Differences between version 11 and previous revision of LegislatingAgainstSpam.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 11 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 1:42:33 am | by MatthiasDallmeier | Revert |
| Older page: | version 8 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 12:50:13 am | by MatthiasDallmeier | Revert |
@@ -60,12 +60,16 @@
9. Should all parties involved in the act of spamming, such as the vendor sponsoring the spamming, be covered by the legislation? Should there be express exceptions such as for telecommunications companies and ISPs?
PerryLorier: Yes, all parties involved should be covered. I don't believe ISP's or telecommunications companies should be excepted, especially as these are the groups that are technologically the most able to perform spamming.
+
+MatthiasDallmeier: Yes, all parties involved should be covered. Telecommunications companies and ISPs should be required to act on abuse complaints to avoid being held liable for the actions of their customers, but unless they are knowingly hosting spammers, sending spam themselves, or running open servers they cannot really be held responsible.
10. Should New Zealand adopt an opt-in, double opt-in or opt-out approach in legislating against spam? Why?
PerryLorier: Opt-out is unlikely to work as spammers have used "Opt-out" approaches to harvest valid email addresses, and users are reluctant to use it even if it is available due to the risk of recieving even more spam. Opt-in has issues with viruses or malicious people forging email and subscribing you to spam without your consent. Double opt in seems to be the only reliable way of determining peoples true intentions.
+
+MatthiasDallmeier: Double opt-in, because it is the only way to ensure that someone does in fact want to be "spammed". Opt-in could be abused by third parties. Opt-out would be equivalent to allowing spam and therefore a complete waste of time.
11. If an opt-in or double opt-in approach was to be adopted, what should amount to express consent and what actions and/or relationships should amount to inferred consent to the sending of a "commercial" electronic message?
12. How should the scope of any opt-in or double opt-in assent be framed?
