Get involved in fighting SPAM - What does it mean to consent?

[ellipsis]

Parliament is considering a proposal made by one MP to amend the definition of "consent" as this is currently set out in the Protection of Personal Information Bill.

Why should you care? If the proposal goes through we will go backwards to an opt-out system where you will be regarded as having consented to receiving more communications if you fail to use the opt-out provided, i.e. more spam.

As things currently stand:


"consent" means any voluntary, specific and informed expression of will in terms of which a data subject or a competent person agrees to the processing of personal information relating to him or her or, as the case may be, relating to a child;

Option:[1]


"consent" means any voluntary, specific and informed expression of will in terms of which a data subject or a competent person agrees to the processing of personal information relating to him or her or, as the case may be, relating to a child and includes the failure on the side of a data subject or competent person to object or opt out when given a reasonable opportunity to do so;

From what we can see there are plenty of people on the forum that get irked by spam. It would be great if we could get a clear statement to Parliament rejecting the proposed change and letting the politicians know that South Africans generally do not like having their personal information sold and/or abused (and having to pay for the privilege...).

20 constructive posts giving reasons why this proposal is a bad idea & we will do a submission to Parliament. Any other ideas for publicising the issue most welcome.

[Saajid]

This is terrible. Definitely going backwards. I thought we were just starting to make progress, with the cellular operators implementing double opt-in systems.

Besides giving all spammers a gold access card to spam the hell out of us, this will also have big implications for privacy issues. Personal information and email/SMS lists will become more valuable, and will be traded big time. This will result in worsening the problems of identity theft and fraud.

This proposal is so backwards and blind (was gonna say short-sighted, but that is too mild) it could only be a truly African idea: lets fix it by making it worse.

[PsiCoRe]

The opt-out system requires us to validate our information with the spammers. To start off with, why is parliament even discussing this? It's quite obviously a bad idea. Secondly, as opposed to an opt-in system the spammer can only obtain my information through A - number phishing. B - obtaining my information without my consent or permission (data theft or trade of information). If a company that I have, in good faith, provided my personal information with wishes to share my information then he or she first needs to confirm this with me, notify me of which information they wish to share and provide me with the company details that they wish to share it with before that information may be submitted. and C - contacting me repeatedly without my consent is harassment. The opt-out system in itself is quite obviously illegal and unconstitutional. With SMS scams and phishing messages becoming so prevalent these days it is also a major security risk. I also believe that operators need to take responsibility much like email service providers and block known scammers.

[XperiAnce]

Instead of going forwards, we're going backwards?! What are Government thinking? It shouldn't be on me to stop SPAM reaching my Inbox, it should never be allowed to get there in the first place.

[The_Librarian]

*sigh*

And there's a good reason why I don't opt-out - it just confirms the email is valid and in use.

:mad:

:sick:

[The_Librarian]

20 constructive posts giving reasons why this proposal is a bad idea & we will do a submission to Parliament. Any other ideas for publicising the issue most welcome.


1. Spam traffic wastes bandwidth unnecessary.
2. Spam traffic requires spam filtering tools to be implemented - which means you will have to sacrifice resources on your email server just to process spam.
3. Resources in (2) costs the company time and money to purchase, to implement and to maintain.
4. Because of (1) companies will have to pay more on their Internet bill and to fight spam - which could be used better for staff training or staff morale building.
5. The current proposal means that spammers will be free to spam us at will, which means we have to implement more spam-fighting measures.
6. To battle spam effectively, the onus should be on the sender to prove that the recipient did indeed consent to receive spam.
7. Implementing (6) will mean decreased bandwidth usage, and decreased resource utilization (2) as only people who want to receive advertising/spam will receive said.
8. It just is not only spam, it also may include pornographical content, which we don't want children to see.
9. If spam is not controlled, spammers will start to send pornographical content out, there's no doubt about it. (dom, think we can hammer a bit on this point?)

[SwimGeek]

The opt-out system requires us to validate our information with the spammers.


And there's a good reason why I don't opt-out - it just confirms the email is valid and in use.

It's possible to do opt-out without giving details to spammers.

You involve a 3rd party and you never hand out the info, you just let them check their lists.

To check the list you also don't need to provide the email address in plain text, you could hash the data.

Have a look at: https://www.trustfabric.com/connect/

[WireFree]

The clause provides the opportunity for people for formulate contracts or other documentation where the opt-out option is either included in small print and hence not easily visible to the reader.

It may also provide an opportunity to not include the opt-out option in a document. The provider of the document need simply say that if the person agreeing to other terms in the document did not want marketing material he/she should not have signed the document.
As an example consider a cellphone contract which is larger and covers various terms and conditions. A clause reading, "The COMPANY may provide cellphone contract holders details to other third parties for promotional purposes," can be easily included. Not many people would object to this clause as it is the least of their concern.

