them to waste time and money on people who are quite determined that they do not wish to talk to them ?
A "dead granny" story which may be relevant :
A man kept receiving calls from a company who wanted to sell him a Conservatory (What we call a single story extension - usually large made of glass and invariably built at ground level.
He asked them really nicely to "go away" and told them he just wasn't interested. None of it made any different. They stilled phoned him every two weeks - usually during his quality time.
One day they phone and he tried a different approach. He was keen. He WANTED a consevatory. He chatted at great length with the salesman. An appointment was made for a representative to call to make a proper presentation.
At the appointed time the bloke make absolutely certain he was out. When he came come to his third-floor flat he opened his front door to find a business card from the consvatory company. On the back it said "Ha bloody ha!"
; -)
Re:Spammers and the law (Score:2)
The intention is to allow GENUINE market research calls - defined as calls where there is absolutely no posibility of the caller being led to buy anything (genuine market research companies are already very careful on this point). Anything else would be categorised as marketing calls with all that implies.
Re:How long before it's enforced? (Score:2)
I still advocate a spam licensing system, merely for the purpose of being able to register spammers, maybe in a way similar to a sex-crime registry or something. The purpose is to allow individual users, ISPs, and backbone providers, etc the ability to track down and bill spammers appropriately for the bandwidth they consume. Make the IRS go after them or something, to help out with collections.
Heck, there could even be bounty hunters. I am also found of the idea of ear tags so you can avoid them in public.
Re:How long before it's enforced? (Score:3, Informative)
If anything, in the US, there's a common idea in most government's that any unsoliciated communication (telemarketing, spam, junk mail) is that a one-shot rule is applied; the end company may contact you once; if you wish to recieve no more from them, you can opt out at any time. However, the problem currently stems from the lack of significant enforcement of the opt-out rules; since particularly for email, the opt-out addresses can be invalid, and some marketers use the addresses on the opt-out lists to seed other lists, it's rather ineffective. Given the corporate nature of America, I very much doubt we'll see opt-in marketing, but a few effective rules for controlling opt-out will make good in the long run.
Re:How long before it's enforced? (Score:2)
Re:How long before it's enforced? (Score:2, Informative)
It can be tough to track them when they use open servers in Korea or China -- But all spammers have one weak spot: They want your money. So if the email address isn't valid, they have to provide a physical address or a phone number.
Re:How long before it's enforced? (Score:2)
The US has some anti-spam laws, and we dont enforce them, or dont allow the law to have any teeth.
Actually, we don't really have any laws regarding spam here in the US. spamlaws.com [spamlaws.com] sums up the state of legislation in the US quite well in 3 words: "Enacted legislation: none". Most of the spam prosecution in the US falls under contract, fraud, or theft laws.
Re: How long before it's enforced? (Score:2, Informative)
In Denmark we have a similar thing, affectively called "The Robinson List" by telemaketing people because in their opinion you're living on an island if you do not wish to receive their spam. Danish citizens who wish to opt-out from all snailmail, email and fax spam should read here [www.fs.dk] and here [www.fs.dk], then contact the closest CPR register.
Re:How long before it's enforced? (Score:2)
You are out of date. The TPS was "optional" when it first started. It now has the force of law behind it and it is rigorously enforced by the DPR.
If you regsiter now then the companies making the calls have 28 days from the date of your regsitration to sort themselves out. If they call you after that then the excuses like "Oh, wre have not had the latest update yet" will not be accepted.
However it is up to you to complain to make it work properly. Go to the TPS site
http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tpsr/html/default.a
And read all about it. Note the "complaint" button on the left. The complaints system works. Companies who break the rules are prosecuted and fined - and the TPS will write to you telling you about the fine resulting from your complaint. BTDTGTTS.
Re:How long before it's enforced? (Score:2)
If you have a bypass number or a number which diverts to your number - the rules say you have to register them seperately.
2) Is your phone registered as a business line or a private line ? The TPS cannot and will not prevent sales calls to business lines
3) Did you complain to the TPS in WRITING ? This step also seems to be essential. They will not act on complaints unless confirmed in writing.
4) Do you have the letter the TPS sent you confirming registration ? They do not accept complaints unless you give the reference from this letter.
5) If in doubt - register again. Make sure you get the letter confirming your registration.
I've had quite a lot of experience with junk calls, TPS, DPR and ICTHIS - and I've found their record to be little short of perfect. It if isn't working for you then something, somewhere like the above is wrong. Persevere.
One bend (Score:1)
Read the article? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Read the article? (Score:5, Informative)
A directive regulating the distance selling of all other goods and services was adopted in 1997 and entered into force last year. Financial services were excluded from its scope since these were considered to require a separate set of rules. A law on unsolicited e-mail covering all other industries is expected early next year. The question of whether to apply opt-in or opt-out to e-mail marketing is provoking hot debate; the Commission favors opt-in, but many members of the European Parliament prefer the more industry-friendly opt-out approach.
So not only is the universal anti-email spam laws not on the table yet, but also neither of the laws have even been fully proposed yet, muchless passed. It's not a universal thing, and it has not even been drafted fully yet, nevermind passed.
As stated, industries much much much prefer the "opt-out" method, and thus since we know how much power the industry has over the laws, it's highly unlikely that they will be passed.
The only reason why the financial sector got this put into the bill is because the regulations for distance selling of their products were not decided in 1997 with the rest of the sectors because it was felt that finance required a different set of rules (why?) and since email marketing wasn't a problem 4 years ago, it wasn't an issue that needed addressing. It'll be interesting to see if it gets passed or just gets squashed or "removed at the last minute due to someone who was supposed to retype it" (a-la the "The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999" [loc.gov] in the states).
