ConLibs get shifty on spam and behavioural ads

Consultation shifty in the extreme


Last week, the government published its ideas as to how it would implement the changes to EU Directive 2002/58/EC. In relation to spammers and behavioural advertising it has decided to keep the low privacy standards that were acceptable to the previous New Labour government.

The changes discussed in the consultation (pdf) are modifications to Directive 2002/58/EC introduced by the need to implement Directive 2009/136/EC. These new provisions have to be brought into UK law by 25 May next year (and this accounts for the consultation process launched by the government last week).

One of the changes that you won’t find explained in the consultation document is the complete re-wording of Article 13 of Directive 2002/58/EC – a key Article which regulates all forms of electronic marketing including spam. The consultation ignores this complete redrafting and fails to discuss options that consequently arise.

For example, I think Article 13 allows Member States to introduce consent/opt-out requirements for all forms of electronic marketing including behavioural marketing. However, the drafting of Article 13 also allows a continuation of a minimum privacy protection policy with respect to the use of electronic marketing by organisations. The government could have chosen to debate options that included the former; instead it has chosen to keep quiet and give its support to the latter.

The argument for Article 13 providing further controls to protect browsing on the internet can be seen if you read the text carefully. For example, “electronic mail” is a defined term in the Directive to mean “any text, voice, sound or image message sent over a public communications network” directed to a "recipient". So when the term is not used in some of the marketing provisions (as in Article 13(3) of the Directive), one can make the inference that the provision is intended to apply to other forms of marketing that is not conveyed by “electronic mail”. The assumption being that if the text of the Directive wanted to limit the provision in Article 13(3) to “electronic mail” it would have been in the text.

Also note the use of the word "recipient". This refers to anybody (eg a "user" of the system) who receives a marketing message and includes a subscriber (who is likely to be identifiable because they pay the bills). Note also that "users" are more likely to be anonymous (as they just use the subscriber's system). Keep this distinction in mind for a moment - it is important!

Throughout Article 13 there is a conspicuous absence of the use of “personal data”, although obviously personal data are subject to the e-marketing rules (eg an email address is often personal data – chris.pounder@amberhawk.com). So where the term “personal data” is not used (as in Article 13), then provisions are clearly intended to apply in circumstances where other “data” (ie beyond the narrow confines of personal data) are processed for a marketing purpose. As behavioural marketing involves such “not personal data” (according to Google and other behavioural marketers – see documents), the Article clearly allows for member states to legislate for control over marketing that does not use personal data.

By contrast, the consultation states that the effect of the revised Article 13 is limited to “personal data”. This is because the consultation document requires that any “data” used to convey “electronic mail” has to relate to an “individual subscriber” and because of this, the data have to be “personal data”. Note also (as mentioned above) that in the Directive "electronic mail" is defined in terms of a "recipient"; a recipient includes the subscriber and any user of the subscriber's system. The consultation document in effect equates "recipient" with "subscriber" - which is not what the Directive says!

Similar topics

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Employers in denial over success of digital skills training, say exasperated staffers

    Large disparities in views from bosses vs workers on 'talent transformation initiatives,' says survey

    Digital transformation projects are being held back by a lack of skills, according to a new survey, which finds that while many employers believe they are doing well at training up existing staff to meet the requirements, their employees beg to differ.

    Skills shortages are nothing new, but the Talent Transformation Global Impact report from research firm Ipsos on behalf of online learning provider Udacity indicates that although digital transformation initiatives are stalling due to a lack of digital talent, enterprises are becoming increasingly out of touch with what their employees need to fill the skills gap.

    The report is the result of two surveys taking in over 2,000 managers and more than 4,000 employees across the US, UK, France, and Germany. It found that 59 per cent of employers state that not having enough skilled employees is having a major or moderate impact on their business.

    Continue reading
  • Saved by the Bill: What if... Microsoft had killed Windows 95?

    Now this looks like a job for me, 'cos we need a little, controversy... 'Cos it feels so NT, without me

    Former Microsoft veep Brad Silverberg has paid tribute to Bill Gates for saving Windows 95.

    Silverberg posted his comment in a Twitter exchange started by Fast co-founder Allison Barr Allen regarding somebody who'd changed your life. Silverberg responded "Bill Gates" and, in response to a question from Microsoft cybersecurity pro Ashanka Iddya, explained Gates's role in Windows 95's survival.

    Continue reading
  • UK government opens consultation on medic-style register for Brit infosec pros

    Are you competent? Ethical? Welcome to UKCSC's new list

    Frustrated at lack of activity from the "standard setting" UK Cyber Security Council, the government wants to pass new laws making it into the statutory regulator of the UK infosec trade.

    Government plans, quietly announced in a consultation document issued last week, include a formal register of infosec practitioners – meaning security specialists could be struck off or barred from working if they don't meet "competence and ethical requirements."

    The proposed setup sounds very similar to the General Medical Council and its register of doctors allowed to practice medicine in the UK.

    Continue reading
  • Microsoft's do-it-all IDE Visual Studio 2022 came out late last year. How good is it really?

    Top request from devs? A Linux version

    Review Visual Studio goes back a long way. Microsoft always had its own programming languages and tools, beginning with Microsoft Basic in 1975 and Microsoft C 1.0 in 1983.

    The Visual Studio idea came from two main sources. In the early days, Windows applications were coded and compiled using MS-DOS, and there was a MS-DOS IDE called Programmer's Workbench (PWB, first released 1989). The company also came up Visual Basic (VB, first released 1991), which unlike Microsoft C++ had a Windows IDE. Perhaps inspired by VB, Microsoft delivered Visual C++ 1.0 in 1993, replacing the little-used PWB. Visual Studio itself was introduced in 1997, though it was more of a bundle of different Windows development tools initially. The first Visual Studio to integrate C++ and Visual Basic (in .NET guise) development into the same IDE was Visual Studio .NET in 2002, 20 years ago, and this perhaps is the true ancestor of today's IDE.

    A big change in VS 2022, released November, is that it is the first version where the IDE itself runs as a 64-bit process. The advantage is that it has access to more than 4GB memory in the devenv process, this being the shell of the IDE, though of course it is still possible to compile 32-bit applications. The main benefit is for large solutions comprising hundreds of projects. Although a substantial change, it is transparent to developers and from what we can tell, has been a beneficial change.

    Continue reading
  • James Webb Space Telescope has arrived at its new home – an orbit almost a million miles from Earth

    Funnily enough, that's where we want to be right now, too

    The James Webb Space Telescope, the largest and most complex space observatory built by NASA, has reached its final destination: L2, the second Sun-Earth Lagrange point, an orbit located about a million miles away.

    Mission control sent instructions to fire the telescope's thrusters at 1400 EST (1900 UTC) on Monday. The small boost increased its speed by about 3.6 miles per hour to send it to L2, where it will orbit the Sun in line with Earth for the foreseeable future. It takes about 180 days to complete an L2 orbit, Amber Straughn, deputy project scientist for Webb Science Communications at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said during a live briefing.

    "Webb, welcome home!" blurted NASA's Administrator Bill Nelson. "Congratulations to the team for all of their hard work ensuring Webb's safe arrival at L2 today. We're one step closer to uncovering the mysteries of the universe. And I can't wait to see Webb's first new views of the universe this summer."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022