[lifeboy]

One good reason to require explicit opt-in or consent as it is currently defined and not to require opt-out is that it isn't possible currently (and probably won't be for quite some time) to opt out of SMS spam free of charge. It is not legal to provide an opt-out facility for which the recipient would need to have airtime available. To make an opt-out facility free, cellphone network providers would have to create a special opt-out service, which in itself will create numerous new problems, or drop the costs of sms texts, which is a major money maker for the networks and won't happen.

So effectively many South Africans will have no option to opt out, thus making this sneaky attempt to change the meaning of "consent" not valid.

[dominic]

i count 5 constructive posts - will keep this open to the end of this week, i.e. Friday 6th July

[morkhans]

Opting out of unsolicited communication is often not possible due to the sender not providing a method to unsubscribe. Also many unsolicited bulk mail senders use their op-out system as way to verify that the mail was received, which in turn means additional unsolicited mail being sent to the recipient. Personally I only use the unsubscribe links provided in communications I singed up for, anything else is flagged and reported as spam. A more suitable change to the legislation would be to place the onus on the bulk mail sender to ensure that permission has been received to send communication to the recipient (i.e. opt-in). It is the sender, after all, who has a vested interest in the communication they are sending, and thus should be proving the relationship with the recipient.

PS. Feel free to include my signature, although I suspect the humour would be lost on our MPs.

[Paul Hjul]

constructive post 7:

Lets assume that the intended change has good motives underlying it. The reason, I assume, that the MP wishes to change the provision pertains the fact that the current provisions could be viewed as particularly onerous for certain SMMEs and quite honestly the POPIB has the potential to create laws in SA which are unenforceable against companies abroad. In the last week I have signed up to use a dozen or so apps or services and whatnot and each one has me having to uncheck the checkbox to receive promotional material - its quite funny how often you need to check an acceptance of the terms of use and uncheck the send me semi-spam box).
Further a real problem exists in just what you get sent when you decide to allow material from company - like Microsoft - because you genuinely want to know about X new products but end up getting crap unrelated to what you have signed up for. This isn't spam but if an opt-in premise is taken and you consent to google and google is in turn spinning off product amazing to company bob company bob isn't allowed to email you [of course google ought to do so before the spin off]. The essence of the point is that in order to give informed consent to the processing of personal information and its use in a particular context has an element of disclosure not currently found in practice and quite honestly a combination of explicit opt in and continuous capability to opt out is far better than putting to many eggs into an opt in premise.


However the problem is that the new definition amounts to taking a canon to a fly. Two alternatives to this over-broad attempt that fundamentally maligns the English language on the meaning of consent and butchers the statute:
Firstly an exception in the instance where a "data subject" has signed up for an online service and such sign up provided an explicit explicit opt out option exists at the instance of sign up and such service allows for the cancellation at any point thereafter.

Secondly additional provisions in the bill providing for gradual alignment by providers requiring reasonable and progressive steps to ensure that users explicitly consent to the content which they receive rather than an immediate thou art spamming approach. Basically what I have in mind is that ISPA or another industry body have jurisdiction to issue notices on identifying that an entity is sending what I'd term semi-solicited mail of the fact that SA demands a greater notion of user consent and on transmission of this notice the presumption that such semi-solicited mail has consent applies provided that if no progressive steps are taken the issuer of the notice may withdraw same AND take action to enforce the material as spam. What this would mean is that while currently many apps on the appstore and so forth are able to farm your email address to give you usability and have you needing to check on a opt-out checkbox the industry body would be able to put pressure on Apple and others to ensure that the practice changes. This way we aren't coming in to hard with to "progressive" legislation that is far beyond norms in the industry but does ensure that we can progress with the industry and play a small part in doing so.
It particularly should prevent an expansion of questionable practices.

[DarkWrath]

The opt-in system will i.m.o. never come into force because it would hurt business too much and lead to a massive loss of jobs, i'm not specifically talking about email spam but also SMS and Call Centers.

[dominic]

The opt-in system will i.m.o. never come into force because it would hurt business too much and lead to a massive loss of jobs, i'm not specifically talking about email spam but also SMS and Call Centers.

hi DarkWrath

can you expand on that a little - good to have the other side represented? my understanding is that SMS is mostly opt-in because that is the requirement under the WASPA (http://www.waspa.org.za) code of conduct but what kind of impact do you see on call centres based on their having to use opt-in lists as opposed to opt-out? Are you aware ofany literature in this regard?

[ambo]

From my point of view this clause provides a big technical loophole:
"reasonable opportunity" is extremely vague and very easy to abuse. The problem here is that a spammer could decide the a subject has implicitly opted-in when they fail to get a response to their email spam. It is quite possible that the spammers mail does not get delivered for technical reasons, gets delivered to a spam folder, does not get downloaded timeously or even gets just gets overlooked by a subject who may have a genuine desire to unsubscribe.

In order to infer implicit opt-in the sender should have to: a) prove that the message was delivered to the subject's end device, b) prove that the communication has been read/consumed/acknowledged and then finally c) receive verifiable feedback from the user/user's device of the above. The burden of proof must lie with the sender and the penalties for failing to provide proof must be harsh.

