Mark Foster wrote:
I don't think you're missing much at all,
based on my read. The
wording in one part of the document (which requires 'opt in') implies
that the intentions are sound, but the statement "Senders of
promotional electronic messages will be required to stop sending
messages if recipients decide to opt out" is a biiiig can of worms.
Fax spam will remain legal as well.
Hmm. If they diversify it much more, 'Direct Marketing' will become
illegal. (Not that I disagree, but that changes the scope of the
I noted the following, FYI
40. Facsimile message services also provide some scope for the sending of
unsolicited marketing and promotional messages but there does not
presently seem to be a problem in this area and it is proposed that, like
Australia, such messages be excluded by way of regulation.
Anyone know if a Draft of the bill itself is
available for viewing yet
and if not, when it will be available and whether submissions are
Google broken for you, or no 1337 br0wZ3r sk1llZ0rZ?
You out-leeted me. Unfortunately i'll need to wait untill i'm not on the
back end of an ancient machine on a tiny wee internet link to follow up
;-)Did have a quick look and notice that submissions were taken months back
on it, suprising that I didn't see this mentioned on NZNOG? (or has my
On the issue of opt-in and opt-out I did notice this:
The Issue of Consent - Opt-Out or Opt-In?
63. One of the main characteristics of spam is that it is unsolicited
and/or unwanted. To address this issue anti-spam legislation has either
provided that electronic messages can only be transmitted if the recipient
has expressly or implicitly consented to such transmission (opt-in), or
that such messages cannot be transmitted if the recipient has already
taken action to indicate to the sender that such messages are unwanted
64. The difference between these 2 approaches is that opt-in places the
burden of determining whether an email can be legitimately sent on the
message sender, whereas the opt-out approach effectively legitimises the
initial email and places the burden of determining whether it is
legitimate for subsequent emails to be sent on the recipient through the
availability of an "opt-out" response.
Given they have nominated 'Opt-in' i'd say (or hope?) that they've gone
with 'the first email whether it provides opt-out or not is still illegal'
and that the phrasing of the quoted article is slightly misleading.