Matthew Poole wrote:
I understood one of the concerns to be that MS wanted the "PEBR" status to supersede a previously-stated desire that the person or entity NOT be contacted by the advertising company with advertising material in the future. That is, a person ticks the "I do not want to receive future advertising from XYZ Widgets Ltd or their business partners" box on some mailer, and MS now want that stated desire to be ignored because e-mail is not the same as dead tree advertising.
Is that an incorrect interpretation? I've not actually read the legislation, it's just an objection that I've seen raised elsewhere.
Doesn't sound very reasonable that... can't see how a law where consent sought is ignored would ever pass. Here's what MS has filed with the MED: http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech/spam/submissions/37/37.pdf Have a read of this clause: "The following scenario is one that would likely be prohibited under an opt-in approach. Where a consumer visits a vendor’s web page, the vendor may be able to collect anonymous information about the consumer." Note: anonymous information. "The vendor may then use the anonymous information to send the potential customer an advertisement regarding their product. " Well, in that case the information is clearly not anonymous. "This is not the type of email that is at the heart of the spam epidemic, but it would likely fall foul of opt-in legislation. To ban these types of advertisements would leave consumers with less information and fewer choices in the marketplace, and our businesses with less opportunity to cultivate new customers." Humm. Visit a website and get spammed? Legally as well. Guess it depends on what MS means by "send the potential customer an advertisement" but if it's email... -- Juha