Attention European entrepeneurs! (Score:2)
Re:Attention European entrepeneurs! (Score:3, Funny)
cd
Re:Attention European entrepeneurs! (Score:2)
having
Just a thought
Re:Attention European entrepeneurs! (Score:2)
I need a new email address (Score:1)
-Karl
Re:I need a new email address (Score:3, Interesting)
I receive plenty of
For a look at the mind of a spammer, take a look at Behind Enemy Lines [freewebsites.com]
Re:I need a new email address (Score:2)
Re:I need a new email address (Score:2)
Wrong!
At one point my email address somehow got on a Hong Kong spammer's list.
I started to receive spams from the Far East, mostly Hong Kong (going by headers anyway).
This was perplexing to me. You see, I'm a Canadian: all my email addresses are .ca, .com or .org. I think it was a .com that got hit. Can't remember now :)
Anyway, the perplexing part about this is that I'm monolingual, English. All of these spams were in some form of Chinese. (Or perhaps Japanese. Well, one of those languages anyway. :)
I haven't gotten any Chinaspam in a month or two. Maybe they finally took pity on the anglo. Or maybe my filters have moved up to where they're killing it off. (I edit my filters; also, the mailservers I use are administered by Other People, many of whom actively monitor filters.)
Re:I need a new email address (Score:2)
Heh, I got on one of those. I finally resorted to just having procmail dump any email from
Here's one freedom I can live without. (Score:1)
Finally, but the battle continues... (Score:2, Funny)
Now that the evils of spiced ham are under control. Action can be taken against corned beef. Millions of kernels die every year in the making of this vile product
Baked beans are off (Score:1)
Re:Baked beans are off (Score:2)
yes.
//rdj
Financial Products Only (Score:3, Informative)
This applies to financial products only, although they are talking about more comprehensive legislation later.
"A law on unsolicited e-mail covering all other industries is expected early next year. " (Last paragraph of article)
Re:Financial Products Only (Score:2)
Now if there was just a way to prosecute my friends for sending me those dumb online petitions, love polls, hoaxes, and badly written editorials.
Why the icon change for Spam? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why the icon change for Spam? (Score:2)
Personally, I'm fine with not calling it spam at all. I think people might take it more seriously if we always referred to it as UCE or something. 'spam' is an outdated term, reflective of the informality of the early days of the 'net. 'spam' can also mean other things than UCE, such as flooding a chat room.
Re:Why the icon change for Spam? (Score:2)
Not a law... yet (Score:5, Informative)
For the Americans and non-Europeans amongst the
The council of ministers are simply ministers of the various memberstates having a chat about policy and direction. The European parliament doesn't really (unfortunately) have much bite (nor much of a bark either).
Don't hold your breath. Things move slowly at the EU level. But it's something, all be it small. Let's hope it's enforceable, too.
Yes! Portugal Here I Come. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Sensible, Citizen centered policy.... not the usual big-biz cow-toeing im getting used to in Canada. I am proud of Canada's past, but i am weary of its future... my citizenship is my escape hatch, it is my retirement plan, it is what I will finally do when the borders drop between Canada and the US... unless I can stop the slow slide into Canadian Plutocracy... or encourage my American neighbours to act up(!) against their own...
Re:Yes! Portugal Here I Come. (Score:2)
All unsolicited email? (Score:1)
Ummno (Score:2, Informative)
[insert compulsory commentary on how abhorrent it is that
Abridgment of freedom (Score:2, Troll)
No one who values freedom should be celebrating this. Yes, spam is annoying. But do you really want the government telling you who you can send e-mail to? Good god, many of you people freak when the government gets close to tracking your toilet usage, but if it comes to restricting your right to send e-mail, it's "GO GO GO"!
There are ways to solve the spam problem without restricting freedom. Requiring a tag on the e-mail would be a great start, either by putting something in the subject line or adding a line to the header information.
But dammit, I don't want the government telling me who I can and can't e-mail to!
Re:Abridgment of freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I am anti-spam, there is an issue to be considered before banning spam outright: the exact definition.
Cold marketing is an accepted technique for generating interest and ultimately sales. Even though unsolicited faxes are not permitted in many parts of the world, cold marketing related material usually bypasses this restriction. Yet the distinction is a hair's bredth.
In most niche markets mass advertising is not cost effective. Cold marketing is often the most effective resort for business in such markets. I have over time had several unsolicited e-mails that I do not consider to be spam, but rather cold marketing. Why? Because they are targetted.
Should cold marketting be banned in an effort to ban spam? Or should the definition of spam be tightened up to refer not just to unsolicited marketting, but unsolocited and not relevant to the person/organisation.
It has nothing to do with freedom (Score:2, Informative)
Do you have the freedom to slice the tires of random cars in the parking lot of your favorite mall? Is the gouvernment oppressing you by taking away from you that most basic freedom?
Every freedom in society basically needs to be balanced against the freedom of other people, because many interests are fundamentally opposing. (This concept is very hard to grasp for many americans, who never get past the 'I WANT' part). The role of the society is to provide with its laws and customs a stable framework to balance those interest.
For instance, you have the right to express your dislike of your neighbour, but you don't have the right to do it with your 5000 Watt amplifier set on maximum at 3 o'clock in the morning.
The same applies to spam and direct marketing. Under the proposed law, you can send your mail to anybody you want, as long as you don't have been told by him that he wants it. If he didn't give you that permission, you just have to assume that he doesn't want your fabulous offer.
