Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Expect to keep hitting that delete button

Dec 14, 2003 1:10AM PST

Last Thursday the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 came into effect. The name does not, you must admit, exactly trip off the tongue, which may explain why the mainstream media labelled it the 'anti-spam law'.

This is misleading because the new rules are, in fact, a dog's breakfast of miscellaneous regulations covering things such as: security of electronic communications; the use of 'cookies' by web sites; the holding of usage data for telecoms subscribers; itemised billing for telecoms services; prevention of calling line identification for telephone calls; processing of location data for mobile phones; tracing of malicious or nuisance calls and emergency calls; privacy in telephone directories; unsolicited faxes and voice calls - oh and rules governing the sending of 'unsolicited electronic direct marketing' (aka spam).

As far as spam is concerned, from last Thursday anyone to whom a company or individual wishes to send unsolicited mail has first to obtain the recipient's express consent.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1106556,00.html


--
Donna
Anti-Spyware, Anti-Hijackers & Anti-Keyloggers

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
We already have tough privacy rules here
Dec 14, 2003 11:37PM PST

I for example, do not appear in ANY telephone listing. I am unfindable on directory enquiries, and have my number witheld every time I make a phone call. The rules on that are not about to change. Also, data protection law requires any company using random dialers, to first obtain express consent from their victim or have an existing business relationship with them.

We have new rules here, which say local authorities must gain voters' express consent to add their details to the public register, which is used by junk mail scum. So there there are two registers of voters, the one used by government departments and authorised agencies, and the public one open to abuse. Guess who denied his consent from inclusion? I didn't spend five years eliminating 99.99% of crap from my mailbox just to have it start up again.

Under data protection law, data used by foreign call centres must be accessed and used in accordance with our laws, not those of the foreign location, and only accessed to provide that support on behalf of the client company. If that is violated, then the British based company using the centre would be prosecuted.

Even the internet is dealt with differently here. I have my own domain, but you won't find any contact details for me on Whois. Under UK law, personal use domains have the same privacy as anything else, so home address and telephone number can be witheld.

That said, the primary responsibility for protecting one's own privacy rests with the individual. Example, I do not give out any more data than needed to use a service, ex. no company gets a phone number, and never my personal email address.

I also respond to violation of privacy in a very aggressive manner. With the law on my side, I am willing to sue anyone who abuses me, no matter big they are.

- Collapse -
Re:i read that article a couple of times and wonder.....
Dec 16, 2003 12:11AM PST

we all know that the spammers "ain't stoopid", and they know that we all use anti-spam programs of some kind..

it will be interesting to see if a delete/blacklist/bounce (AKA Mailwasher) will be covered by an "a bounce is as good as a reply" clause?