Feeds

Consumer watchdogs fail the Spam Test

Can't think, won't think

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications

Internet consumers in Europe have been cheated and let down by the very organisations established to protect them, The Register has discovered.

Instead of standing up for consumers who use the Net and lobbying governments on their behalf, these so-called consumer groups have sat on their hands and effectively done nothing about the scourge of the Net, spam.

Disagreement over the approach to take means that some consumer bodies have no policy relating to unsolicited e-mail; the result is that the interests of ordinary Net users has not been truly represented.

The European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) has been singled out for the harshest criticism. Despite spam being a problem as old as email, Jo Dobber, of BEUC, admitted: "We don't yet have a detailed position on spam. This has yet to be discussed with our 29 members and a common position agreed."

Can this be right? How long do these people need to work out their "position", especially since it's a problem that has been discussed at country and European level since the mid 90s? Unlike junk mail and junk faxes (where the sender bears the cost of distribution) it is ordinary Net users who have to bear the cost of people flooding them with unsolicited e-mail.

You can bet your bottom Euro BEUC wouldn't sit on its hands if consumers had to pay the cost of postage every time junk paper mail landed on their doormat.

The problem, it seems, stems from which approach is best to tackle spam. Some groups favour an "opt-in" method - whereby consumers would not receive spam unless they specifically asked for it. Others favour an opt-out system, which would mean consumers would receive spam unless they asked not to receive it.

This small - but fundamental - difference has effectively rendered BEUC impotent on this whole issue and thanks to this impasse consumer groups have been left in limbo. Since its members can't decide which approach to adopt, BEUC claims it has no policy on junk e-mail. And because it has failed to draw up a single policy it has failed to lobby governments so that consumers are protected from this invasive and costly form of direct marketing.

George Mills, chair of the European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (EUROCAUCE), said: "I am rather taken aback that BEUC hasn't taken a position on this.Their [BEUC's] dithering hasn't helped the legislative process," he said.

Yet BEUC is an outspoken Europe-wide federation made up of independent national consumer organisations. Its mission is to "influence, in the consumer interest, the development of EU (European Union) policy and to promote and defend the interests of all European consumers."

Despite taking a vocal stand on the high cost of mobile telephony, e-commerce consumer protection, and privacy and data protection, it has failed to lobby effectively on the issue of spam.

Many anti-spam campaigners are baffled by BEUC's stance believing that the problem of junk e-mail is a simple clear-cut consumer issue. And they claim BEUC and its member bodies should have been lobbying governments and European Union to stamp it out. But Mills doesn't believe there is any sinister motive behind BEUC's lack of action. He just thinks there is a "lot of confusion" among consumer groups.

Last month at an open meeting of the Telecommunications Directive which included an open debate on spam BEUC failed to put any case forward to influence European legislators.

Dominique Forest, of BEUC, who attended the event, defended the group's selective laryngitis, "On spamming our position has to be worked out - and this is indeed why BEUC was 'silent' on this specific issue," she said.

Which is odd, since last year BEUC did appear to express a position. In May last year issued a document discussing the topic: "unsolicited commercial communications by e-mail"? where it appeared to suggest that it would favour an opt-in model for spam.

A week later BEUC issued a second release welcoming the "requirements on Member States to establish opt-out registers" if people do not wish to receive spam.

From these two public documents it appears BEUC performed a U-turn on an issue on which it now claims it doesn't have a position.

BEUC was asked to comment more than a fortnight ago on this amazing turnaround but has so far failed to respond.

According to critics, BEUC, and its member consumer groups, have failed consumers and its muddled approach has only served to strengthen the hand of direct marketeers.

Joe McNamee, of the Internet lobbying group EuroISPA, said: "EuroISPA has difficulty understanding the position of the consumers organisations on what seems such a black and white consumer protection issue.

"It is very difficult to argue on a national or European level that consumers need to be protected against spam when the consumers' groups remain silent," he said.

Michelle Childs, head of policy research at the Consumers Association (CA) in Britain, defended her organisation's approach. She said that the CA had been "actively lobbying" government although she confirmed that the CA's position was "up in the air".

This apparent passiveness contrasts sharply with the CA's approach to junk faxes. By its own admission it has put pressure on the Data Protection Commissioner to clamp down on some of the worst offenders.

Campaigning journalist Liz Edwards of the CA's magazine Which?, said: "Companies who flout the law in this way are simply a nuisance. By exercising a bit of consumer power Which? readers and researchers have been able to help beat the junk fax firms."

So if the CA can work up a head of steam about junk faxes, why can't Which? muster the same kind of enthusiasm against spam, or is simply a question of double standards? Childs says part of the problem lies with British Net users who have failed to voice their opposition and concerns about spam.

Even though the CA has recently responded to a Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) request for views on spam (as part of the delayed Distance Selling Directive), Childs says the CA could still be swayed. She claims that the CA currently favours (in an understated way you understand) an opt out method of spam, but could come round to the idea of an opt-in approach.

She told The Register that she would personally welcome any input from Net users on the subject. Progress at last? ®

  • You can contact Michelle Childs, Head of Policy Research at the Consumers Association, at here.

Related Links

The European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
Online Vote Against Spam - a campaign by c't magazine and politik-digital

Using blade systems to cut costs and sharpen efficiencies

More from The Register

next story
BBC goes offline in MASSIVE COCKUP: Stephen Fry partly muzzled
Auntie tight-lipped as major outage rolls on
iPad? More like iFAD: We reveal why Apple fell into IBM's arms
But never fear fanbois, you're still lapping up iPhones, Macs
Nadella: Apps must run on ALL WINDOWS – PCs, slabs and mobes
Phone egg, meet desktop chicken - your mother
HP, Microsoft prove it again: Big Business doesn't create jobs
SMEs get lip service - what they need is dinner at the Club
ITC: Seagate and LSI can infringe Realtek patents because Realtek isn't in the US
Land of the (get off scot) free, when it's a foreign owner
White? Male? You work in tech? Let us guess ... Twitter? We KNEW it!
Grim diversity numbers dumped alongside Facebook earnings
Dude, you're getting a Dell – with BITCOIN: IT giant slurps cryptocash
1. Buy PC with Bitcoin. 2. Mine more coins. 3. Goto step 1
There's NOTHING on TV in Europe – American video DOMINATES
Even France's mega subsidies don't stop US content onslaught
You! Pirate! Stop pirating, or we shall admonish you politely. Repeatedly, if necessary
And we shall go about telling people you smell. No, not really
prev story

Whitepapers

Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications
Learn about the various considerations for defending mobile applications - from the application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies.
How modern custom applications can spur business growth
Learn how to create, deploy and manage custom applications without consuming or expanding the need for scarce, expensive IT resources.
Reducing security risks from open source software
Follow a few strategies and your organization can gain the full benefits of open source and the cloud without compromising the security of your applications.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Consolidation: the foundation for IT and business transformation
In this whitepaper learn how effective consolidation of IT and business resources can enable multiple, meaningful business benefits.