Re: opt-out registry comments

Ant Brooks said on Wednesday, August 03, 2011 :
<snip>
> I'm not quite sure who you are referring to here, Andre. I don't have
> an "NPA person", nor do I think the NPA is the correct entity to be
> lobbying regarding spam.
> 
Oooh, so sorry! I plead extreme confusion :)  It was Dave Gale
<[email protected]> that has the NPA connection

And, no, not asking for the NPA to prosecute Spam (there is the
ECT Act) but asking whether the crime described (spamming) is
in fact theft or fraud, in light of the better explanation about the
actual financial loss to consumers.

> I'm of the view that the most productive lobbying approach right now
> is to encourage law-makers to put in place a strict opt-in regime,
> rather than allowing opt-out. The NPA doesn't write laws, so involving
> them doesn't seem very helpful.
> 
This seems to always go around and around as there are 'marketers'
(spin doctors, marketing and feelgood specialists) arguing FOR spam
and we cannot market, lobby and promote as good against this evil
onslaught as those in the profession of selling us stuff we don't need...

Wouldn't it will be easier to criminalise the actual act of sending spam 
and work forward from there? 



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