There's nothing more to it.
Re:Abridgment of freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's see - if you stand on a street corner somewhere and tell people what you think, they have a simple choice: "stay" or "leave". If they leave and you follow them, I think your action changes from 'free speech' to 'stalking'.
If you send me email, that I have no interest in, then I can't just leave, because you will stalk me constantly with your 'html-open-pop-up-windows-from-hell-email' and your 'click-here-to-opt-out-but-we-will-really-use-thi
Here's a nice little 'go to jail'-card for your selection. If that won't help, I also have a 'get a free beating'-card for you, that you can exchange at every respectable store in the world.
Freedom is not an absolute right (Score:3, Interesting)
There is nothing in a law that prevents sending UCE that is restrictive of your personal freedoms, as long as it's done in a content-neutral way. My view is that spammers are infringing on MY rights when they put their crap into my mailbox. I think I have a RIGHT to pay for my Internet access without paying for someone else to send me porno and get rich quick schemes. I think if ISPs and users were allowed to recoup the costs of receiving spam as damages, ISP rates would drop!
Your suggestion that you should be required to add a header to your e-mail is just as restrictive. I think ANY restraint of speech is a very serious matter, and deserves much debate. I equate spam with a type of speech that is wholly unwanted and unbeneficial to society. We have proven that self-policing of spam simply doesn't work. There are too many rogue networks and spam-friendly service contracts out there to stop it.
The government is not telling you that there is a subset of users who you cannot e-mail. You are being told that if your e-mail is of a commercial nature, you can send it to ANY user who has agreed to receive e-mail from you, and to NO user who you are simply marketing to. Would this law prevent you from doing something that you presently do? If it would, then you are probably a spammer. If not, what are you worried about?
This isn't like encryption, or spying on citizens, or taking away your guns (although they already did that in Europe). You have a right to those things. You do not have a right to be a nuisance to millions of others.
Re:Freedom is not an absolute right (Score:2)
HOWEVER, if someone came along and tried to restrict your right to be utterly offensive and tasteless in your protests, I would defend that right with all my power. That is your right, and the damage done by taking away that right is thousands of times worse than the damage done by your message.
How is this different from spam? Simple, spam just shouldn't be a form of protected speech, regardless of content. Same as junk faxes, same as harassment.
Re:Abridgment of freedom (Score:2)
Besides, I find spam a very serious threat to my freedom of speech, as it is about to kill many important fora I've spent years building up. If the S/N is bad enough, a forum becomes useless, and so the exchange of ideas are hurt. So, yes, I really appreciate my own government's efforts to spank the spammers.
Big Fall Out (Score:1)
This makes it illegal to send certain types of email. Illegal.
How is that a good thing?
If I have a service, and I have reasonable expectation that you would like to know about it, why shouldn't I be able to email you about it? I can write to you on paper, or call you up (although I realise legislation could also restrict these).
To make this illegal is overkill and folly. B2B 'spam' is pretty useful actually!
Re:Big Fall Out (Score:2)
My costs include my ISP's bandwidth and disk space (which are passed on to me in higher charges), my own bandwidth, my mail server's diskspace, my employees' diskspace and their phone costs when they dial in and are forced to grab your unwanted ad along with their work mail.
It's not just in Europe that you pay per minute for phone calls, but also from US business offices, on airplanes, at hotels, etc.
Making spam illegal is not overkill, it's overdue.
woof.
I wrote this a while ago, but some /. POST method wasn't working and submissions were being rejected as "illegal for the index.shtml page".
Re:Big Fall Out (Score:2)
All that being said, I am definitely against email that I recieve that I can't opt out of, but there is a huge difference between spam and legitimate business.
Re:Big Fall Out (Score:2)
The telephone system is also a public system, as is my business' 800-number. However, you will be held responsible for all solicitous calls made to that number, even if made "accidentally" with a demon-dialer, and you can't turn off ANI (Caller-ID) when calling 800 (and 877 and 866) numbers. If you call me, I know from which number and when. If it was a solicitation or other inappropriate call, you're gonna pay up. Two companies said the same thing you have about spam; one paid up $500 after I enlightened them, the other insisted on going to court and paid me $3K plus accumulated legal fees: $500, doubled for knowledge & intent, then triple indemnity for malicious and unethical practices.
Your ability to abuse a public system will NOT deny me the right to use it as it was designed and intended. I have no problem with commercial E-Mail sent to those who want it (opt-in). I find it hard to believe there are people who want in, but they really exist. However, you have no right to make ME shoulder the cost of your pathetic attempts to sell me anything, whether I want it or not. Post Offices around the world agree and make you, the sender, pay for the stamp. Wonder why?
This is what I get for feeding trolls, I know, but I will not stop until there is effective legislation in place with equally effective remedies. I spent three years hollering and knocking on doors and annoying every politician possible and resending all the junk faxes I received to my representatives' fax machines and it finally worked. Junk faxes illegal, because the cost is borne by the recipient. I will continue to do the same with UCE until I am successful or until I die.
woof.
I didn't spend 18 days straight without a break back in 1986 trying to make my university's computers reconnect to DoD'S just so some asswipe could fill my disk telling me how horny Russian wives are waiting for me to get rich quick so I can buy Viagra by the carton and watch HOT YOUNG TEENS with them when I retire before I'm 40.
Re:Big Fall Out (Score:2)
Re:Big Fall Out (Score:2)
Free speech is saying "George Bush (Jr or Sr, take your pick) has as much foreign policy ability as a small outcrop of granite in the eastern Afghan hills." It is NOT filling my mailbox at MY cost with YOUR shit.
