*sigh*
Everybody, please calm down.
Ok, all the information on www.parlament.ch is now updated. The final text as approved by the Nationalrat is this:
Art. 45a (neu) Massenwerbung 1 Die Anbieterinnen von Fernmeldediensten bekämpfen die nach Artikel 3 Buchstabe o des Bundesgesetzes vom 19. Dezember 19865 gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb unlautere Massenwerbung. 2 Der Bundesrat kann die zur Bekämpfung geeigneten und erforderlichen Massnahmen bestimmen.
Which means that the Bundesrat can exactly specify how an ISP has to 'fight' SPAM with regard to incoming (to the ISP) and outgoing (originating from his network) SPAM. If an ISP does not follow the rules then he can be fined up to CHF 100'000 by BAKOM, plus he might lose his telecommunications license.
Totally wrong. The idea is that the Bundesrat has the *authority* to specify measures. That's a good thing, since this allows for flexible reaction without requiring law changes.
Where it says "Bundesrat", you must read "Bakom pushing it at the Bundesrat level".
Of course it will be necessary and important to get on a table with Bakom to discuss specifics of a corresponding Verordnung. Isn't somebody from Bakom reading this list?
All in all this entire thing is not only totally besides the point but also really dangerous. And it reads as if it were the fault of the ISPs that SPAM is around.
*sigh* Just reading a single article out of a more complex law does not help really, now does it? Art. 45a explictly /allows/ ISPs to filter spam. Of course, it has not been forbidden until now (since it's perfectly legal to specify such things on a contractual level).
Just imagine a customer operating his own mailserver complaining to BAKOM that the ISP doesn't filter SPAM to him... Arghhhh...
A majority of the pre-study group of the Nationalrat wanted to add the line "if technically feasible", but that was rejected by the full assembly.
And rightly it was rejected: Adding such a clause just is fodder for lawyers, since it opens up a whole new area of interpretation. Additionally, there are many steps possible and necessary against spam which are inherently non-technical, but merely organisational or contractual (eg. cutting of a spammer's dialup or booting him off a webhosting machine).
The changes to the FMG are overall satisfactory, even when we consider that it won't have a big effect on spammers. At least it is a detriment against the fools who "just want to give it a try".
-- Matthias
-- Brain-Log http://matthias.leisi.net/ _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
