Comments on: Dealing with spam in Canada http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4888 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4888/comment-page-1#comment-13965 Reader's Write Thu, 19 May 2005 11:15:59 +0000 #comment-13965 While I agree that PIPEDA is woefully inadequate to deal with those unwilling to, or unable to participate in, the ombudsman process of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, I'm not sure that a more draconian regulatory environment is the answer either. I do like the idea of companies being held to an opt-in standard, and giving people the ability to sue more easily. Unfortunately I don't think ultimately this would be affective. Conceptually at least I should think that requiring ISP's to charge a nominal amount (1/100 of a penny for example) per email would do more to structurally inhibit spammers in Canada than anything else. Spamming is a commercial activity that depends on low cost to free email. This amount would be nominal even to a normal commercial enterprise, especially if it reduced inbound spam by any amount. This also enables civil action for fraud should someone hijack my computer and use it to spam others. Just a thought. While I agree that PIPEDA is woefully inadequate to deal with those unwilling to, or unable to participate in, the ombudsman process of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, I’m not sure that a more draconian regulatory environment is the answer either. I do like the idea of companies being held to an opt-in standard, and giving people the ability to sue more easily. Unfortunately I don’t think ultimately this would be affective.

Conceptually at least I should think that requiring ISP’s to charge a nominal amount (1/100 of a penny for example) per email would do more to structurally inhibit spammers in Canada than anything else. Spamming is a commercial activity that depends on low cost to free email. This amount would be nominal even to a normal commercial enterprise, especially if it reduced inbound spam by any amount.

This also enables civil action for fraud should someone hijack my computer and use it to spam others.

Just a thought.

]]>