From a technical perspective, this will be as hard if not harder to implement than opt-in. The only truly verifiable way of confirming delivery as above would be to place a link at the bottom of the message saying "click here to confirm you have received this message"...

But wait... we're back at opt-in ;)

[WireFree]

The opt-in system will i.m.o. never come into force because it would hurt business too much and lead to a massive loss of jobs, i'm not specifically talking about email spam but also SMS and Call Centers.

I don't think an opt-in system is difficult to achieve for most businesses - especially in this day and age. In fact many businesses do implement it successfully - a number of large and well known chain store have a opt-in box when you sign-up for their store credit cards. Likewise, organisations with a Facebook, Twitter, Google+, etc. who are able to successfully attract followers, fans, etc. already have marketing channels where people opt-in to receive communication. These forms of communication are preferred by people and they also have the choice to opt-out at a later time.

In many cases people are also willing to opt-in on a list if you offer them a free voucher, toaster, airtime, etc.
A good example is the free airtime offered on Colgate toothpaste recently. The Terms and Conditions can be found online at http://www.colgatesa.mobi/terms-conditions. One clause states, "By entering this competition you authorise the organiser and/or the promoter, to collect, store and use (not share) personal information of entrants for communication or statistical purposes." This is an excellent example of how to implement a legitimate opt-in list.

The communication becomes a problem, when there are no legitimate channels to opt-out at a later stage (after previously opting-in) or you get a call from a call-center or SMS on your new cellphone number that you have not given out to anyone other than friends and family.

[ambo]

I'm surprised that there have not been more responses to a law that effectively will make spam legal....

[Saajid]

I'm surprised that there have not been more responses to a law that effectively will make spam legal....

I don't think many people know about this thread. RPM should create an article on the front-page and link from there to to this thread. We will get plenty of responses.

[dominic]

I don't think many people know about this thread. RPM should create an article on the front-page and link from there to to this thread. We will get plenty of responses.


article on its way

[rpm]

I think the definition of consent should be clear: Unless I give explicit consent to send me information, you should not be allowed to send me information.

As for reselling my contact information, it should only be allowed if I have given explicit consent. This should be made very clear to any consumer (hence no sneaky terms and the like).

[rpm]

Just to reinforce what we need from you: Please tell us what 'consent' means to you - hence when a company send you spam, and what can they sell or forward your personal details to another company?

[thysb]

In my mind, consent does NOT entail ANY assumptions. Just because I park my vehicle in a public parking spot, does not give consent to someone to steal it, and because I wasn't there to object at the time of them stealing it. This is what this comes down to.

[sagrenm]

I have written two blog posts about this last year, relating to spam i was receiving from a company fronting as vodacom points

http://sagren.blogspot.com/2011/02/vodacom-talking-points-scam.html
http://sagren.blogspot.com/2011/02/vodacom-talking-points-scam-resolution.html

I also included the process one has to follow to de-regsiter yourself from these consumer databases that many of us are well aware of now, the problem however is that when people don't add their voices to the intrusions of their privacy via spam, these companies just gain more momentum and continue to steam roll consumers with spam.

@wirefree, opt in and opt out services from legitmate services that we have signed up for has never been the problem, the problem is when we give big companies our personal information, there is no guarantee to us the consumer that our information wont be shared or sold to other marketing companies that we haven't signed up with, as per the rights from the Consumer Protection Act Regulations - 1st April 2011 on the http://www.dmasa.org/ website, i understand them, but i haven't registered on the national opt out register because this means thereafter that i am consenting that i don't want to receive any marketing information from any companies, even the legitimate organisations i genuienly want to be updated about new products etc.

My point is, it is wrong for companies to forward you any information about anything to which you have not given them consent, i did not give them my permission nor did i give them my personal contact information, this is an infringement of my rights and according to the communication act is illegal and unlawful.

[thysb]

I would also like to add that I think there should be something added to any advertising message, which is something I have never been able to get from someone either sending me an sms, email of phoning me - where did I sign up for this? As per law, they should be able to supply this, but as said above, I have never been able to get this info from anyone.

[sagrenm]

I would also like to add that I think there should be something added to any advertising message, which is something I have never been able to get from someone either sending me an sms, email of phoning me - where did I sign up for this? As per law, they should be able to supply this, but as said above, I have never been able to get this info from anyone.

My experience as covered in my blog, i attempted to follow the trail to find out how they got my information, people were very evasive, i could only find out who was spamming me, Wendy knowler pointed me to some leads but i could not get that information about how they got my personal details. And these days with the spam push notifications for smartphones you receive, it is becoming much more dangerous to unknowingly subscribe to these spam services. It needs to legislated that spamming is illegal not just because it is an annoyance but because people are unknowingly paying for subscriptions they do not know about.

And just to clarify, when i consent, i am giving only one entity permission, i do not wish to give subsidiary companies of a parent company any permission, if this is the case then there should be an annexed document where it must be clarifed to me what i am signing, in fact I think the marketing consent part of the form should be an additional stipulative document by itself. Somehow i believe that my consumer information is being shared amongst industries, i.e. if i sign with Miway, then Hollard, outsurance, momentum, frank.net, first for woman, discovery will all get my information

[bedashii]

I hate spam, everyone hates spam. That's why it's so hard to believe that they would do this. Just the fact that (and this is related to an article I saw on MyBroadband.co.za earlier on this year) that I have to PAY to opt out of SMS spam is ridiculous!

