[LINK] RFI: Help re SPAM Privacy Laws

Craig Sanders cas@taz.net.au
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:18:07 +1100


On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 09:50:23AM +1100, Stilgherrian wrote:
> At 13:39 +1100 18/2/03, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >[snip] the content is irrelevant.  the fact that it is unsolicited is what
> >makes it spam.
> 
> Then I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree, Craig.
> 
> You're saying that *any* communication which is initiated by a vendor [*]
> is always wrong -- no matter how it's worded, how individual, how 
> polite, or how "relevant". That a vendor can *never* begin a dialog 
> with a potential customer.

unless that potential customer has given them permission.  i.e. opted
in.

> And I'm saying that anyone should be able to start the dialog --
> provided that, like communication in any other context, it's done
> politely, appropriately, and with some measure of respect for the
> other party.

then you are in favour of spam.  if you act on your belief, then you are
a spammer.

> As an example, last year a vendor (who, I'll admit, I'd previously
> used in another context to provide another service) contacted me out
> of the blue with a suggestion for how I could work differently. That
> suggestion ended up saving me about $6000 in the course of the year.
> But I'd never have found out about it if he hadn't initiated the
> conversation. In fact I'd never even have thought of the  idea he
> suggested.

fine.  if you want such mail, then you should opt-in to it.  sign up to
some service that allows advertisers to target their messages to people
who specifically want it.  give permission to your suppliers to contact
you out of the blue.

the fact that YOU want [some of] it is not a reason why everyone else
should have to put up with being spammed.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch