European Parliament proposes tough behavioural ad rules

[Nicholas Bohm]

On 13/11/2010 12:32, Joel Harrison wrote:
>> -----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).  

I hadn't thought of PECR - thanks.
 
> 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".  

Like most people, I get plenty of spam to which neither 22(2) nor 22(3)
applies, and almost none to which either do apply.  But it still often
offers me unsubscribe links, which do indeed seem a handy mechanism for
phishers.  This stuff is no doubt well-intentioned, but I still think
it's naive to the point of being clueless.

Nicholas
-- 
Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>