3 ms·

In australia, political messages are exempt from anti spam and anti junk mail laws. Politicians think they’re above everyone else, which evidently in this case

In australia, political messages are exempt from anti spam and anti junk mail laws. Politicians think they’re above everyone else, which evidently in this case they’re literally above the law.

eastbound 3y ago
I’ve had Amnesty International contacting me at work, using the “exemption for humanitarian emergencies” to say “We can’t remove you from mail lists, it’s a humanitarian emergency.” Highly annoying to be doxxed by who you’ve been donating to. Actually, there is a solution: Say that you are back in Europe and a EU citizen. The GDPR applies to them too.
- bootsmann 3y ago
  You actually just need to say you're an EU citizen, GDPR applies globally.
  - tzs 3y ago
    Nothing in GDPR says anything about EU citizens. Everyplace it talks about data subjects it talks about data subjects "in the Union". If he is not "in the Union" and the processor or controller processing his data is not "established in the Union" then GDPR does not apply. See Article 3 [1] for details. [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  I have an OG mac.com account (got it about five minutes after Steve announced it). Because of that, a lot of folks enter my email address as theirs; often accidentally (they forget the numbers, afterwards, or somesuch). One lady made donations to her local ASPCA, and used my email address. They sold me to some of the craziest, most radical-left organizations on earth. I get hundreds of emails, every day, from these outfits. Some, are absolutely barking mad. Many, are fake emails from politicians. Even I can't stomach some of the crazy in these emails, and I lean left[ish] (I'm quite centrist, which means leftists think I'm MAGA, and rightists think I'm commie). Needless to say, unsubs only make it worse. All because one lady goofed, when entering her email, for a local animal assistance org.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  > Say that you are back in Europe and a EU citizen. The GDPR applies to them too. Any idea how GDPR works for EU citizens who reside in the USA? E.g., suppose I want Facebook to forget about me, but I'm using a U.S.-based ISP to tell them that. Does Facebook have any legal justification for rejecting my request?
  - bluGill 3y ago
    If you reside in the US, then Facebook can probably argue US laws apply. Over course if you go to the EU to visit family for Christmas or something (very likely) and ask Facebook to stop then, EU laws apply and they need to forget everything even though you will return. Note that data generated only from your time in the US about your activities when in the US probably can still remain.
  - tzs 3y ago
    > Any idea how GDPR works for EU citizens who reside in the USA? It doesn't. The cases it applies to are given in Article 3 [1]. It applies to these cases: • Processing of personal data by entities that are "established in the Union", regardless of where the processing takes place. • Processing of personal data of "data subjects who are in the Union" by entities not "established in the Union" if it is related to those entities offering goods and services to data subjects "in the Union" or those entities are monitoring behavior of those data subjects that takes place "in the Union". • Processing of personal data by an entity not "established in the Union" is they are somewhere where Member State law applies "by virtue of public international law". (Anyone happen to have a list of such places?). GDPR does not even mention "citizens". Every place it talks about data subjects it uses "in the Union". Note that this works both ways. People who are not EU citizens are covered if they are "in the Union". [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/
JoshTriplett 3y ago
Same in the US: politicians get an exception from the Do Not Call list and similar. Complete garbage.
- criddell 3y ago
  I looked this up yesterday. The regulations are around the use of robodialers but the political messages generally aren’t using robodialers. Instead they use an army of people with burner phones to send messages person-to-person to avoid the regulations.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    No, they are using robodialers, these days. Also, I have gotten a few robovoice calls from local pols. One issue that corporations should be concerned about, is if they contract a dialer company to initiate their calls, and that company moonlights to scammers, they get blocked, so the legit corporation gets blocked for being a scammer.
    - criddell 3y ago
      Why do you think they are using robodialers for text messages? AFAIK, that’s still banned by the FCC: https://www.fcc.gov/rules-political-campaign-calls-and-texts https://www.fcc.gov/rules-political-campaign-calls-and-texts
      - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
        They spoof the sources. The carrier still lets them through, but sending STOP results in a delivery error.
        jonhohle 3y ago
        A certain second place candidate who has associated my wife with my phone number is doing this to me. I forwarded them to the FCC.
maccard 3y ago
In the UK, there is a growing group of people who voted for Brexit who are now claiming that they were not informed of what was going to happen. The UK government sent a white paper to every household with their opinion on it. If there wasn't a special case for this, many households wouldn't have received this. these things can be abused, but paraphrasing patio11 "the optimal amount of fraud(/abuse) is non-zero" [0]. The argument for this applies in this case to. [0] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
  Assume that if I have a ‘no junk mail’ sign, I either will be informed some other way that doesn’t involve unwanted propaganda, or I do not care. Anyone with the mentality ‘this junk mail is more important that your junk mail sticker’ can go fuck themselves - similar behaviours in the physical realm include rape.
  - maccard 3y ago
    > I either will be informed some other way that doesn’t involve unwanted propaganda, or I do not care. These people said they didn't care, and they're literally in the news saying "why didn't anyone tell me?" > similar behaviours in the physical realm include rape. There's stretching an analogy, and there's comparing junk mail to rape. This is a first for me.
    - hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
      > These people said they didn't care, and they're literally in the news saying "why didn't anyone tell me?" Then they should either read the news or remove their no junk mail sticker? Attempting to suggest that political mail would have swayed brexit is stretching the analogy pretty thin, too.
Lendal 3y ago
The same laws benefit you as well as politicians. You can pick up the phone, call your neighbor, and discuss politics at any time without fear of reprisal from the authorities. Try doing this in Cuba or China, you will end up in prison. In my view, every citizen in a democratic country is not only permitted to but obligated to participate in the political process, which is why political activity is exempted. If you don't want to participate, if you don't vote, or inform yourself of issues, you still benefit from all the same freedoms & protections of the law as those who do participate. This is an important point, because the exemption of political activity is due to the protections of political speech. Imagine if it were not this way, the party in power could simply fine or even arrest their opponents for trying talk to people over the phone. This happens every day in nondemocratic countries. This protection should not extend to AI though. AI doesn't vote. AI doesn't have a voice in a democracy. So allowing AI to benefit from this exemption should not be permitted. I tolerate PEOPLE calling me, because I am a voter and they are voters and we must all discuss the direction our laws should go or who our representatives should be (when we have time). But AI should have no place in the political process. Not for robocalls, not for choosing representatives, and especially not for lawmaking.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  > the party in power could simply fine or even arrest their opponents for trying talk to people over the phone. Yeah, that would never happen in a democratic country…
- shkkmo 3y ago
  These laws don't benefit me in anyway. I hate recieving texts from politicians begging for money using a loophole they have written for themselves. I also don't want random people to be able to call me and yell at me about politics. Enabling phone spam is in no way required for a functioning political system (not that we have one of those.) Phone spam doesn't inform people on issues, doesn't create meaningful debate on issues, and has no value in strengthening democracy. Every single candidate that sends me spam loses my vote permanently.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
  Freedom of speech != freedom to robocall. Calling your neighbour is different to being paid to text or call thousands of people daily.
JohnFen 3y ago
Same in the US, unfortunately.

