UK Anti-Spam Laws Criticised 88
stripyd writes "The Guardian has an article
about the ineffectiveness of British anti-spam regulations. Asside from the limited penalties,
the Office of the Information Commissioner have yet to actually hand out a fine. From personal
experience, the OIC aren't good at answering email on queries regarding the law, their web site, or suggestions that the current procedure of tracking down, printing out and mailing off (with a stamp!) a five-page pdf form to report miscreants be streamlined. The form itself is good for a few yuks, until you remember your taxes are paying for it to be outsourced to private sector hosting."
Re:When has a law not been criticized? (Score:2, Insightful)
Compared to the successful anti-spam laws where? (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws are useless without enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
It's therefore relevant in planning anti-Spam legislation that the legislators consider how they can follow up on whatever laws they draft to make them more than a 'toothless tiger'.
Policy conflict... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, anti-spam legislation is only effective against "legitimate" slimeball businesses. And at present, their contribution is minimal compared to criminal slimeball businesses. The latter cannot only be addressed by technical fixes, after which point legal solutions may have a chance of working.
What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Must be a term for this... (Score:2, Insightful)
That is, when some story comes up about spam and a govt. official is interviewed, they can point to the spam law being passed.
See also Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act.
Re:Reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better in Belgium (Score:3, Insightful)
But I guess I've been trolled once more in this discussion, I suppose it's time for me to really shut up now <g>
Re:Outmanned, Outgunned (Score:3, Insightful)
British politicians and lawmakers are just like politicans anywhere - totally cynical bastards with their own agendas.
"Free newsletters" (Score:3, Insightful)