You have all the right in the world to speak your mind, what little of it there may be. You don't have the right to make me pay for it. I have a domain (call it bullshit.de for the hell of it) and I route various mail through it. I don't care to make new accounts and aliases for slashdot@bullshit and k5@bullshit and register@bullshit and stileprojectmail@bullshit since the names alone tell me what I have, as is MY right to do with MY domain. In comes spam to postmaster, admin, webmaster, and a million fake names, many of which procmail can nail, many of which it can't. Why do MY rights to the use of MY property take second place to your "right" to advertise to me? Answer: They don't. You will lose.
Go crawl back under your bridge. You have me confused with a billy goat gruff.
woof.
I'll at least give you credit for posting from an account instead of being the usual AC troll, although an account's not really that difficult to set up.
Re:Big Fall Out (Score:2)
Re:Big Fall Out (Score:2)
If you read the whole thread you'll see that I did address his point. When you are available to the public you give your consent to be contacted, you have the right to ignore this contact or tell the party involved that you do not wish any sort of communication. It does not matter in the least if it costs you (in time, money or anything) you have made yourself available to the public. Now if the person (company or whatever) insists on repeatedly trying to talk (advertise or whatever) to you, then they're crossing the line into harrassment. A one time attempt to initiate communication is entirely under the blanket of free speech.
Re:Big Fall Out (Score:2, Interesting)
If you write me, you pay for the paper, the envelope the stamp. If you call me (barring 1-800 numbers and the silliness that are cell phones) you pay, "it's your dime/quarter/doller" If you fax me it's your cost to call, but it costs me to maintain a fax machine, fill it with paper and ink, etc. With email, you may or may not pay to get an account in order to send email, but I have to pay for the bandwidth you use, the disk space your email takes up, the time wasted to download it. If you want to pay everyone you send you "SPAM" out to, just like the postal service, then you should be able to send whatever junk you want. Just like in real life. Until then, SPAMmer's should STOP stealing my money.
To recap:
postal mail - sender pays, reciever wastes time throwing it out.
phone calls - sender pays, reciver wastes time hanging up.
faxes - sender pays for phone call, reciever pays for fax machine, paper, ink, electricity, time to through it away.
SPAM - sender pays minimum cost (if any), reciever pays for ISP, disk space, bandwidth, electricity, time to download, time to through away. Numerous third parties pay for bandwidth, disk space, servers, electricity, etc. etc. etc.
That's the differnence. "SPAM" faxing is already illegal, "SPAM" emailing should be as well.
It's so easy to pass a law... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Good Luck, and remember - we're all counting on you." -Leslie Nielsen (Airplane!)
EU Arrests American Spammer (Score:2, Interesting)
Who wants to help organize a Spamming Conference in Brussels so we can nab the asshole who's been sending me the porn spam labeled "Bin Laden Captured"???
Only opt-in lists? (Score:3, Funny)
What? He didn't subscribe? Then it must have been some sort of practical joke by his friends (we get those ALL the time). He should really be more careful about who he calls "friend"...
Re:Only opt-in lists? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Only opt-in lists? (Score:2)
Re:Only opt-in lists? (Score:2)
Use you head before posting, a keyboard is not a toy.
Man, you think that my post was asinine when yours was just plain stupid.
Answer me this, genious : why would I, as a company, need to contract the services of a 3rd party to maintain a list specifically for people who want to receive my products? Especially when I already have this? It's called a mailing list.
These 3rd party mass marketers only survive because they have a list of 10 million email addresses and can charge to mass broadcast out to them. If you are limited to opt-in lists, then it's trivial to maintain your own mailing list, or use any of the free mailing list services that are already on the internet.
Thus these marketing companies will cease to exist.
duh!
It's called direct marketing and it works.
Yes, it works because in those instances the task of performing the distrobution is difficult. I worked for a fax broadcasting company and we broadcasted out solicited faxes to travel agencies. Our customers did not have the resources to send out 10,000 faxes in one night, and even if they did, because of our bulk LD rates, we could do it for cheaper than they could.
Or printing of brochures and mailing them out, this is not an easy task for a company of 20 people.
However broadcasting emails is trivial for anyone who is knowledgeable about computers in the first place, and since the vast majority of companies have someone to handle their IT, this becomes a non-issue. And as I already said, there are numerous free options on the internet to handle your own mailing lists anyways.
And before you start going on about bandwidth, the act of sending the message from your side is a mere 30 bytes or so per email address (actually it's "RCPT TO " IIRC). And if you manage to have 10,000 people who are interested in your product then that's not a very large deal at all.
Use you head before posting, a keyboard is not a toy.
refresh my memory, who wasn't using their head? At least have the decency in the future to not act like an ass and voice your disagreements in a civil way.
Related ideas (Score:2)
Got his PGP sig on that subscription? Then I guess he didn't send it.
I think that would be pretty neat: it's only a valid/legal subscription if it's signed. But how do you know that the person who signed it, is the one who actually receives your ad? Easy: you have to encrypt the ad with the same public key that you used to verify subscription. Then all ad-email becomes encryption-mandatory. That has multiple nifty side-effects:
Then, if someone subscribes you to a list as a prank, you end up receiving ads that you can't read. You're still paying for them (depending on how you're hooked up), but at least they'll be less annoying.
I am really sad to see laws against SPAM (Score:3, Insightful)
I would prefer to fight spam privately. I do not like it, for I've been on the net since 1988, when spam was rare and the net was beautiful. But I do not think the solution is to make it illegal.
