Dutch Anti-Spam Ruling Nullified on Appeal 21
dex@ruunat writes: "Today, the Amsterdam court nullified an earlier ruling by a lower judge that that spam outfit AbFab is forbidden to send spam to customers of the Dutch ISP XS4all. According to the XS4all website (Dutch only), the judge ruled that spam doesn't cause very much inconvenience, and that people who want to get rid of it can easily change their email address. XS4all considers appealing to the Dutch high court. There's one other ray of hope though: in 15 months, the new European spam directive will come into force, effectively outlawing all spam." A prize of zero dollars to the reader who can suggest the translation engine which does the best job with Dutch :)
E-mail addresses (Score:1, Interesting)
Changing your e-mail address is not as easy as one thinks. Sure, the change of address itself is not difficult, but notifying all the contacts that used the address can be.
Soemtimes, changing addresses to defeat spam is not worth the hassle, especially since spammers will get the new address anyway.
Change your E-mail address (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news..... (Score:1, Funny)
change addresses? (Score:1)
Re:change addresses? (Score:1)
Re:change addresses? (Score:1)
somebody send that judge a clue-by-four
Ob-question (Score:1)
or get rid of spam (Score:1)
Re:or get rid of spam (Score:1)
WorldLingo machine translation (Score:1, Informative)
This translation brought to you by WorldLingo's free machine translation service [worldlingo.com]:
18 July of 2002
The Court court Amsterdam today cut down sentence in the business of Abfab the US XS4ALL and 4 customers. The court destroys the diction in short lawsuit in which Abfab become forbidden still longer unasked commerciele e-mails (spam) to send to customers of XS4ALL, under penalty of a penalty payment of EURO 50 by bulletin. The possibility leaves the court in order continue if in the general spammers to she gives rise to nuisance; "In the case of the type spam which looks after for nuisance, is proportionaliteits-eisen in the lawsuit and can at niet-inachtneming from that it of onrechtmatigheid talk be. "
The court enters vastly on several layers on which the spamverbod had based XS4ALL, namely telecommunicatie-wetgeving, privacy - and (netwerk-)eigendomsrechten. Unfortunately concludes the court which does not satisfy none of these layers in order call a halt behaviour of Abfab, very the undesirable in the eyes of XSÂLL, to.
Simply rash XS4ALL the official report of the court which considers the violation on the privacy of the addressees is relative small. In to understand with difficulty a reasoning to the court notes that then a e-mail address is less given public (woon-)adres, and therefore certain a confidential character has, but that would cause the leaking out of it on the other hand less damage then a real address, because for each easy and against small costs of e-mail address can change. In the eyes of XS4ALL blijk of small opinion in the value give the court those internetters suture to conservation of their e-mail address as digital identity. More certainly now much internetters change, broadband Internet, go up it moreover in order change address strong overstapkosten in order of to.
XS4ALL are disappointed concerning this negative diction and have themselves recommended concerning the possibility in cassation go. The new European directive for privacy in the telecommunication sector issues an explicit prohibition on impeding internetters with unasked bulkmail. The European Council accepted the final text meanwhile and publication in the officiele publication booklet of the EU become thus expect in the short term. Afterwards it the member States have implement still 15 months the time the prohibition to. The court recognizes this and puts: "The problem of XS4ALL and [ the 4 customers ] himself, to himself now let aanzien, vanzelf to solve. "XS4ALL had hoped save Abfab and similar digital marketing companies of harte her customers with immediate entrance further nuisance of, but customers can now only to help with establishing technical spamfilters to the access to keep to serious communication.
More information regarding opt-in the spamfilters of XS4ALL:h tml [xs4all.nl]
http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/spamfilter.
