 GrepLaw |
|
|
|
This site is a production of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Please email if you have questions, contributions, or ideas about improving this site.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
posted by mpawlo
on Tuesday July 15, @02:53PM
from the what-is-the-grimmelmann-take-on-this? dept.
|
|
|
|
|
The European Commission will address the spam issue. EU Member States have to transpose a 'ban on spam' into national legislation by the end of October 2003, mainly through opt-in solutions.
Personally, I think the opt-in model is wrong to begin with. It is correct that a global effort would be good, but opt-in as such is not the answer to the problem. Spam is very hard to define and the proposed effort may make it hard to distinguish betweend legimate uses of email (such as Amazon sending me tips on new books - I am customer) and illegimate uses (such as Borders giving me the same offer - I am not a customer). I do not like the "bounty" element of Professor Lessig's proposal 'A Bounty on Spammers', but I think Professor Lessig is dead on when it comes to introducing cost to unwanted, unsolicited email. In Professor Lessig's basic model, even Borders could send me their offer, should I be able to charge it if I am not interested in its offer. That provide for more flexibility and suits better the interactive model of the Internet. Borders may do the math - is it worth the risk to send Mikael that email? If the cost is X, the benefit is Y and the risk of me opposing the offer, not wanting the message and claiming damages is Z, Borders will send me the message as long as Z is low and X is much lower than Y. As soon as Z increases, Borders will be less likely to send the message. Very simplistic, but it does the job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, I do not want a hacker to do the bounty search, I would prefer a market or state introduced Ombudsman, but then again I was born and raised in Sweden .-)
Read mor at the EU Commission.
|
|
|
|
< Avril Goes iTunes
| Listen to the Bench >
| |
|