I think the blacklist sites are a reasonable, unmoderated, sensible approach that doesn't carry the curse of giving The Man more power over my non-spam actions.
-wp
Re:I am really sad to see laws against Spam (Score:2)
There were several things that made me change my mind. First of all, the amount of spam I've been getting is steadily increasing, and there is no sign any private measures have any effect whatsoever. I have even given up complaining about most of my spam.
Also, blacklist doesn't seem to have an appreciable effect either, I have become increasingly displeased with them.
Then, we got some anti-spam legislation here in Norway. I must say, I was impressed. Those who wrote it seem to have had basic training in NANAE, and the law wasn't overbroad either. When I read it, I found this law to be good. However, I realize that other anti-spam laws may not be.
Another thing was something that happened to me a week ago. I got spam through Hotmail. Yes, through Hotmail. Couldn't be high volume spam, but it certainly was spam. Also, the spam was in English, but sent through an ISP in Norway. I fired off a LART, and the ISP responded: "No, we can't whack this spammer, because he was using hotmail, and so there is no record of this spam incidence in our mail-logs, and we do not log what pages our customers visit on the web." At first, I was pissed, and starting writing a flame, telling them to log everything and whack this spammer or else, I would nominate them for the RBL.
But, coming to my senses, that they didn't log any web activity at all, is a Good Thing[tm]. It means, you have good privacy there. It is not only that they won't give your records to whoever asks for them, they can't. Yes, I'd like to have that kind of privacy.
However, this effectively means that ISPs cannot have a role in spam fighting, as they will not know if an allegded spammer is a spammer or have been joed. So, there goes the possibility of fighting spam privately, pretty much.
Instead, I'd like laws that bans spam. I believe that would have a huge effect. The most common spammer-excuse is that "it isn't illegal", so if it were, it would take out most of the spam. If I only got one spam a month, it wouldn't really be a problem, and if I could hand the spammer over to someone who would spank the spammer for me, I think it would be great.
However, I'd like to see laws were ISPs have no role in monitoring their users, but instead, if I get a spam a month, I report it, and given a court order, police could gather evidence, not by looking through the logs of ISPs, because they should exists for no other purpose than ensuring the integrity of the system, but e.g. grab the spammer's computer and check for evidence there. I would very much prefer this to the possibility of ISPs having to log everything. I wouldn't expect spam to be a problem for very long after something like that was first enforced. ..
Right now, I think about 90% of my spam comes from US sources, so the clueful Norwegian legislation has very little practical effect. I've got the Consumer Ombudsman (which is the agency we report spammers to) onto Nokia for a couple of spam runs (Nokia's hardware is excellent, but their marketing department needs a few clues). Therefore, I really hope the US would get good legislation in place rather fast. Then, I think we would be in the position to block countries that does not make good legislation back to the stone age: If they would like to communicate internationally, they need to spank spammers, or else their e-mail will be forwarded to Dave Null.
Time for an European spamming conference? (Score:4, Funny)
We could arrange a "conference for spamming professionals" in Europe and call spammers from all over the world. When they arrive at the conference location, we would arrest them.
I doubt Americans could complain about the immorality of the procedure...
A cool idea, not?
Re:Time for an European spamming conference? (Score:2)
//rdj
I'm not so sure about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'd prefer to see is an approach like this:
- Corporations must obtain a consumer's explicit consent before sending an advertisement via e-mail.
- This consent may not be a part of any other agreement, i.e. it must be obtained separately from any other agreements made (in other words, no hiding it in the fine print).
- This consent is not transferable to any other entity; if a list is sold to another entity (person, corporation, or whatever), that entity may send a single notice asking for permission, but no more until permission is gained. Failure to respond to that notice must be taken as denial of permission.
- The permission given must be revocable at any time, and all advertisements must send clear and valid instructions on how to revoke that permission, should the user desire to do so.
- If an entity starts sending e-mail to a user without their permission (aside from the single notice mentioned above), the person has the option to press charges of harassment. Note that I said the option.
The idea is to require online advertising to be opt-in, without specifically banning any types of messages. I'm not certain how workable it is; ideas?Re:I'm not so sure about this... (Score:2)
Re:I'm not so sure about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are also other venues through permission could be gained; perhaps as a part of tech-support calls. And, of course, print catalog sales could include a checkbox.
My point: even with e-mail taken out of the picture, there are plenty of venues through which one could ask permission. So requiring permission does not unduly impede the process of online advertising at all.
Don't think this is an improvement (Score:2)
So instead of dozens of spam message each day, I'll be getting dozens of requests for my permission to receive spam each day? Doesn't sound like much of an improvement to me. Most spammers that hit me are one-shot wonders anyway.
Re:I'm not so sure about this... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this clause would open the flood gates for a lot of spamming. Let's imagine a fictional world where the unsubscribe addresses for every spammer actually work. Now let's imagine that company A acquires your email address:
Company A: Can we spam you?
*Company A sells their list to Company B and Company C.*
You (to Company A): No!
*Company B sells their list to Company D and Company E.*
*Company C sells their list to Company F.*
Company B: Can we--
You (to Company B): No!
Company C: Can we spam you?
Company D: Can we spam you?
Company E: Can we spam you?
Company F: Can we spam you?
As it is, I receive numerous spams that read at the bottom, "This is a one time mailing. Nothing is necessary to remove you from our mailing list." But it fails to address the fact that the email address in question is on 50 billion copies of an outdated list. I receive over 20 spams per week to an old address that was only ever listed in our WHOIS information (and hasn't been listed for over a year). The problem is that just skimming spams seems to indicate that it's a new company doing it each time.
