Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.
The Trouble with the TPP and privacy, which includes weak privacy laws, restrictions on data localization, bans on data transfer restrictions, and a failure to obtain privacy assurances from the U.S., also includes the agreement's weak anti-spam standards.
Given the fact that nearly all TPP countries have some form of anti-spam law (with the exception of Brunei), the inclusion of anti-spam provision in the TPP was not surprising, yet the agreement sets the bar far lower than that found in many countries. Article 14.14 states:
"Each Party shall adopt or maintain measures regarding unsolicited commercial electronic messages that:
(a) require suppliers of unsolicited commercial electronic messages to facilitate the ability of recipients to prevent ongoing reception of those messages;
(b) require the consent, as specified according to the laws and regulations of each Party, of recipients to receive commercial electronic messages; or
(c) otherwise provide for the minimisation of unsolicited commercial electronic messages."
The TPP provision features two key requirements: anti-spam laws that provide for a binding unsubscribe mechanism and some form of consent. Yet with the standard of consent left wide open, countries are free to adopt weak, ineffective standards and still comply with the TPP requirements.
In fact, since spam raises global concerns that frequently requires cross-border co-operation, the TPP would have been an ideal mechanism to strengthen international anti-spam rules and enforcement.
For example, the Canadian anti-spam law establishes an opt-in requirement for consent to receive commercial electronic messages. The same is true in leading TPP countries such as Japan and Australia (and the European Union). Setting a higher bar for consent would have improved privacy and the effectiveness of anti-spam laws throughout the TPP member countries.
Similarly, Canada's penalties for anti-spam violations were a direct result of Australian success with serious penalties for anti-spam violations. Despite the success, there are no prescribed penalties in the TPP, meaning that even cross-border anti-spam crackdowns within TPP countries may be undermined by inconsistent penalties and enforcement powers.
This piece originally appeared on Michael Geist's blog and is reprinted with permission.
Photo: flickr/ Thomas Hawk
Thank you for reading this story...
More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all. But media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our only supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help.
If everyone who visits rabble and likes it chipped in a couple of dollars per month, our future would be much more secure and we could do much more: like the things our readers tell us they want to see more of: more staff reporters and more work to complete the upgrade of our website.
We’re asking if you could make a donation, right now, to set rabble on solid footing in 2017.