The sentence:. html [xs4all.nl]
http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/abfab180702
Translation (manual) (Score:3, Informative)
July 18th 2002 ...not important, tells that really annoying spam can be forbidden or something)"
The Amsterdam court today ruled in the case of Abfab vs XS4ALL and 4 customers. The court destroys the ruling which forbade Abfab to send unsollicited commercial e-mail (spam) to customers of XS4ALL, with a punishment of 50 EURO per message (that had to be paid of Abfab did send spam). The court does leave the possibility to sue spammers in general if they cause severe interference ; "In the case of the type of spam which causes interference, the proportionality-claims (?) are in place and
The court extensively talks about the different grounds upon which XS4ALL had based the anti-spam ruling, namely the telecommunication-law, privacy- and (network ) ownership rights. Unfortunately the court concludes that none of these grounds justify the stop of Abfabs very -according to XS4ALL- unwanted behaviour.
XS4ALL really doesn't agree with the Court's finding that the breach of privacy of the adressees is relatively small. In a hard to understand point of view the Court concludes that an e-mail address is less of a a public given than a (mail-)address, and thus surely has a more confidential character, but that the publication of it on the other hand would cause less damage than a real address, because you can easily and at low costs change e-mail adresses. In the eyes of XS4ALL the Court hereby shows little insight in the value netizens attribute to the conservation (transl?) of their e-mail address as a digital identity. Especially now when lots of netizens are moving to permanent, broad-band internet, costs of changing address rise.
XS4ALL is disappointed about this negative ruling and is asking advise about the possibility to go to the supreme court. The new European Guideline for Privacy in the Telecom-sector explicitely forbids interference of internet-work with unwanted bulkmail. The European Counsil has accepted the final text and the publication of in the official publication of the EU is therefor expected soon. After that the member states have got 15 months to implement the prohibition. The Court acknowledges this and says: "The problem of XS4ALL and [the 4 customers] will fade, as the situation looks now, away automatically." XS4ALL had hoped wholehartedly to immediately help her customers avoid this kind of interference from Abfab and other similar digital marketing companies, but can now only help customers installing technical spam filters to maintain access to "serious" communication.
Suspension of anti-spammer activities (Score:2)
The judge in this case said that spam is not much of a problem. I think that's his honest perception, because he doesn't see the full magnitude of the problem. By suspending all anti-spam activities, the full weight of the spam problem will become known by all.
I propose that the month of September be set aside for this purpose this year.
Re:Suspension of anti-spammer activities (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that for a one month period, sometime this year, all anti-spammers and ISP's around the globe should suspend any activities that they are currently undertaking to supress spam.
If we could get all anti-spammers and ISPs around the globe to work together, we'd have implemented a new protocol which eliminates spam by now.
Re:Suspension of anti-spammer activities (Score:1)
Re:Suspension of anti-spammer activities (Score:2)
Re:Suspension of anti-spammer activities (Score:1)
This sounds like a good idea, though I think a month might be too long. The aim is to inflict enough pain to prove that spam is a real problem, but not so much pain that anti-spammers look like sadists. (That was your aim, wasn't it? ;-)
Sueing individual spammers is all well and good, but the damages are rarely enough to stop them doing it again. Even if you can get damages greater than the profit they made from spamming (through a class action, maybe?) that just leaves the way clear for another spammer to take their place. Unless the probability of being caught is very high, there will always be someone who's prepared to take the risk.
I think that more drastic action is called for. I propose that anybody who is successfully sued for spamming be used for medical experiments. This may seem repugnant at first, but consider the advantages:
I admit, the above is shamelessly stolen from a similar proposal involving lawyers. Hey, maybe we could use the spammers' defence lawyers for medical experiments, too.
And yes, moderators, I'm joking. Or trolling. It's hard to tell the difference these days...
Obvious Solution (Score:2)
Change address? (Score:1)
Methinks it's pretty obvious this judge doesn't even have an email address to begin with. He's never gotten spam, so he can't possibly know wtf he's talking about.
English bulletin by XS4All (Score:1)
http://www.xs4all.nl/uk/news/overview/abfab_appea