[sagrenm]

I hate spam, everyone hates spam. That's why it's so hard to believe that they would do this. Just the fact that (and this is related to an article I saw on MyBroadband.co.za earlier on this year) that I have to PAY to opt out of SMS spam is ridiculous!

Hi Bedashii, that is absolutely ridiculous that you have to pay to opt out, but was this a service that you legitmatly indemnified your consent for, or was it just a company that you never signed up for?

[Segg]

If you spam people, I'm sure they are going to make sure their services are hosted elsewhere, where the countries laws protect privacy. Do you really want to kill an already fragile communications industry in SA? (not talking about phones and whatnot)

[DarkBlood]

I'm going to keep the expletives to a low but <bleep> that!!!

My biggest problem with spam (apart from the fact that I didn't ask for it in the first place), is that a lot of them (especially sms) want you to opt out by smsing something...which costs me R2 to do. So, I must pay you R2 to stop harassing me about something you shouldn't have anyway? That's like me bootlegging Sony's CDs and then telling them to pay me to stop selling them. What kind of logic is that???

For the email ones, I'm chewing my damn data clicking on that "unsubscribe" link. I don't want to waste that 10 seconds or that 237kb to get you to stop doing something that you shouldn't be doing in the first place. Why must I take the effort to get you to stop harassing me, in the first place???

Bugger off!

[RedRum]

6. To battle spam effectively, the onus should be on the sender to prove that the recipient did indeed consent to receive spam.

it would be interesting to see how this can be done without confirming the recipient details of the spammer's target to the spammer him self - ie an isolated reporting and investigation system is required.

[blackstarzes]

What is the full scope of this proposal? Will this allow value-added services to automatically opt us in for subscription services under the guise of "providing information"?

[sagrenm]

spammers potentially steal money from consumers, they are not creating their intended awareness by spamming or effectively reaching the desired market, so if i understand your comment correctly, i believe you are saying that if government legislations are stricter it would be tantamount to not allowing spammers to freely spam and drive them away other countries who have more relaxed laws, I don't concurr if this is what you are saying, only service providers and spammers benefit from spamming, the consumer just gets ripped of even more.

[roberth]

"consent" means any voluntary, specific and informed expression of will in terms of which a data subject or a competent person agrees to the processing of personal information relating to him or her or, as the case may be, relating to a child

To me, this doesn't address spam/advertising specifically. What if I get a cellphone from Vodacom and therefore need to give them permission to "process my personal info" but do not want to receive advertising from them?
What if I want to receive sms's from FNB when I transact, but don't want to receive adverts for other products?

[Albertdup]

Hi all

Had an interesting experience, did an application for vehicle finance at Stannic, was at a Standard Bank branch, the guy filled in the form on the computer, I just spotted to late that he had selected to share my information with Standard Bank "partners", He did not even ask me if I wanted my details shared. Guess what, I have been bombarded with spam on that e-mail address within days of him sharing my information. Clearly this indicates the banks is selling our details to spammers. So no to this rubbish of having to opt-out.

[snail]

If I wanted Cell C, Vodacom, 8ta etc to contact me I would of emailed them my details. It pisses me off when you working a night shift and some dumb ass consultant calls you in the middle of their day (otherwise known as your night), wakes you up and tries to sell me something I'm not even bothered about.

I do my budget, I know what I can spend, if I wanted to spend more I would get hold of them to see what they have on offer.

Hate dam call centre agents.....rant over, although I feel the same way with regards to spam (now that I'm back on track lol).

[AniV]

To me, "consent" means that:
*I have clearly indicated to the soliciting agent
*that I am interested in receiving communications
*of specific types (ads, information)
*through specific channels (SMS, Email, Phone Calls or Snail Mail)
*for a specific period of time.
AND
*that I give them permission to distribute my information to other parties, sold or for free,
AND
*that I give them permission to share my information within their corporate structure with partners, parent entities or affiliated agents.

I also believe that consent cannot and should not be implied or inferred or assumed in any way. This means that initiating communication with an entity (company, person or otherwise) does not automatically give them the right to assume that I have given consent for communications other than a direct and specific response to that particular communication. That would be a step FORWARD in fighting SPAM in South Africa.

(Example: I send an email to a company requesting information about a specific product or pricing. They may respond with a specific communication related to that particular query. They may NOT then begin to send me information about other products or pricing, or add me to their marketing mailing lists, unless they have specifically asked me if I am interested and I have responded positively.)

There should also be an explicit and clear record of my "Consent" to receive communications (aka SPAM), provision of which is the onus of the soliciting agent. Should I request from an agent where they sourced my information, they should either provide the affiliate name or provide the record of Consent.

