Re: opt-out registry comments

Not at all. Bretton has collected/calculated hard facts about volumes,
costs etc. but the attitude that because the costs are small there are 
somehow other legal priciples at play and because spammers have
lobbied for the 'right' to send one unsolicited email (in their bulk email
run) to each email address, somehow thinking about what is in fact
happening, has ceased or become justified.

We have all become so used to spam and everyone's "right" to send
bulk unsolicited email once, that we have forgotten basics...

Which, I guess is one of my points (in my loooong diatribe) :)


> Andre, I appreciate your passion for the issue at hand here and wish we'd
> had you involved when we were wading through the quagmire that faces you
> when dealing with these topics with the Commercial Crimes detectives and
> the Advocate from the NPA, but understand that Bretton is playing devil's
> advocate here to some degree.  Of anyone I know, he has put a a lot of
> time and effort into combatting spam.
> 
> Forgive the top-post, but I feel this thread is unravelling...
> Pray do continue if you feel there is value in it though.
> 
> rgds,
> DaveG
> 
> On 02 Aug 2011, at 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