[HN Gopher] Visa's marketing opt-out has been down for over a we... ___________________________________________________________________ Visa's marketing opt-out has been down for over a week. Is this a legal issue? Author : robertwiblin Score : 369 points Date : 2022-03-29 17:04 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (marketingreportoptout.visa.com) (TXT) w3m dump (marketingreportoptout.visa.com) | go_prodev wrote: | So has Adobe's too apparently | exikyut wrote: | What's the URL? | leros wrote: | It wouldn't surprise me if it's a third party system just | hosted on a subdomain of visa and adobe. | mikece wrote: | The credit card companies make so much money that reimbursing | fraudulent transactions is almost a rounding error -- which is | why they aren't in a rush to spend the money to implement chip | and PIN security. Given this attitude I'm guessing someone | already ran the cost/benefit analysis of pivoting engineering | teams to fix the opt-out website versus just paying a fine -- and | that paying lawyers to contest any fine they might ever get came | out on the winning side of the ledger. | Johnny555 wrote: | _The credit card companies make so much money that reimbursing | fraudulent transactions is almost a rounding error_ | | The credit card companies (i.e. Visa) don't reimburse fraud, | they leave that to the issuing banks (i.e. Chase, Capital One, | etc.... whoever you got your card from) | anonymousiam wrote: | American Express handles their own fraud cases. Their cards | are generally not issued by banks. I have no association with | them other than being a card member since 1982, but their | customer service is far better than Visa/MC, and yes, you can | get a card from them with no annual fees + perks. | Johnny555 wrote: | _their customer service is far better than Visa /MC_ | | I used to think that (and maybe it was true once), but | haven't found that to be the case, I've had far better | experience from Chase for my Sapphire card. | | My wife recently ran into a problem with a booking through | Amex's own travel service, the hotel said they had a | reservation, but not payment, but we paid for the room at | Amex travel. So we figured no problem, just pay the hotel | directly (their rate was even lower than Amex) and call | Amex to have them remove their charge. | | It took 5 calls over several days to finally talk to | someone who could help, and it still took 3 days for the | charge to be reversed. And this is for a Platinum card. | aidenn0 wrote: | IMO AmEx is still better than most banks, but my Chase | card has definitely had better service in the past few | years. Back in the day Discover had wonderful service, | but I stopped carrying one because too many merchants | wouldn't accept it. | starwind wrote: | I've had problems with AmEx for travel issues but never | problems for return protection or charge backs (except in | one weird case but they fixed it like a year later). I do | travel and dining on my Sapphire and everything else on | my AmEx | sgjohnson wrote: | Yes, but AmEx is vertically integrated, and they have 0 | interest in shitting in their own backyard just to | marginally increase the profit margin. | | Visa/MC can afford to just not care, because there's always | someone else who'll pick up the tab. Which simply is not an | option for AmEx. | selimthegrim wrote: | Does anyone know what AmEx is doing wrt Russia? | nxm wrote: | Unfortunately at a bigger cost to the merchant, which hurts | in case of small businesses | starwind wrote: | AmEx has special rates small businesses can apply for | that keep the credit card transaction fees pretty | competitive | xxpor wrote: | The card is still issued by a bank, the bank is called | American Express National Bank. Someone has to extend the | actual credit. | derefr wrote: | You say that as if it would be a CapEx-laden technological | hurdle for Visa, MasterCard, etc. to implement chip-and-pin. | | But these same companies are already issuing 100% chip-and-pin | (plus tap) cards in every market other than the US. | | If you want to blame anyone, blame the vendors of US ATMs and | POS systems. Without their support, and a willingness to push | through a deprecation/replacement of older hardware, chip-and- | pin cards are pointless, because nothing reads them. (I would | know, as a Canadian with a chip--and-pin card who frequently | visits the US.) | djrogers wrote: | > But these same companies are already issuing 100% chip-and- | pin (plus tap) cards in every market other than the US. | | Citation please? I haven't seen a non-chip-and-pin card | issued here in the US for at least 5 years (probably even | longer), and that includes my tiny local bank.. | briffle wrote: | Yep, the