Apology for this diversion, off-topic to the subject of the Ethics Complaint, but definitely on-topic for mailop.
On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 08:32 -0700, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote: > His response to the above was that CAN-SPAM didn't apply as it was > academic and not commercial email, at which point I pointed out to > him that he and I both knew that reasonable minds can differ on what > is "commercial" Hair-splitting. IMHO this is an aspect on which CAN-SPAM is flawed. The general rule must be that spam is in the eyes of the recipient, and from there on the rule can be overriden with exceptions for acceptable message classes. The commercial or non-commercial nature of a message should have ZERO bearing on whether a message qualifies as spam or not, but it was a convenient and self-serving way for some non-commercial actors with overweighted influence on the legislative process to carve themselves an exemption. I find political parties, charities, and universities to be much worse spammers than legitimate commercial entities. > So, again, Yuval, well done! We make a good 'good cop bad cop' team! Our interests are aligned but I am not sure that we are on the same team. Your team is tackling the email deliverability / spam issue, which can be fixed technically (at a cost) by blackisting the sender. My team is tackling the offense on individual autonomy. Being coerced into a scientific research under the threat of consequences from GDPR/CCPA non-compliance. There is no tech fix for that. Yuv -- Yuval Levy, JD, MBA, CFA Ontario-licensed lawyer _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