For government to change the regulation as they intend is a major step backwards in the fight against SPAM in South Africa. Opt-out channels are often inefficient or unavailable. If they want to go with an opt-out regulatory approach then they should make the opt-out mechanisms free.

I am strongly in favour of us moving more towards an opt-in system. The issue with opt-in, as has been pointed out, is that many of these opt-out marketing strategies provide jobs to a lot of people - for example cold-calling from call-centre agents. If SPAM became an opt-in system, very few people would opt in to being bothered by telemarketers, resulting in loss of jobs. Much less marketing material would float around in the pipelines, and eventually marketers would simply find other ways to get their communications into people's faces.

[natanya20]

So true! as a member of an abuse team I have soon learned this.. so sad on how smart they are and how hard they think to catch us...

[TimTDP]

*sigh*

And there's a good reason why I don't opt-out - it just confirms the email is valid and in use.



Exactly. It also confirms that my mobile number is valid.
And with SMS, I must pay to opt out!:mad::mad::mad:

[Lydon]

This is ridiculous. I'm blatantly opposed to this in any form whatsoever.

[dr_tech]

I definitely do not want my information shared without my express permission being given.
I hate getting unsolicited phone calls, sms or email unless I have chosen to subscribe to these.

[entrepr]

1. Spam traffic wastes bandwidth unnecessary.
2. Spam traffic requires spam filtering tools to be implemented - which means you will have to sacrifice resources on your email server just to process spam.
3. Resources in (2) costs the company time and money to purchase, to implement and to maintain.
4. Because of (1) companies will have to pay more on their Internet bill and to fight spam - which could be used better for staff training or staff morale building.
5. The current proposal means that spammers will be free to spam us at will, which means we have to implement more spam-fighting measures.
6. To battle spam effectively, the onus should be on the sender to prove that the recipient did indeed consent to receive spam.
7. Implementing (6) will mean decreased bandwidth usage, and decreased resource utilization (2) as only people who want to receive advertising/spam will receive said.
8. It just is not only spam, it also may include pornographical content, which we don't want children to see.
9. If spam is not controlled, spammers will start to send pornographical content out, there's no doubt about it. (dom, think we can hammer a bit on this point?)

+1

I want legislation which allows me to OPT OUT of all unwanted messages in one place and then have the freedom to not receive any unsolicited mail.

I want to have absolutely no information coming to me on SMS or email or my postbox that I have not specifically requested.

I don't even want 'bill stuffers' or extra flyers coming with my landmail envelopes - they also waste time.

I don't want extra advertising messages imbedded in valide emails or email invoices.

I want the freedom to opt out of ALL advertising in one shot and leave it at that.

If SMS does end up being optout it must be via a free response, otherwise people could just make revenue by sending me messages from a variety of new originators.

In fact it is imposible to manage opt-out because the advertisor can create 1000 almost-identical campaigns and blast from all of them. Opting out would leave one vulnerable to the 999 remaining.

Fraud, phishing is much easier to accomplish and harded to filter out when one is so bombarded with mails and text messages. One gets so many messages every day it is hard to discern what is valid and what not. It is also possible to miss important messages in the mass of unimportant.

[JohannesPaulsen]

I definitely do not want my information shared without my express permission being given.
I hate getting unsolicited phone calls, sms or email unless I have chosen to subscribe to these.

Agreed

[Jacodb]

I am tired of having to opt-out of any unwanted forms of communication. It is not acceptable that companies make money by selling customer information and by doing so opening up the customer to a lot of spam. I want to opt-in to marketing or communication I want to receive not the other way round, which by the way is the way it currently works. What is the whole point of the new act if nothing changes and it doesn't fix problems. It makes me wonder if the said MP has received some "backing" from organisations that stand to loose business through this act.

[hj2k_x]

I am confused. How does consenting or not to the processing of personal information affect being spammed via SMS?

[dominic]

I am confused. How does consenting or not to the processing of personal information affect being spammed via SMS?

your MSISDN / mobile number is personal information

[hj2k_x]

your MSISDN / mobile number is personal information

But how is spam considered the processing of this information?

[j4ck455]

The government has been trying to push through a Protection of Information Bill that would protect government information from being released into the wild because government apparently does not like its personal details being used and made public. As far as I am aware, the proposed Protection of Information Bill does not require that government be required to "opt out" of having its personal details being used and made public.

I too insist on having the same protections for my personal details and information relating to myself, by default my details must always be private and cannot be made public without my explicit written consent, which means that an explicit opt in would be required. There should be zero tolerance for unsolicited communications in any form (e.g. email, SMS, MMS etc) from any entity, and the penalties for contravening such legislation should be a fine of no less than R1000 per instance of unsolicited communication to be imposed cumulatively and with a clause to cover non compliance that involves imprisonment for at least 6 months.

[MiY4Gi]

Hi all

Had an interesting experience, did an application for vehicle finance at Stannic, was at a Standard Bank branch, the guy filled in the form on the computer, I just spotted to late that he had selected to share my information with Standard Bank "partners", He did not even ask me if I wanted my details shared. Guess what, I have been bombarded with spam on that e-mail address within days of him sharing my information. Clearly this indicates the banks is selling our details to spammers. So no to this rubbish of having to opt-out.

THIS! ^

What exactly is parliament's rationale behind this proposed bill? What are the benefits? I cannot see ANY benefit. It makes me think of the idea in justice where you are GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, so if you cannot prove that you're innocent, then automatically you're guilty. Analogously, If I don't opt out of spam, then it implies that I gave consent? That is ridiculous!

This bill is saying that it's okay for someone to stick ads/posters on your car, or even on your person, then to only ask AFTERWARDS whether they have permission to do so. The very idea is absurd!

What I'd like to know is, how does parliament propose that they enforce the opt-out command when all your information has already exchanged countless hands before you've had the chance to opt-out? How are they going to find all the copies of your information that was exchanged, and force ALL the record holders to remove those records?

The bill itself has no apparent benefits, and enforcing the bill is impossible, so again I ask, what is parliament's rationale behind this proposed bill?

[Daniedj]

I believe most of the posts here are off topic. "consent" is all fine an dandy if you do or don't want monthly (sometimes weekly) marketing or operational communications from Companies and organizations that you have an interest in. SPAM from overseas selling some device that will make my girlfriend happy, that is another issue. Usually my mail filter dumps all these in my Junk folder or drops it before accepting. I never had the inclination to Opt-In for that rubbish but it's still sent out by the Terabyte. For me the difference is that I was reached without the sender knowing anything about me. I'd take offence if my information was shared without my knowledge and I'm starting to get targeted messages. Consent that I did not give.

I would also expect that after I unsubscribed that I'm removed off their lists until a time I chose to resubscribe.

I'd rather want to know where I'm Opted-in and where I have to Opt-Out if I want. But doing this against an Opt-Out list will just help Spammers to validate their dirty lists.

Currently I'm getting some SMS Spam. Opting out from the one list gets me added to another one which I have to Opt-Out from again. I'd like to believe that it all comes from one or 2 unscrupulous SP's that's sharing/selling the database between themselves.

Hopefully nobody here added a "friend"'s e-mail address or mobile number as punishment to dodgy lists. :-)

[Daniedj]

This bill is saying that it's okay for someone to stick ads/posters on your car, or even on your person, then to only ask AFTERWARDS whether they have permission to do so. The very idea is absurd!


Very good point!

[AvatarS]

But how is spam considered the processing of this information?


‘‘personal information’’ means information relating to an identifiable, living, natural person, and where it is applicable, an identifiable, existing juristic person, including, but not limited to—
...
(c) any identifying number, symbol, e-mail address, physical address, telephone number or other particular assignment to the person;


‘‘processing’’ means any operation or activity or any set of operations, whether or not by automatic means, concerning personal information, including—
(a) the collection, receipt, recording, organisation, collation, storage, updating or modification, retrieval, alteration, consultation or use;
(b) dissemination by means of transmission, distribution or making available in any other form; or
(c) merging, linking, as well as blocking, degradation, erasure or destruction of information;

ie processing (particularly b) leads to information becoming available to spammer leads to spam

[jj.lottering]

If I enter into a transaction with you and this entails the "sharing" of my personal information facilitate this transaction, and I have not objected nor given consent for the sharing of this personal information, does this automatically give you the right to "Sell" or "Share" something that is not yours to start with?

Is the selling of allocated vehicle registration plates to another driver legal?
Is the selling of an allocated telephone number to another user legal?
Is the selling my personal particulars to a marketing agency legal?

No, no and no. You are not allowed to sell something that is not yours...

I have had to close down two webmail email accounts, and permanently block "unknown" calls on my phone, because for some darn reason a automated machine keeps calling me all hours of the day and asks me to "please wait for an important call".

No I have not given consent, and when I ask who gave them permission to use my number, guess what the answer is "The national consumer commission".

I should not have to opt-out for something I did not request.

Does this mean that all of a sudden we are all subscribed to this R30/day warra warra service and now we have to opt -out?

This country and its politicians..... eish!

[telkomsucks]

It would be interesting to know the stats with regard to sending of spam. Like how many people actually respond to the messages? If one were to educate the masses, never to respond to 'spam', then the instigators would certainly move on to other venues.

About a year back I registered my ID, email and cell number on the website, the url of which I cant even remember any-more. The website looked like one of those Microslut frontpage-jobs, but I entered the required fields, and I ***** you not. Not even one phone call ever again. No snail mail from Direct Axis! It can't stop email though!

Last month, while testing some bulk sms software, I noticed that my phone would not get a sent message. I called the service provider, and they told me my number was black-listed to all bulk sms carriers. This was tested over three companies. However Click-a-tell does send. So they my not be subscribed to this service.

Any-case. I relentlessly right click on every phishing spam link and report it to Google. My little part. Whish one could do the same for the reply-to address or contact details of spam mail beneficiaries!

[atlas3686]

I can't believe we are moving backwards on this, spam is a big enough problem as it is. We need everyone to have to specifically ask if they can send you marketing materials not they can send and if you don't like it try and stop them! I have opted out of a mailer 3 times and I'm still getting it! and that is the kind of thing we will have to deal with all the time for absolutely no reason!