In australia, political messages are exempt from anti spam and anti junk mail laws. Politicians think they’re above everyone else, which evidently in this case they’re literally above the law.

eastbound 3y ago

I’ve had Amnesty International contacting me at work, using the “exemption for humanitarian emergencies” to say “We can’t remove you from mail lists, it’s a humanitarian emergency.” Highly annoying to be doxxed by who you’ve been donating to. Actually, there is a solution: Say that you are back in Europe and a EU citizen. The GDPR applies to them too.

bootsmann 3y ago
You actually just need to say you're an EU citizen, GDPR applies globally.
- tzs 3y ago
  Nothing in GDPR says anything about EU citizens. Everyplace it talks about data subjects it talks about data subjects "in the Union". If he is not "in the Union" and the processor or controller processing his data is not "established in the Union" then GDPR does not apply. See Article 3 [1] for details. [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/
ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
I have an OG mac.com account (got it about five minutes after Steve announced it). Because of that, a lot of folks enter my email address as theirs; often accidentally (they forget the numbers, afterwards, or somesuch). One lady made donations to her local ASPCA, and used my email address. They sold me to some of the craziest, most radical-left organizations on earth. I get hundreds of emails, every day, from these outfits. Some, are absolutely barking mad. Many, are fake emails from politicians. Even I can't stomach some of the crazy in these emails, and I lean left[ish] (I'm quite centrist, which means leftists think I'm MAGA, and rightists think I'm commie). Needless to say, unsubs only make it worse. All because one lady goofed, when entering her email, for a local animal assistance org.
CoastalCoder 3y ago
> Say that you are back in Europe and a EU citizen. The GDPR applies to them too. Any idea how GDPR works for EU citizens who reside in the USA? E.g., suppose I want Facebook to forget about me, but I'm using a U.S.-based ISP to tell them that. Does Facebook have any legal justification for rejecting my request?
- bluGill 3y ago
  If you reside in the US, then Facebook can probably argue US laws apply. Over course if you go to the EU to visit family for Christmas or something (very likely) and ask Facebook to stop then, EU laws apply and they need to forget everything even though you will return. Note that data generated only from your time in the US about your activities when in the US probably can still remain.
- tzs 3y ago
  > Any idea how GDPR works for EU citizens who reside in the USA? It doesn't. The cases it applies to are given in Article 3 [1]. It applies to these cases: • Processing of personal data by entities that are "established in the Union", regardless of where the processing takes place. • Processing of personal data of "data subjects who are in the Union" by entities not "established in the Union" if it is related to those entities offering goods and services to data subjects "in the Union" or those entities are monitoring behavior of those data subjects that takes place "in the Union". • Processing of personal data by an entity not "established in the Union" is they are somewhere where Member State law applies "by virtue of public international law". (Anyone happen to have a list of such places?). GDPR does not even mention "citizens". Every place it talks about data subjects it uses "in the Union". Note that this works both ways. People who are not EU citizens are covered if they are "in the Union". [1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/