Re:I'm not so sure about this... (Score:2)
The spammers are right in that it's something of an abridgement of freedom.
You don't have the freedom to yell in my ear. You don't have the freedom to piss in the public well. Spammers do both of these things by abusing a public network. The EU has the right idea.
The quickest way to ruin your company's reputation is to spam people.
Re:I'm not so sure about this... (Score:2)
Re:That is the point! (Score:2)
Define "unsolicted email" (Score:2, Insightful)
This seems potentially dangerous. I hate spam mail as much as the next person, but it almost seems dangerous to make laws that say, "You can't talk to this person without their approval". If someone else writes someone email and mentions your product in it, are you liable, or do you have to be the sender? Where's the line between a "company advertisement" and a "personal suggestion". If I email a friend and tell him to check out a computer game that I think is cool, and he didn't solicit that "advertisement", is the company responsible?
What if I mass-mail it to hundreds of people? If the company's name isn't attached to the origin of the email, is it therefore okay? And if so, why wouldn't companies just get third-parties to do such things for them?
It just seems risky to me to make laws that limit the content of communications. As an analogy,. I do hate telemarketing... my phone is usually unplugged from 4pm-7pm every day... but I don't think I'd like a law that made it illegal for them to call me.
Ban all Non-Consentual Commercial Communication. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should the population have to endure a bombardment of unwanted messages when they almost universally detest them?
Consumption (demand) drives capitalism, what are we going to do now that we understand the planet will never enable an equal opportunity (exploitation of the poor is the method that NorthAmericans and the G8 use to facilitate our own unreasonable waste and consumption)... let alone that the planet is incapable of supporting 6 billion 'NorthAmerican lifestyles'.
So, here is the problem, we allow* business to lie (market) in every way, using every channel at their own desire, to drive UP consumption - making our very real problem worse.
I recognize that telling the sheeple they need to consume *less* is very difficult to do, but allowing a powerfull elite (plutocrats) to prevent a more sobering message, one encouraging reduction/adjustment/re-alignment/reassessment, does not play well... especially echoed in a chorus of 'buy now buy now buy now buy now buy now buy now buy now'.
So, back to my original point: If we are to ever make reason again of our modern society we must come to grips with rampant consumerism. In order to do this we must re-assess the benefits our community - as a whole - gains by accepting the very real manipulation that un-solicited commercial messages manufacturers.
Would we be able to put a computer in every north american home, which allowed for open and full discourse on the marketplace of both products and ideas if we chose to spend our resources there instead of say, 20" x 40" billboards blaring garbage at the population.
Which would people prefer? Certainly the former - but without a realistic approach to the marketplace, one that dosnt simply encourage mindless consumption (which leads the planet to literal oblivion) - where to begin? how do you change the course of the economy without being slaughtered under the ignorance of ignorant, misinformed, mislead masses.
Without restraining the ability of a reckless, self-interested minority (the powerfull rich) to restrict and contain public discourse, how do you ever have a public debate on the issue itself... its is a mind-numbingly inescapable rabid incestuous viscious circle.
So again, in order to break this circle, we should, as a community, dissolve the practice of allowing ignorant, unhealthy messages to be broadcast (in all channels (spam, billboards, bench-ads) to our community....
* Sounds radical dosnt it... im very serious. There are surely to be alot of free-market libertarians to take serious offence to this idea... but again, free-market libertarians believe voting-with-your-dollars is an acceptable way to run a democracy... and no, that is not flamebait, it appears as the basic ideal behind alot of arguments ive heard in the past.
I know this idea is a bit radical, but it certainly is not flaimbait... so moderators, please weigh your disagreement with the idea against your desire to stiffle the idea and remember the purpose of moderation is not the latter.
Re:Ban all Non-Consentual Commercial Communication (Score:2)
not quite (Score:2)
Public space can be regulated by the public. A sign on the door is reasonable, a 60 foot tall billboard on the interstate is not. What people do to make the interiors of their homes and places of work ugly is their own problem. What people do to make the world at large oppresivly ugly is our problem. It's that simple, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. What kind of ass is it that would put up a billboard in a residential area? Have I violated YOUR rights by saying that you can not urinate on my front yard? Billboards are offensive, and should be outlawed. Yes, you can tell people not to paint outrageous things on the side of their building, and you have not violated their rights.
Re:not quite (Score:2)
Re:Ban all Non-Consentual Commercial Communication (Score:2)
When I'm driving on 101, I don't mind the billboards - I sometimes buy what's advertised. When reading slashdot, I often click through to ThinkGeek and buy a shirt - even though I have hundreds of t-shirts already and sure don't need any more of them.
I still hate spam. But advertising in general is a positive thing, and not just because it subsidizes publications including but not limited to slashdot. And I suspect that mine is the majority view.
Re:Ban all Non-Consentual Commercial Communication (Score:2)
I am dumbfounded.
Tell me, what ideals do you find morally acceptable? If this is your opinion of your role in this world, if this is your reaction to the problems your actions create, tell me, what higher-order morality do you subscribe to?
even though I have hundreds of t-shirts already and sure don't need any more of them.
Do you kick puppies and drown babies too?
Re:Ban all Non-Consentual Commercial Communication (Score:2)
Because your ridiculously stupid consumption fucks up my world: it causes pollution, it fucks up the economy, it causes exploitation of people working in sweatshops abroad, it fucks up my ability to seek a sane and reasonable balance of work/life (because you are willing to work 90 hours a week to by your 123131 fucking consumer-bit), it generally fucks up my ability to live happily. By having 300 million selfish americans driving the worlds economy no one else can do anything other than bear down and adopt the system because if we DONT you'll eat everyone out of house and home (very fucking literally) - leaving others with nothing and not caring a whit.