rules were, for chip and pin fraud, the liablility | was no longer on the retailer, but still was for swipe | fraud. So there was a HUGE push from retail customers to | get chip-and-pin in place to cut down on the amount of | chargebacks, etc. | | https://pointofsale.com/chip-card-vs-magnetic-stripe-card/ | anonymousiam wrote: | As recently as three years ago I still had two (ATM/Visa | Debit) cards with no chip. They were both issued by credit | unions. I know this was after the 10/1/2015 "deadline" | (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/what- | october-1-chip-a...), but I think debit cards were given a | later deadline. | aidenn0 wrote: | None of my cards are chip-and-pin, they are chip-and-sign | (i.e. it's via a chip reader, but no PIN is required to | pay) | ksenzee wrote: | Er, how often do you visit? We've had widespread chip-reading | terminals in the US for almost a decade. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | The ones which are widespread are just "chip-and-choice", | where you can use the chip and sign a paper receipt. They | usually come with a magstripe backup...the chip is just | used to read the card number instead of the magstripe. | Pretty worthless. | | True chip-and-pin cards and terminals will generate a | cryptogram that authenticates the individual transaction. | You type in the PIN code, and only then will the terminal | communicate with the EMV microchip in the card and allow | the transaction to complete. | colejohnson66 wrote: | Is there a difference in the user experience? Because | everywhere I use my debit card, I can't take it out | unless I enter my pin first. I'd assume that means it's | actually communicating with the chip. And even then it | takes a few seconds. | | The magstripe is there for old POS systems and the off | chance the chip can't be used (dirty contacts), but the | reader has to allow you to use the strip. And that only | happens after multiple (about 3) failures. | sgjohnson wrote: | Doesn't matter. Chip-and-signature is an EMV compliant | way of authorizing a transaction. | pjerem wrote: | right. We have Visa / Mastercard cards with chip and pin in | France since the 90's | | I always thought that its absence in the US (until pretty | recently) was a cultural thing, not a technical thing. | sbysb wrote: | This must be regional because I have been using a chip-and- | pin card for the last 5 years and I cannot for the life of me | remember the last time I had to physically swipe the card. | Tap support is definitely still spotty but that is something | that is more of a convenience than a security issue | dave5104 wrote: | I also can't remember the last time I had to swipe a card | where I am in the US. I also prefer using Apple Pay, and | tbh, can't remember the last time I had to use my physical | card. | twunde wrote: | It's still relatively common to have to swipe cards at | gas stations in the US when you're buying gas. And a fair | amount of the parking meters may still be on swipe (NYC | meters outside of Manhattan come to mind). The places | that haven't upgraded are ones with a lot of POS stations | to upgrade. | jacobmartin wrote: | Yep these two places are very common to be swipe only. I | have to go a human teller at <massive and famous | hospital> to pay for parking and the cc machine will | still only read swipes. | Shared404 wrote: | Also US based here, and can't remember the last time I had | to swipe. | | There are even places with no swipe, where we can only use | chip. | docflabby wrote: | Nah cos big corps just do what they want with no penalties unless | they piss off enough people that the politicans feel like they | need to make a point.. ...we're well into gangster capitalism now | umeshunni wrote: | This isn't Reddit | micromacrofoot wrote: | This isn't Instagram either, can you clarify what this is | supposed to mean? | xeromal wrote: | Hackernews discourse is supposed to at least take some | thought when making a comment. | | >ah cos big corps just do what they want with no penalties | unless they piss off enough people that the politicans feel | like they need to make a point.. ...we're well into | gangster capitalism now | | This is just a lazy comment. | micromacrofoot wrote: | ah ok, so reddit is known for lazy comments? | deathanatos wrote: | This might not be Reddit, and the parent's point might be | crudely made, but watch the fines companies are awarded, and | put it in terms of revenue, and then scale it to /$60k USD, | to put it terms of how "big" of a fine it would be, from an | average person's pocket; you'll find that many of these fines | are in the sub-dollar range, which to me, makes it completely | fair to dismiss them as any sort of real