JoshTriplett 3y ago

Same in the US: politicians get an exception from the Do Not Call list and similar. Complete garbage.

criddell 3y ago
I looked this up yesterday. The regulations are around the use of robodialers but the political messages generally aren’t using robodialers. Instead they use an army of people with burner phones to send messages person-to-person to avoid the regulations.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  No, they are using robodialers, these days. Also, I have gotten a few robovoice calls from local pols. One issue that corporations should be concerned about, is if they contract a dialer company to initiate their calls, and that company moonlights to scammers, they get blocked, so the legit corporation gets blocked for being a scammer.
  - criddell 3y ago
    Why do you think they are using robodialers for text messages? AFAIK, that’s still banned by the FCC: https://www.fcc.gov/rules-political-campaign-calls-and-texts https://www.fcc.gov/rules-political-campaign-calls-and-texts
    - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
      They spoof the sources. The carrier still lets them through, but sending STOP results in a delivery error.
      - jonhohle 3y ago
        A certain second place candidate who has associated my wife with my phone number is doing this to me. I forwarded them to the FCC.

maccard 3y ago

In the UK, there is a growing group of people who voted for Brexit who are now claiming that they were not informed of what was going to happen. The UK government sent a white paper to every household with their opinion on it. If there wasn't a special case for this, many households wouldn't have received this. these things can be abused, but paraphrasing patio11 "the optimal amount of fraud(/abuse) is non-zero" [0]. The argument for this applies in this case to. [0] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
Assume that if I have a ‘no junk mail’ sign, I either will be informed some other way that doesn’t involve unwanted propaganda, or I do not care. Anyone with the mentality ‘this junk mail is more important that your junk mail sticker’ can go fuck themselves - similar behaviours in the physical realm include rape.
- maccard 3y ago
  > I either will be informed some other way that doesn’t involve unwanted propaganda, or I do not care. These people said they didn't care, and they're literally in the news saying "why didn't anyone tell me?" > similar behaviours in the physical realm include rape. There's stretching an analogy, and there's comparing junk mail to rape. This is a first for me.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
    > These people said they didn't care, and they're literally in the news saying "why didn't anyone tell me?" Then they should either read the news or remove their no junk mail sticker? Attempting to suggest that political mail would have swayed brexit is stretching the analogy pretty thin, too.

Lendal 3y ago

The same laws benefit you as well as politicians. You can pick up the phone, call your neighbor, and discuss politics at any time without fear of reprisal from the authorities. Try doing this in Cuba or China, you will end up in prison. In my view, every citizen in a democratic country is not only permitted to but obligated to participate in the political process, which is why political activity is exempted. If you don't want to participate, if you don't vote, or inform yourself of issues, you still benefit from all the same freedoms & protections of the law as those who do participate. This is an important point, because the exemption of political activity is due to the protections of political speech. Imagine if it were not this way, the party in power could simply fine or even arrest their opponents for trying talk to people over the phone. This happens every day in nondemocratic countries. This protection should not extend to AI though. AI doesn't vote. AI doesn't have a voice in a democracy. So allowing AI to benefit from this exemption should not be permitted. I tolerate PEOPLE calling me, because I am a voter and they are voters and we must all discuss the direction our laws should go or who our representatives should be (when we have time). But AI should have no place in the political process. Not for robocalls, not for choosing representatives, and especially not for lawmaking.

jonhohle 3y ago
> the party in power could simply fine or even arrest their opponents for trying talk to people over the phone. Yeah, that would never happen in a democratic country…
shkkmo 3y ago
These laws don't benefit me in anyway. I hate recieving texts from politicians begging for money using a loophole they have written for themselves. I also don't want random people to be able to call me and yell at me about politics. Enabling phone spam is in no way required for a functioning political system (not that we have one of those.) Phone spam doesn't inform people on issues, doesn't create meaningful debate on issues, and has no value in strengthening democracy. Every single candidate that sends me spam loses my vote permanently.
hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
Freedom of speech != freedom to robocall. Calling your neighbour is different to being paid to text or call thousands of people daily.

JohnFen 3y ago

Same in the US, unfortunately.