From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui(_at_)plaidworks(_dot_)com>
- I think communicating consent is hopeless and even a bad idea.
Advertisers will never entirely honor anything but "tell me more."
This is bogus. It's like saying because there are hackers out there,
all programmers can't be trusted. Let's use an even wider brush for the
painting, and simply go for the entire human race in one swath.
Smart advertisers have figured out that stuffing messages down user's
throats when they don't want them makes them a lot more likely to buy
your products (yeah, right).
Please don't assume that since some sites (like real) are deceptive in
how they do their consent management and others are outright frauds
that everyone's like that. that simply polarizes a discussion into
camps that fight when cooperation is in fact needed.
Have you ever worked with or otherwise encountered a marketing
organization that will never have an enthusiastic member who will dig
out the old lists to see if any contacts might have changed their
minds? I've know several marketing organizations up close, including
at very strongly anti-Internet-abuse over the decades, but they've
all had similar problems.
Have you heard of any marketing organization of more than ~50 people
or for a company of more than 1000 employees that has not had and will
not always have occassional spam problems? I've not. The difference
between hopelessly enthusiastic spammers like RealNetworks and the
rest of the Fortune 100,000 is in a matter of degree.
In fact no prgrammers can be entirely trusted because some of us are
bad guys. That is why we have all sorts of access control mechanisms.
I think that any non-trivial "consent mechanisms" would be like root
accounts without passwords, sendmail "debug" switches, and gets() or
sprintf() functions.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg