No 'spamming' in the U.K.?

[Supercharts]

"Spammers Now Need Permission in Britain
58 minutes ago Add Technology - AP to My Yahoo!

By BETH GARDINER, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Spammers beware. Britain has announced that those sending unsolicited e-mail must get recipients' agreement in advance. Violators will be subject to fines of 5,000 pounds (US$8,000) or more and possible lawsuits from those they've targeted.

The rule, aimed at shrinking the heavy traffic of junk e-mail messages, also applies to unsolicited text messages sent to mobile phones, the government said Thursday. "

Full article:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&ncid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030919/ap_on_hi_te/spam_ban

This attempt to regulate the Internet is going to fail. But, more important, it's a restriction on free speech. This would be fought in the U.S.. The only way the U.S. could impose this type of law is if the Internet was 'regulated' by the government.

This is an important issue. The U.K. is using a hammer on an annoyance. Mail programs are getting smarter every day.
One point of view is that spamming is like junk snail mail. Just toss it in the re-cycle bin. But businesses pay postage so it's limited.

What do you think?

 

[Occasional Chemist]

One point of view is that spamming is like junk snail mail. Just toss it in the re-cycle bin. But businesses pay postage so it's limited.

What do you think?

Another point of view is that the sender pays for junk mail, while the recipient pays for junk e-mail.

I agree that legislation won't work to stop spam, but I disagree that it's a free speech issue. I don't have any right to put up a billboard in your kitchen, and putting one up there isn't "free speech".

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

"Spammers Now Need Permission in Britain
58 minutes ago Add Technology - AP to My Yahoo!

By BETH GARDINER, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Spammers beware. Britain has announced that those sending unsolicited e-mail must get recipients' agreement in advance. Violators will be subject to fines of 5,000 pounds (US$8,000) or more and possible lawsuits from those they've targeted.

The rule, aimed at shrinking the heavy traffic of junk e-mail messages, also applies to unsolicited text messages sent to mobile phones, the government said Thursday. "

Full article:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&ncid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030919/ap_on_hi_te/spam_ban

This attempt to regulate the Internet is going to fail. But, more important, it's a restriction on free speech. This would be fought in the U.S.. The only way the U.S. could impose this type of law is if the Internet was 'regulated' by the government.

This is an important issue. The U.K. is using a hammer on an annoyance. Mail programs are getting smarter every day.
One point of view is that spamming is like junk snail mail. Just toss it in the re-cycle bin. But businesses pay postage so it's limited.

What do you think?

How enforceable is it? OK, if I'm in the UK and spam you I'm in trouble, but what if I'm in Gambozo? Will the UK make an international incident over it? Should you even bother?

Here in the USA, we are finally doing something about telephone solicitors, whether it will do any good remains to be seen, ask me in a few months. The "don't call list" doesn't kick in until the end of this month.

But email spam? I keep putting filters on my email feed, but there's always some more. I'm about 3 to 1, ◊◊◊◊ versus something I might want to read or folks I have personally contacted. Does this just have to be par for the course for having a somewhat public email address?

My mother is 74 years old. She sells advertising for a weekly newspaper and makes a good living selling ads. She is picking up on using the computer very well in general.

Last night she called me, and very embarrassed, asked me what's this about "enlarging your penis"? I told her to erase it and forget about it. I also warned her it will happen agian.