--- From: "Troy Rollo - CAUBE.AU Chair" <chair@private> To: declan@private Subject: Australian Spam Bills - CAUBE response to EFA Objections Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:16:30 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Organization: Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email Last week, Electronic Frontiers Australia released an evaluation of the Spam Bill 2003 and the Spam (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2003, in which they stated that the bills were "not anti-spam" <http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/spambills2003.html>. The Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email, Australia (CAUBE.AU), has reviewed the criticisms of EFA, and found that this label is entirely unjustified. In particular: - None of the three case scenarios offered by EFA as examples of situations in which non-spam would be banned are correct. In each case the conduct in question would be legal under the proposed law. - The EFA analysis fails to reflect the flexible approach taken in the Bill which is designed to ensure that even if there are unexpected consequences, those consequences can be eliminated swiftly. - The EFA approach gives more weight to the fringes of the legislation than to the core provisions - indeed not one of the criticisms relates to the core provisions. - The feared outcomes pay insufficient regard to the background of the common law, including the law of consent, administrative law, and the common law as it relates to seach warrant powers, which render those feared outcomes not just unlikely, but unlawful. - The criticisms of the policy based exceptions fail to acknowledge that the law is to be reviewed two years after the penalties come into effect, which will include reconsideration of those policy exceptions, and to recognise that most of the exempted groups have strong reasons not to spam. While there is room for improvement, the Bill sets the right base standard - opt-in. It provides a framework in which almost all of the concerns that EFA has with the fringe areas can be fine-tuned by executive regulation. It is wrong to claim that the Bill is "not anti-spam". The Bill does ban spam. Not all spam, but the largest categories of spam. Its impact on non-bulk commercial email is minimal, and adequate measures have been included to deal with unforeseen consequences. Although CAUBE.AU does not agree with all of the policy decisions made in drafting Spam Bill 2003, its variances are not such as to warrant the conclusion that it should not be supported. Accordingly, CAUBE.AU continues to support the Spam Bill 2003 in its present form. A full reply is available at <http://www.caube.org.au/efa-reply.htm>. -- __________________________________________________________________________ Troy Rollo, Chairman, CAUBE.AU chair@private Fight spam in Australia - Join CAUBE.AU - http://www.caube.org.au/ _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 08 2003 - 07:20:41 PDT