What is worse than getting on someone's mailing list is getting on a mailing list that thinks you are a business/commercial subscriber and not an individual subscriber. They seem to be impossible to get off the master list (the one the scum selling the lists has) and they consider that they do not have to follow any of the rules for individual subscribers as they think (mistakenly) that it is a commercial address.
We still have the stupid situation that the ICO will do nothing about complaints of spam or junk calls.
We still have the stupid situation that you can sue for damages but courts seem to consider that there are no real damages for "a spam email". And the same spammer does not send enough to start to be worth any damages (and if they did, they argue that you should have used their unsubscribe link).
Now, I will be going on a cruise late this month, first one I have been on. I have checked, and if I roam my mobile to the ships mobile service the data will be costing me over £10/MB. These spams are often HTML and link in images and so on.
Whilst I will have a 2400bps "all you can eat" sat phone link with text only email options on its own mailbox, I may occasionally check emails on my normal mailbox. If I get one of these spams I will be able to work out the amount of traffic it took and that will be a few pounds at least. So that should give me an actual, tangible, amount of damages for which to sue. Of course, I have to check that the rules apply if I check my email from outside the country.
It really should not be this hard. If the legislation only had a £50 minimum or something then everyone could sue the sender every time every spam from a UK company arrived, and the whole scummy industry would fall on its knees in no time. I really think it is time something was done about this. Maybe suing a newspaper is a way to tackle it - so I think The Telepgraph will get a formal notice before action in writing on Monday.
They have a defence that they have "taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the relevant requirement". My argument to that is that there is no way to know that an email address is an individual subscriber or not, and so no steps, short of never sending unsolicited email, could be taken - so their only choice to comply is never send unsolicited email. It would be interesting to actually have that point with a judge, even if I lose it.
They were kind enough to provide the appropriate address :-
This email is from Telegraph Media Group Limited - 111
Buckingham Palace Road, London. SW1W 0DT registered in England under No
There is an old road sign on Belmont Road, Abergavenny. Old, and rusty, and not even that easy to read. It was worse, it was covered in ivy,...
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us...
It seems there is something of a standard test string for anti virus ( wikipedia has more on this). The idea is that systems that look fo...
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo...