At 09:45 AM 6/20/00 +0100, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
>
>jjjacq@??? said:
>> I hope the US will resist this attack on freedom of action. In
>> Marilyn's case she is not the one to decide whether the addresses are
>> visible or not, the whole list has to agree. It's her machine, and she
>> set up the list, but she doesn't run it, we do, and if we want our
>> addresses to remain visible, they will remain visible. That's
>> democracy, and the EU or the UK have no jurisdiction over our list.
>
>If it is *deliberately* run as an open list thats fine. You just need
>to document it and make sure the whole list knows thats the policy.
>You could also send the list membership to the DMA to save them time
>and trouble - they might even give you a cut of the proceeds of the
>spam list selling.
Ah but that's illegal (us giving the list membership to the DMA), there is a
difference between *giving* the information to a third party and a third
party *taking* the information by themselves. If one wants to be serious
about it then one should start with the telephone directory which gives away
far more detailed information about a person than an email address, it
reveals the real name, the address, the telephone number, heck it sometimes
even gives the email address away. Are you trying to tell us that telephone
directories are going to become illegal in Europe?
Email addresses are not confidential, the UK and EU are sadly mistaken on
this point. You open a yahoo address and you're automatically listed in
their email address directory. The spammers will obtain far more addresses
by browsing this directory than scanning the lists of deliberate.com
>
>Personally, since US people often seem to sue first and think later if
>at all, I would expect someone hosting a list with openly visible
>subscription list to be sued into non-existance the first time a member
>got spam.
Maybe, but the US seem to have freedom of information much better protected
than anywhere else in the world too, I've never heard of anyone sueing a
list for leaving their email address visible.
>
>BTW "the EU or the UK have no jurisdiction over our list" is wrong - in
>the same way as the US music industry has no jurisdiction over a school
>age person in Scandinavia I guess.
Indeed it hasn't, what the US music industry can do is sue a Scandinavian
for breaching Scandinavia's laws, not the US's. It can't sue on the basis of
US laws.
Within Australia I can't even sue across state borders sometimes unless the
state laws are the same. What's a crime in Victoria may be ok in NSW.
John
>
> Nigel.
>--
>[ - Opinions expressed are personal and may not be shared by VData - ]
>[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
>[ Phone: +44 1423 850000 Fax +44 1423 858866 ]
>
>
>
>
