Re: opt-out registry comments

Hi Bretton

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Bretton Vine <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>
 <snip>

> If you have hard data to support your arguments, please share it so the
> necessary parties can make a solid case for opt-in. I'm not defending spam
> or spammers - I'm looking to make a strong argument against theirs.
>

Your quantitative approach appeals to me, but (as I mentioned earlier)
resources tied up dealing with real spam is not the only loss on the part of
the recipient. False positives in spam filtering is hard to translate into
lost revenue, unless you're just tallying up all the notifications of
winnings from SIR HENRY BERNARD, UK-LOTTO COORDINATOR ending up in your spam
folder :-)

Even if you could quantify the cost, presenting the DTI with evidence that
says spam costs the average consumer X rand/month only proves that spam is a
problem, it doesn't frame the real issue. I expect their response to be that
the opt-out registry provided for by the act will solve the problem. We
would have to demonstrate that it doesn't, if there is any hope to move
toward an opt-in registry (which is equivalent to making spam illegal).

Therefore, I think a more interesting debate is how we can model and/or
measure the efficacy of opt-in vs opt-out registries in protecting
consumers, and what action we, as a community should take if (or more
likely, when) the operation the opt-out registry is cocked-up and when
spammers fail to honor pre-emptive blocks in the registry (which,
fortunately, would be illegal).

Regards,
Simeon.

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