At 11:52 AM -0700 9/24/03, Bill Pease wrote:
This does not require double opt-in, nor does it even require
"positive action" by the consent giver. If I provide my email to
participate in a transaction, or to obtain a service, and text
indicating I will also be added to an email list is displayed in the
vicinity, this tacit form of opt-in can easily be construed to
constitute "direct consent."
As much as I'd love confirmed opt-in to be a requirement, the fact is
that too many subscribers just don't get it. It's not going to
happen (do you require it of your customers?). This is certainly the
strongest opt-in statement I've seen in legislation, and orders of
magnitude ahead of the federal laws, which all specify opt-out. I
don't think it's going to get any better.
As written, any purchase from or inquiry to any provider that I have
ever made authorizes them to email me - even if the marketer
obtained my email address via e-pending or other methods and not by
my own provision - as long as their message contains a functioning
opt-out method.
E-pending is an interesting issue, and I'd certainly like to see a
law disallowing the sale or transfer of email addresses--but I'm not
holding my breath. Do you truly think that any anti-spam law would
not have a "pre-existing business relationship" clause? After all,
otherwise you're saying that you can send all the mail you want to
them, but they aren't allowed to reply.
restrictions to messaging to "California email addresses." The
types of information required to ascertain whether an email address
qualifies as a CA address are generally unavailable to most email
list managers:
That's been true of every state law. After all, California can't
pass a law outlawing the spamming of out-of-state addresses by
out-of-state spammers. What else can they do? I haven't heard of
any other state laws being shut down for this reason. Is there any
reason you believe this case would be any different?
I'm seriously considering finding a lawyer interested in taking an
anti-spam case on a contingency basis and moving my mail server to
California. I'm bouncing 100+ messages a minute on my server. Even
if we take out the lists which bounce three times and then remove the
address, and the viruses, and the joe-jobs, I think I've got plenty
of junk there to provide a nice income for a while.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg