ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - News Article "California Bans Spam"

2003-09-24 13:08:32
Kee Hinckley wrote:
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.


Having a set of standard protocols and formats for exchanging consent can provide usefull tools for an audit trail. In theory, an audit trail providing a record of a consent exchange transaction using these formats and protocols, might be an effective method for proving opt-in. BTW, the consent framework is available at:

http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html

Yakov


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>