[droplet]

all unsolicited communications should be after an opt-in only. additionally, the sender of the information must pay for any opt-out action. and the opt-out should be quick and simple to use

[Pada]

all unsolicited communications should be after an opt-in only. additionally, the sender of the information must pay for any opt-out action. and the opt-out should be quick and simple to use
+1

It should be other way round. You shouldn't have to opt-out to stop receiving unsolicited communications. You should not receive it in the first place.

If you want to receive those kind of communications, you should be given the opportunity to opt-in rather!

[martusc]

There should be no opting out or the copping out of the regulator on the double-opting out of the mobile companies. It should be simple, if I don't specifically say yes to a mail, I shouldn't get any! And if I mistakenly said yes or changed my mind, I should only have yo unsubscribe ONCE.

[Reelix]

People generally forget that spammers, by their very definition, don't really care WHO the mails / SMS' go to.

Say I'm some dodgy guy, and I send e-mails to 100,000 e-mail addresses randomly scraped off the internet, for the sole purpose off generating click-based revenue / soliciting some random products / phishing personal details. Why would I care if the people I send the mails to are on some "list" somewhere. Am I going to check the e-mail addresses against some "list" to check if I can actually e-mail them or not? Heck no!

Say I'm another dodgy guy that owns a "Phone this number, I get payed" line. I SMS 5,000 people informing them that they've won the SA Lottery, and to collect (Or, If I want to be evil - To opt out), they simply need to call the number (Which I just leave them on hold till they close the call, generating income). Would I check if they're on the "Special SMS Opt-Out" list? Definitely not!



TL;DR: This will hurt valid e-mail / SMS services, and do nothing to prevent spam.

[sutekj]

I think the definition of consent should be clear: Unless I give explicit consent to send me information, you should not be allowed to send me information.

As for reselling my contact information, it should only be allowed if I have given explicit consent. This should be made very clear to any consumer (hence no sneaky terms and the like).

That's pretty much how it should be. My life would be so much better if ****ing people stop calling me and smsing me without my consent. I sincerely HATE it when dumb ass call center monkeys phone me, when I'm trying to concentrate at work.

"Hi, sir, how are you?"
"Err, who is this?"
"You've been selected..."
"FVCK YOU!"

Like I ****ing need more than one cell phone contract at the same time. Are you stupid?

When you ask them what they're trying to sell you, they act like they're not trying to sell you anything, and that they just want to talk to me or some sht. Jesus, I HATE them. They have no respect for my time, and they insult my intelligence every time they act like they give a sht about how I am, or when they act like they're not trying to sell me things.

It's harassment.

[thysb]

Quick question. My wife and I have been getting calls from 0871350590, which is a computer (starting with a loud YEBO) saying that you qualify for a Blackberry phone, even if you're blacklisted. Press 1 to talk to an agent or 9 if you're not interested. So where is the consent in this? It doesn't tell you where they're calling from. This is just a new way to prevent you shouting at a call centre agent, but you don't get a chance to 'unsubscribe', unless you're willing to talk to an agent and waste more of your own time...

[dominic]

Quick question. My wife and I have been getting calls from 0871350590, which is a computer (starting with a loud YEBO) saying that you qualify for a Blackberry phone, even if you're blacklisted. Press 1 to talk to an agent or 9 if you're not interested. So where is the consent in this? It doesn't tell you where they're calling from. This is just a new way to prevent you shouting at a call centre agent, but you don't get a chance to 'unsubscribe', unless you're willing to talk to an agent and waste more of your own time...

sounds like an autodialler which would be a no-no once this Bill is passed into law

[dominic]

People generally forget that spammers, by their very definition, don't really care WHO the mails / SMS' go to.

Say I'm some dodgy guy, and I send e-mails to 100,000 e-mail addresses randomly scraped off the internet, for the sole purpose off generating click-based revenue / soliciting some random products / phishing personal details. Why would I care if the people I send the mails to are on some "list" somewhere. Am I going to check the e-mail addresses against some "list" to check if I can actually e-mail them or not? Heck no!

Say I'm another dodgy guy that owns a "Phone this number, I get payed" line. I SMS 5,000 people informing them that they've won the SA Lottery, and to collect (Or, If I want to be evil - To opt out), they simply need to call the number (Which I just leave them on hold till they close the call, generating income). Would I check if they're on the "Special SMS Opt-Out" list? Definitely not!



TL;DR: This will hurt valid e-mail / SMS services, and do nothing to prevent spam.

i hear you & there is no way this is going to deal with spam originating outside of SA or reduce all spam but it will have an impact on the growing local marketing via sms and email

[MiY4Gi]

What I'd like to know is, how does parliament propose that they enforce the opt-out command when all your information has already exchanged countless hands before you've had the chance to opt-out? How are they going to find all the copies of your information that was exchanged, and force ALL the record holders to remove those records?

