(a) the name of the person sending the message and the person, if different, on whose behalf it is sent;
(b) if the message is sent on behalf of another person, a statement indicating which person is sending the message and which person on whose behalf the message is sent;
(c) if the person who sends the message and the person, if different, on behalf of whom it is sent carry on business by different names, the name by which those persons carry on business; and
(d) the physical and mailing address, a telephone number providing access to an agent or a voice messaging system, an email address and a web address of the person sending the message and, if different, the person on whose behalf the message is sent and any other electronic address used by those persons.
(2) If it is not practicable to include the information referred to in subsection (1) and the unsubscribe mechanism referred to in paragraph 6(2)(c) of the Act in a commercial electronic message, that information may be provided by a link to a web page on the World Wide Web that is clearly and prominently set out and that can be accessed by a single click or another method of equivalent efficiency at no cost to the person to whom the message is sent.
It also specifies that an unsubscribe mechanism must be set our clearly and prominently within two clicks by the user. The regulations also address the information to be included in a request for consent and information to be disclosed regarding computer programs. Comments are due on the draft regulations by August 29, 2011.
Perpetuating bad practices
“…information may be provided by a link to a web page…”
How many years has e-mail been around now? How many years have we been trying to get the message across to not trust links from unknowns??! Yet, we still see governments putting this clueless provision into “anti-spam” legislation.
Provisions must target telemarketers
I recently wrote a piece that points out the fact that we can’t combat spam and related social engineering tactics (phishing, vishing, etc.) unless we also address the negative impact that legitimate businesses are themselves having on online secutiry. (the post is here: http://jasonmillar.ca/ethicstechnologyandsociety/2011/06/23/the-end-of-telemarketing/ )
The bottom line is that NO electronic messages ought to be sent to customers except those that ask the customer to call the number on their bill, or card, or some other formal piece of correspondence from the company. ALL other messaging from businesses just creates the false impression that some electronic messagin is trustworthy. That’s just foolish.
The only effective spam control is to set up proper filtering. i.e. Assume everything is SPAM then add exceptions. When most of it originates from God knows where, what’s the use in such legislation when they can’t track down where it’s coming from. The money would be better spent on educating that portion of the public which would actually care to listen. It’ll never happen, but it’s a dream I have that I never have to do virus removal from friend’s machines.
In my opinion, the bigger issue is virus proliferation due to chain mail sent amongst friends.
More FAIL from our government.
Now what about the telemarketing calls I have been getting from Canadian banking institutions now using Chinese telemarketers to avoid the DNC list?
When most of it originates from God knows where, what’s the use in such legislation when they can’t track down where it’s coming from.