Slashdot Log In
European Union Says No To Spam
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Oct 01, 2001 08:50 AM
from the will-take-effect-in-20-years dept.
from the will-take-effect-in-20-years dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.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.
Rock the fsck on! (Score:2, Funny)
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.
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)
I need a new email address (Score:1)
-Karl
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)
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)
Why the icon change for Spam? (Score:2, Funny)
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...
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!
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!
This is just a proposal, not a law yet (Score:1, Redundant)
It only applies to marketing of financial services, there's no mention of how this will be enforced, whether it will be enforced on European companies marketing outside of Europe, or non-European companies marketing inside Europe, plus it still has to actually go to the European Parliament. At the moment, it's just a recommended draft bill, and it can be amended again before being passed.
Baby steps...
It's so easy to pass a law... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Good Luck, and remember - we're all counting on you." -Leslie Nielsen (Airplane!)
Save forest (Score:1)
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"???
Haven't we all? (Score:1)
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"...
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
wow (Score:1)
Wow, they managed to get opt-in through instead of opt-out. This is definitely a breakthrough. I sure lobbied however I could for this, but didn't believe they'd go the consumer's way. Now, if only they do the same for *all* spam, and do it so that the consumer's country's law is applied (not the sender's), and we're all set.
Can't imagine though that those chinese spammers will stop, law or not law...
To those crying out about free speech: it's my right not to have to pay (connection time, my time etc) to get sth. I don't want, spammers shouldn't have the right to steal my (and ISP's) resources, and so yes, this is a good thing.
Btw. spam (except for opt-in) is already forbidden in Austria.
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?
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?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: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.
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.
I don't like spammers, but.. (Score:1)
I really do not want to hear an argument to this stating that spam is not good, hence it should be banned.. To Microsoft, Linux is not good, should it be banned?
And if the argument of one is that laws against spam are for the greater good, this implies that laws should be passed for the greater good regardless of the consequenses. Who decides what the greater good is? Microsoft, the government(s), or some other "trustworthy" source?
Think before you leap into allowing speech to be limited.
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.
About the EU... (Score:1)
So don't you yanks start thinking it's paradise over here! In fact, I'm thinking of moving over there.
Oh, BIG news... (Score:1)
Woohoo! Spam is OVER from the EU! Never again will I get an email asking me to go to http://192.168.0.1/s3xy81+ch.html! Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!!!
"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.
This is how it should work (Score:1)
State can have citizen identified for the purpose of this site (state does that all the time
Businesses must compare their intended spam recipient list against the state base and remove
all addresses marked unwilling to receive spam.
Citizens have access to special court (and/or consumer associations) to resolve issues when they still receive spam. Small spam is fined, big or repeatitive after trial spam goes to jail.
A small refinement: the same person can register an email where spam is ok and another where spam is not, so businesses get for free a list of address where spam is ok (may be with category of interest, etc...)
Then some UN-like thing does the connection of the willing state database and provide an international service.
Laurent
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?
The War Against Spam (Score:1)
Look, I've got nothing against people (not businesses) sending me email cause they ran into me at a party and want to get in touch with me.
But I get up to 100 emails per account per day, and more than half of that is spam. Much has fraudulent headers.
There is no US Constitutional right to spam people, or the anti-spam fax laws would have been tossed. Congress is a patsy for the commercial interests. It sounds like Europe's elected officials also get money from the pro-opt-out commercial interests.
But I don't have time to get 50 x 4 = 200 unsolicited opt-out emails every day. And the act of opting-out allows them to know that I'm a live account and send me more spam.
Give me Opt-In or Give me Death!
And if I have to move to Europe to get the Right to Privacy that I should have as a US citizen, than maybe I'll just move to France or Spain and get rid of all these intrusions.
Re:How will this affect eCommerce? (Score:1)
I would suggest that if you had to pay for the disk space that your spam uses on the world's computers, you wouldn't even dream of marketing that way.
Nor would you be so supportive if I sent you an "earn a degree from prestigous non-accredited universities" email for every spam you spent.
EU != USA (Score:1)