Re: opt-out registry comments

Hi Andre,

I think you may be confusing two positions here:

1. Bretton thinks spam is okay, and justifiable because the numbers
    indicate that it doesn't actually cost that much per person.

2. Bretton thinks it is challenging to illustrate just how much of
    a problem spam is to the law-makers who draft legislation dealing
    with this sort of thing, because the numbers indicate that it doesn't
    actually cost that much per person.

Law-makers and politicians are unlikely to be convinced that SA needs
strong opt-in legislation purely on the strength of the opinions held
by a large number of Internet industry personalities, no matter how
vociferously those opinions are expressed.

For effective lobbying on this issue, it's helpful to quantify the
financial impact of spam, which is what Bretton has spent some time
doing. His conclusions seem to indicate that the cost per person is
not actually that high. This is helpful information to have, since
it means that lobbying efforts should focus on the collective cost
to the industry and the "hassle factor" for individuals who have
to spend even a small amount of time dealing with spam.

Warm regards,
Ant.

---
On 2011/08/02 12:44 PM, andre wrote:
> Bretton Vine said on Tuesday, August 02, 2011 :
>> On 2011/08/01 7:01 PM, andre wrote:
>>> No. Spammers are low life common law thieving criminals.
>> In your opinion, and the opinion of disgruntled recipients, yes.
>>
>> However the law doesn't support that opinion. It says something completely
>> different.
>>
> Probably because nobody has challenged the unconstitutionality
> of the ECT Act in terms of allowing the sending of one spam email
> to each email address in the country.
>
> In SA, no law can legalise theft.
>
>>> So I still do not understand why you would be explaining the reasons
>>> people steal?
>>
>> You call it stealing, they call it a cost-saving marketing exercise. The
>> entity empowered to find a solution that satisfies both wouldn't
>> necessarily provide something that is optimal to either.
>>
> Really? Taking money from consumers without their agreement
> and forcing them to pay for your marketing is somehow justifyable
> in your mind?
>
>> You're welcome to keep arguing for the sake of arguing, or you can check
>> and contribute to my figures. Only hard data will sway the powers that be,
>> and then only if it makes the direct marketers data look bad.
>>
> Arguing about what?
>
> I doubt if there are many people on this list that do not understand that
> a spammer takes money from the average consumer receiving his spam
> as the consumer has to pay for bandwidth.
>
> There is nothing fair, nice, legal or even decent about that fact. There
> is nothign to argue about either. It is factually so that a spammer makes
> others pay to receive their unsolicited marketing.
>
> You are the only person sofar arguing that spam is even half decent thing
> and you are saying that when a consumer pays for receiving spam it is
> a low cost method of marketing, so it is okay as it is such a small amount
> that it costs each consumer.
>
> You collect facts and figures but yet the spammers feel exactly like you, why
> should they stop as it is legal currently.
>
> And you are part of the problem and not part of the solution, again, imho.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOZ mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.internet.org.za/mailman/listinfo/ioz
>


_______________________________________________
IOZ mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.internet.org.za/mailman/listinfo/ioz