You are not living in a vaccume, you are a member of the global village, and everyone has got to become a little more aware of what their own actions create and what they destroy.
When you eat 5 mcblondanlds meals in a day, you drive up meat prices, you increase demand, rainforests are slashed, methane is produced, anti-biotics become useless... its a simple analogy but true none-the-less.
Where is the easonable balancing force? Nothing without market-value lives today. Where is the market for peace? goodwill? happiness? joy? freedom? democracy? nature? bio-diversity? greenspace? clean air? clean water? community? love? understanding? Where is the efforts to create more of these things? There isnt any - and because Capitalism only deals in $$$, and the world is forced to care for their $$$ least they have none, these other things take a back seat...
Those in the drivers seat of the worlds present empire are getting drunk, fat and ignorant... when we alone are capable of creating any real value and stearing the future to something we can be proud of...
Re:Ban all Non-Consentual Commercial Communication (Score:2)
Because your ridiculously stupid consumption fucks up my world: it causes pollution,
Places with the worst environmental records are non-capitalist ones like the ex-Soviet Union and China. Your correlation of capitalism and environmental degradation is not just wrong, it is backwards.
it fucks up the economy,
Capitalism fucks up a capitalist economy. Brilliant.
it causes exploitation of people working in sweatshops abroad,
Right. There was no slavery before there was capitalism. And exploitation is worst in the most capitalist countries.
it fucks up my ability to seek a sane and reasonable balance of work/life (because you are willing to work 90 hours a week to by your 123131 fucking consumer-bit)
So he should adjust his hopes and dreams in order to help you achieve yours? If you want a 9-5 job there are lots of them out there.
, it generally fucks up my ability to live happily. By having 300 million selfish americans driving the worlds economy no one else can do anything other than bear down and adopt the system because if we DONT you'll eat everyone out of house and home (very fucking literally) -
That makes no sense. The US is agriculturally self-sufficient. Americans pay farmers not to farm because there is so much damn food around. You would deny this state of abundance to other countries in the world. Who is selfish?
leaving others with nothing and not caring a whit.
There was poverty in the world before there was capitalism. In fact, according to modern definitions of poverty, the whole world was poor until there was modern capitalism. Capitalist countries tend to be rich. Socialist (China, North Korea, USSR) countries tend to be poor. Socialists are the worst enemies of the poor. They think they are helping but they make the plight of the poor much worse.
People come to the West because they want what we have. We can give them what they want in their home countries by exporting democracy and capitalism. There are dozens of countries in the world that have made massive strides out of poverty by working according to democractic capitalist principles. Japan, Taiwan, all of post-war Europe, post-communist East Europe, much of central and South America. Please do not reverse the progress these countries have made by undermining the very technique that they are using to make progress.
Re:Ban all Non-Consentual Commercial Communication (Score:2)
That translates into real figures when we start talking about how much gas you are burning and how much garbage you are throwing out every week. You can't be completely unconscious of where all that styrofoam packing and cardboard filler goes after you're done taking it out of the box with your valuable stuff and putting it in your trash.
Do you really think that getting rid of billboards would have any meaningful impact on this? I'm ashamed as a leftist of what passes for critical thought on the left these days. Look: the market is a tool. If you want to reduce styrofoam consumption then you can do that in the capitalist system by imposing a tax on styrofoam. You don't have to restrict people's right to free speech.
Re:Ban all Non-Consentual Commercial Communication (Score:4, Insightful)
I propose banning all non-consentual commercial communication. That means public billboards, telephone calls and spam. etc etc.
Oh really? So my local pizza shop can't have a sign that says "pizza" because I haven't agreed to it in advance? Or maybe they can have a sign that says pizza, but not one that says "enjoy a Coke with this pizza." Or maybe they can have the sign but only if it is small. Give me a break.
Can the homeless guy ask me for money? Can a busker advertise his or her CD?
Why should the population have to endure a bombardment of unwanted messages when they almost universally detest them?
I don't detest billboards. I find them mildly ugly and occasionally useful.
Consumption (demand) drives capitalism, what are we going to do now that we understand the planet will never enable an equal opportunity (exploitation of the poor is the method that NorthAmericans and the G8 use to facilitate our own unreasonable waste and consumption)...
Capitalism gave you the computer you are typing on and the network we use to communicate. There is a pretty clear correlation between democratic capitalism and prosperity. How would it help the third world if we scaled back our lifestyle to be equivalent to theirs? We could shut down all of our sweatshops and they could have no jobs, rather than poor jobs, and no food, rather than little food.
Do you advocate an alternative to capitalism? If so, please name it. If you don't have an alternative then I'd suggest you stop trashing capitalism.
let alone that the planet is incapable of supporting 6 billion 'NorthAmerican lifestyles'.
The North American "lifestyle" is not a constant. It adjusts to fit the times. Many of our machines are much less resource intensive than they were fifty years ago. Non-polluting energy sources are on the horizon. Capitalism is the framework for discovering these solutions to problems. Have shares in a fuel-cell company because it helps me make money, it helps the environment and it helps feed the employees of the fuel-cell company. Capitalism is the solution, not the problem.
Polluting cars are a problem. But guess, what, non-capitalist countries have had polluting automobiles also. In fact they tend to pollute worse than ours! Once again, capitalism is the solution, not the problem. California's tough emission laws harnassed capitalism to funnel billions of dollars into alternative energy systems. Democractic capitalism offers the best hope of solutions to problems because it is a great mechanism for encouraging creativity and innovation.
