Subject: Re(2): recent thread

From: ColorNet Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:35:21 +0200

Good Afternoon,

I have noted your comments, Sally, and share many of the points you raise.
 I had lunch with Cecile Alvergnat today, who is the French CNIL
Commissaire in charge of SPAM.  She was active in the equivalent position
in the French Minitel and was appointed in January of this year for a five
year period on the recommendation of Jean Noel Tronc whose speech to the
next generation Internet Policy Conference makes interesting reading.

Cecile does not speak English, did not know of the existence of IETF or
IESG or of the board of trustees ISOC until today.  I am caricaturizing
but the ideas put forward by her advisors in the area of SPAM control is
to invent a .spam mechanism rather like the .txt and create european opt
in lists consultable on payment by individual companies but run by free
enterprise.  This means blanket opt in for internet advertising and in
some cases precludes individual site/customer relationships.  The European
Community Directives seem IMHO that there are issues concerning freedom of
information that need to be taken into account.  Despite Aaron's "hopeful"
comments, the feedback I have is that the new team will be much tougher
than the old one .....

Title: U.S., Europe battle over data privacy
Resource Type: News Article
Date: September 20, 1999
Source: ZDNet
Author: Reuters
Keywords: PRIVACY LAWS    ,EU POLICIES     ,US POLICY       ,DATA
PROTECTION

Abstract/Summary:
BRUSSELS -- Undersecretary of Commerce David Aaron said Friday he
hoped the United States and the European Union could reach a deal on data
privacy by the end of this year.

The two sides have been trying for months to agree on a way for U.S.
organizations to comply with the EU's data protection law, which guarantees
people broad rights to control how personal information about them is
used.

The law, which took effect in October 1998, caused fears that business
with the
United States could be affected because it does not have a comprehensive
privacy law.

If not satisfied by U.S. safeguards, the 15-nation EU could bar
European-based
companies from sending personal data, such as credit ratings, health
records or
buying habits, to the United States.

Original URL:
http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2337378-2,00.html

IMHO that a milestone and achievable goal might be to retain focus, as you
say, but to take a different tack at this stage of the game while awaiting
for further developments..

I made the suggestion today that rather than opt in universal registers,
and mechanisms against SPAM which could rebound on political freedoms in
the future that as an initial step pan European (why not worldwide)
legislation be enacted banning non solicited mail to minors, or to an
e-mail adress to which a minor might have access, and that the onus of
assuring that no minor recevied such a message would be on the advertiser
(in the wide sense of the term).

On a political level this proposal should meet with unanimous support.  On
a practical level it would put spammers in a very delicate position
because in many cases children have access to their parents' or to
community/school email.   In Europe some see the issue as being
politically recuperated - I must have about 5 unsolicited mails per day
out of around 150 messages.  Nevertheless I take the points raised in the
message.

[email-masked] a écrit:
>One thing to know about IETF working groups is that in general
>the IESG wants groups to work towards achievable goals.  They
>want milestones which are clearly defined and they want to
>see progress towards those milestones.  This draft is our
>remaining milestone.  We don't want to change the focus.
>
>So, as April has suggested, you might want to consider writing
>your own document about the issues you've raised.
>
>Sally
>[email-masked]

---

From: Albert Lunde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:42:31 CDT

> (in the wide sense of the term).

This seems like a bad idea to me (though my ideas aren't especially germaine
to the wg document either way). In my opinion the issues of protecting
individuals and organizations from spam have little to do with
protecting minors. It's more likely to get laws on spam mixed up
with laws on pornography (which have their own set of civil-liberties
issues).

There's no scaleable way to verify that minor's can't access an
e-mail address, for much the same reasons opt-out doesn't work well.

The sheer profusion of e-mail addresses is likely to make any
"universal" list for checking e-mail addresses a difficult business.

(If one _is_ going to do opt-out list cleaning, there's a strong
case for allowing domain-wide opt-out, for related reasons.)

--
    Albert Lunde                      [email-masked]