The bill itself has no apparent benefits, and enforcing the bill is impossible, so again I ask, what is parliament's rationale behind this proposed bill?

Can anyone answer this?

[naids]

We should have an opt out system where the service providers pay for the opt out portion of the message (be it sms).
Currently the consumer has to pay this however SP's will think twice if they are paying for this.

[ajax]

We should have an opt out system where the service providers pay for the opt out portion of the message (be it sms).
Currently the consumer has to pay this however SP's will think twice if they are paying for this.

Would be nice but open to abuse. If I hate WASP xyz, what prevents me from sending multiple opt-out sms's knowing they will pay for each one?

[ambo]

The technical loophole that I mentioned earlier was actually demonstrated today by the latest telemarketing gimmic.

Get a phone call that I can't take while I'm in a meeting. There is a voicemail with goes along the lines of "Press one for us to call you back or press nine to opt-out." Obviously some kind of automated message system.

The problem here is that they could quite easily claim that they gave me the opportunity to opt-out despite the fact that their machine was talking to my machine. Once the voicemail has been captured there is actually no way for me to opt-out and no way for me to identify the caller either.

This already annoys me and this new law would legitimise this practice.

[Thugscub]

No to spam.

[Reelix]

From: +27793495913

Message:

CONGRATS! Your Cell no has won R960,000 in FIFA/UK Premier League Promo,REF NO: PT5081UK. For Claims,contact Agent Michael Lawrence: 0789305999,fifauk12@ymail.com

Sent to me on the 24th of May. I've received many more, but simply delete them.

This brings up a few interesting questions:

1.) Is this message actually FROM +27793495913 ? I've dealt with SMS systems before, and was able to send SMS's from "082" (Yes, those 3 digits, and nothing more)

2.) If that IS the real number (Assuming 0793495913 and 0789305999), this person should be RICA'd. May I please have their full name, ID Number, and home address, as I wish to send them a "STOP" message - In person (As well as potentially getting them arrested for fraud, unless by some freak chance I have actually won some R960,000 in a UK-based promo ;p)

[The_Librarian]

Recently I commandeered a PC up, and installed ASSP (Anti-Spam-SMTP-Proxy) at the company.

This required a PC, some time spent setting it up, a place in the server room and electricity. Which is company resources, which the spammers are siphoning off (stealing, in other words).

Not only that, recently they've managed to exploit a vulnerability in Exchange 2003 (we've started to lean towards that angle heavily) which allows them to "inject" their spam directly into the Exchange message queue, so that the company's server is sending out spam. More on that sad story here (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/423102-amp-amp-%29-amp-%29-amp-Spammers). This means that, should spam traps catch us, we'll be placed on a blacklist (such as maintained by Spamhaus and Spamcop), which means we can't do legitimate business with other companies whose mail servers've blacklisted us. Which, in turn, lead to loss of income.

[maeztro]

You are receiving this mail because you have dealings with or have dealt with Yellow Box in the past. If you feel you have received this mail in error, kindly delete the email and accept our sincerest apologies. Also please click on this UNSUBSCRIBE link or just drop us a mail.

[D3x]

Some more spam.


Hello Xxxxxxx ,
Do you require any quality marketing database reaching
• Software Developers
• IT Managers, VP Information Technology
• CIO/CTOs
• Network/System Administrators
• Systems and Security decision makers

We can deliver you leads of the above mentioned decision makers with their direct work place email address. Leads delivered with unlimited usage license and 3rd party subscription guarantee. Invest for 1 time and use the data for unlimited marketing needs.

Our delivery and accuracy guarantee stands 90% and any bounces or invalid contacts are provided with free replacement.
What fields are available with the database?
The entire delivered file will have all of the following field names (no null fields) - First Name, Last Name, Title, Company, Direct Email, Telephone, Mailing Address, City, State, Zip Code, Employee Size, Revenue, Industry type and Website URL.
What is the cost for purchasing the data?
We are currently offering the records for 0.02 cents per record for all purchase above 250K records. Anything below will be charged between 0.07 to 0.05 cents per record.
Do I have any minimum limit?
Unlike other marketing companies we do not have any maximum of minimum purchase limit, you can purchase records for as low are $250 to begin with.
Please reply back to this email for more details and pricing and sample records.
Thank you,

Warm Regards,
Sean Watkins
Sales Coordinator
Best Marketing Solutions Inc


I have an Android device & the call & sms blocking apps are plentiful. My life has become less interupted for sure.

[Hemps]

I have an Android device & the call & sms blocking apps are plentiful. My life has become less interupted for sure.

Also been getting this annoying krap, what software you recommend?

[entrepr]

Do you trust a guy who spams you with a message selling you databases that claim to be 'opt-in'. Go figure.




...
We will then forward you a quote based on your quantity required and if you are happy we will provide you with an invoice and banking details.

Let me know and we can take it from there.


Kind regards,
Ashley John de Melo
Beziflash Solutions
079 719 0461

[entrepr]

I have an Android device & the call & sms blocking apps are plentiful. My life has become less interupted for sure.

Anything for blackberry or apple?