If you want to be part of the solution you'll investigate ways to make capitalism compatible with the environment rather than trashing the only economic system that has ever been demonstrated to work consistently.
So, here is the problem, we allow* business to lie (market) in every way, using every channel at their own desire, to drive UP consumption - making our very real problem worse.
"We allow". Have you heard of rights? It is a fundamental human right for each individual or organization to communicate in almost any way with every other individual or organization. Although there are some limits at the margins (e.g. cigarette advertising is limited in many countries) the overall system is free. If you truly try to implement a system where unsolicited commercial communication is disallowed, you will need scores of draconian laws and thousands of policemen enforcing them every day.
The ironic thing is that you are quite open about your goal: you want to prevent corporations from encouraging certain patterns of thought. In other words you want to restrict free speech because you do not like what is being said. Does that sound right to you?
If you have a message that you want people to hear: shout it loud. But don't try to do so by shutting up your opponents through coercive laws.
flamebait, I've been trolled. (Score:2)
There is enough space for five billion people to live in an average American suburb in the state of Texas alone. The world is large.
As you don't think there's enough for all of those folks, what do you want them to do? Do propose that every one in the world give up potable water, adequate diets, health care, sanitary housing and public entertainment? I think we should continue to teach people, who have not, how to make things for themselves.
Re:flamebait, I've been trolled. (Score:2)
You have misunderstood the fact about American lifestyles, which is entirely correct. It is not about living space (well, unless you include all the indirect space needed for food growing in living space).
Five billion people need food. Since the typical North American lifestyle involves eating large amounts of meat every week, if 5 billion people had a North American lifestyle, you would need to raise enough cattle or pigs or whatever to feed them all meat. Moreover, all those cattle and pigs would need to be fed enough until they were ready for slaughter. (This is why meat-eating takes an unfair share of the world's food supply.) There is not enough arable land in the entire world to achieve that. QED.
Many more arguments could be advanced, see for example www.worldwatch.org
Re:Ban all Non-Consentual Commercial Communication (Score:2)
There's a lot of other things implied by this approach, of course. The problem is you have to do it sustainably. Forced, quick, radical approaches tend to collapse in on themselves and give away the original objective, whether it takes 70 days or 70 years. There's nothing wrong with having ambitious objectives, but you have to put together a workable plan to achieve it that's not going to turn everything into worse crap before it can be achieved.
How about this.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Spammers could care less (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, he was excited when Slashdot did an article on Monsterhut - any fame is good fame when it comes to Spamming companies - because legitimate companies more and more are looking at Spam as a legitimate advertising medium.
I think what *would* happen if these laws were passed however, would be that the Spamming companies may still be allowed to operate - but they would have to operate their servers in foreign countries and effectively Run from law enforcement. This in turn would scare legitimate business away from spammers, reducing their market and leaving Spam open only to small timers who don't have the resources to generate huge email lists or fight court cases.
The trick I think is not to go after the Spamming companies directly, but to pass legislation that allows the gov't to go after any companies who knowingly use Spamming agencies - most companies dont' see "Spamming" or 'advertising" as their business, so they won't look any further into promoting themselves through their own Spam - business just tends to use what's available when it's outside their knowledge base.
Re:Spammers could care less (Score:2)
Does this stop spam at all? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, there are some problems with spam:
So spam can be stopped at serverlevel, but how do you do that?
First of all make sure that the email server is'nt set to forward mail coming from "outside". If that is the case, use the "relay control"-function. And also make sure you upgrade old servers that does'nt have this kind of protection. Configurate "reverse lookup" for the server in the dns. With reverse lookup your email server can verify that the sender really is who he claims to be. That should stop alot of spam.
Happy anti-spamming
Maybe we should have laws that "nails" people who has'nt configured their mailservers the rigth way, that oughta do it..
Billboards? (Score:2)
Digital signatures (Score:2)
Phillip.
"just one bend in a long and bureaucratic road" (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just an overview of this awfully long and complicated bureaucratic process, I'm sure I forgot about several steps. This is one of the reasons I think that the current EU "constitution" sucks big time, another one being that even though those European Commission have very extended powers, no EU citizen ever appointed them for the job. We only get to vote for members of the weak "consultative" European Parliament. Calling that system a democray/republic is a joke !
Back on topic : as other posters already pointed out, one major flaw of this directive is that it only applies to "financial services" spam. A more general directive about unsollicited e-mail is expected to be discussed next year ; if it decides for "opt-out", the "financial services" directive will be rendered irrelevant. Given the track of "brilliant" technological laws of the EU, this is NOT impossible.
My point : if you're a EU citizen who wants spam to be outlawed, you're probably better off petitioning your own government rather than waiting for the European commissioners to get that one right. Even if the EC finally requires your national legislation to be changed, by the time it finally happens you will have enjoyed several years of outlawed spamming. Whether anti-spam legislation is an effective solution to this problem is another matter.
Negative Feedback... (Score:2, Interesting)
The "negative feedback" could be dosed in a coordinated fashion if there were some P2P means of establishing how many individuals had received a particular spam. If a spammer hits only a hundred people, the dose of retaliatory traffic would have to be increased to be felt. If the spam hit a million, it would require only a modest retaliation to utterly swamp the source.
Just thinking out loud. Could this be made to work?
Re:This is just a proposal, not a law yet (Score:2)
Er, that's actually what I meant. ;)
By the way, thanks to the moderator who modded me down as redundant, moving me even further down the sorted-by-score list and making it likely that I'll get another redundant. :p