European Parliament proposes tough behavioural ad rules

[Joel Harrison]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Nicholas Bohm
> Sent: 13 November 2010 11:25
> To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
> Subject: Re: European Parliament proposes tough behavioural ad rules
> 
> On 12/11/2010 14:28, Roland Perry wrote:
> >         require advertisements sent by e-mail to contain an automatic
> >         link enabling the recipient to refuse all further advertising
> >
> > Again, isn't this already the law (if the sending of the email was
> > legal in the first place)?
> 
> I didn't know it was the law (is it?), but just as one shouldn't reply to
spam
> because it encourages the sender, so - a fortiori - one shouldn't visit
the
> spammer's webpage, which could do even more harm.
> This therefore seems a clueless suggestion.

It's (almost) required if the sender is relying on PECR reg. 22(3) rather
than reg. 22(2).  
 
If the recipient has notified the sender that he consents to receiving the
e-mails, there's no requirement to provide an unsubscribe mechanism (reg
22(2)).  However, if the sender is relying on reg 22(3) (i.e. the sender has
obtained the recipient's contact details through negotiations for sale of a
product/service, and the communication is about similar products/services),
reg 22(3)(c) requires that the recipient be given a "simple means" of
refusing further e-mails at the time of each e-mail.  The refusal mechanism
must also be free of charge, other than the costs of transmitting the
refusal.  This doesn't explicitly require the inclusion of an automatic link
in each e-mail (hence "almost"), but it's obviously the most straightforward
way - I can see "log on to your account on our website, go to your account
details and click 'unsubscribe'" as qualifying as "simple means".  
 
Joel