Re: opt-out registry comments

Simeon Miteff wrote:

> 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).

Some sense at last.

The cost issue is not going to go anywhere. The state is highly 
unlikely to provide resources to track down direct marketers (read 
"spammers" if you will) simply because the individual who lays a 
complaint has incurred an involuntary expense of a few rand for one 
particular email or phone call. Very few individuals are going to 
find the time and effort to attempt a prosecution for any direct 
marketing approach that was made to them. Nor is an opt-out registry 
likely to worry about violations of its rules, and nor is any higher 
body going to police that opt-out registry when it takes little 
action against violators.

IMHO, the powers that be need to be persuaded that the above is the 
reality of the situation. It then might make them realise that an opt-
out registry does not serve the interests of the individual citizens, 
but only the interests of the direct marketers and the folk who run a 
supposed opt-out registry. The state is meant to be there to serve 
the interests of its citizens, not of a subset of those citizens.

Surely what is at hand is the issue of rights.

Why should an intrusive right (the right of any one individual to 
pester all and sundry with marketing material) be allowed to be 
superior to the right of all other individuals not to be molested in 
this way?

Mike
-- 
Mike Lawrie.
Ph +27 12 348 0944 or +27 79 071 7417
Skype: mike_lawrie_za

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