Re: opt-out registry comments

Ant Brooks said on Tuesday, August 02, 2011 :
> On 2011/08/02 1:34 PM, andre wrote:
> >> 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.
> > 
> > Yes, but when law makers understand that it is in fact theft, even if
> > it is only R10 per consumer, I think it places a different view on
> > things.
> 
> I am afraid that I am not convinced that the action of sending
> unsolicited commercial bulk mail meets the *legal* definition
> of "theft".
> 
criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that 
person's consent

When a spammer makes a consumer pay to receive that spammers
spam the spammer is stealing the consumers money so that the
consumer is forced to receive the spammers communication and 
forced to pay for that bandwidth. 

If it was fair the spammer should pay the full costs for the consumer 
to receive the message, as in example a billboard.

There is not cost to me to read a billboard (in fact my mind already
just blocks it out...) 

But with spam it consumes the consumers PC CPU time, resources
and also bandwidth. So the consumer has multiple costs including
time expended etc. to pay when someone decides to send bulk unsolicited
emails...

Convinced yet? :)

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