penalty. | marcosdumay wrote: | That's a very interesting point, but make sure to do it | with profit, and not revenue. Revenue is meaningless on | this context. | | (If it's a sub-dollar fine over revenue, it will probably | be around $20 on profits, what just moves the needle from | the cost of home-made coffee to an airport coffee.) | deathanatos wrote: | I disagree that profit is the right metric when scaling a | fine to a normal person; $60k is the average American's | revenue (not profit -- I'm not even sure how I'd | calculate profit for a human, in a year), so I use the | corresponding amount -- revenue -- when comparing. | | For example, a $10 fine to a company w/ a net loss but | $1B in revenue is clearly not a large fine. | azinman2 wrote: | You say gangster capitalism. I also hear late stage capitalism | and other such modifiers being thrown around a lot. | | When has power ever been limited? Certainly not in any | communist society that's existed so far, nor under feudalism, | or even earlier capitalist societies to my knowledge (did the | Roman's not have this problem?). | nimih wrote: | > When has power ever been limited? | | The question isn't really whether power has been "limited" | (it's unclear to me what that would even mean, honestly), but | the form in which it is constituted and what institutions it | rests with. Like, it's pretty clear that the institutions | which control and manage daily life and politics in 21st | century America are of a much different character than the | ones of the mid-20th century USSR, which are again much | different than, say, 16th century Europe or what have you. | | > did the Roman's not have this problem? | | I'm relatively confident that Roman society did not have to | contend with the accumulation of power by multi-national | corporate bodies and the relative weakening of democratic | institutions that results, nor the degree to which such | corporations are able to leverage 21st century technology to | exert control over individuals' lives. | azinman2 wrote: | Of course the institutions are different. But is the | problem of power any different? If anything, it seems like | there are more ways that power is limited in current | America than 16th century Europe or the USSR. | | Roman was absolutely multinational. I don't think it had | corporations, but rather the entire empire acting as a | single business... which is even worse. | aylons wrote: | You're not completely wrong, it is just a way too crude | of an assessment. | | The way power evolves from ancient times, to middle ages, | to modern times and finally contemporary times, how the | institutions of capitalism are different in form, but not | in essence from the institutions of feudalism and other | themes are a central topic of Marxist theory. | | You seen to agree with him about the root of the | exploitation problem, but GP is also right in that there | are differences on how the institutions operate and how | advanced they are in comparison to those of the past. | These new institutions and techniques and dynamics | require different tools for analysis. | nimih wrote: | > But is the problem of power any different? If anything, | it seems like there are more ways that power is limited | in current America than 16th century Europe or the USSR. | | I certainly think so. I think many of the way in which | modern institutions exert power over individuals are of a | fundamentally different nature compared to, say, slave | economies, or the pre-reformation Catholic church, or the | Aztec empire, or whatever. In particular: | | > If anything, it seems like there are more ways that | power is limited in current America than 16th century | Europe or the USSR. | | I half-agree here. I don't really think "power" is a one- | dimensional scale where you can strictly order societies | in terms of the degree to which it exists. Take, for | instance, the way in which advertising companies are able | to leverage their understanding of psychology and their | fine-grained control over media content to directly shape | our desires and emotions; these are tools which flat out | didn't exist 100 years ago, and represent a mode of | control which seems orthogonal to, say, a monarch | ordering a summary execution of one of their subjects. | These aren't theoretical distinctions, either: | recognizing them can help point us in the right direction | when trying to imagine what a better world looks like, | and is useful for understanding what the available | avenues of resistance and change even are. | 1270018080 wrote: | Maybe it's usually not limited throughout history, but our | current particular flavor of collapse is late stage | capitalism. | azinman2 wrote: | What is the collapse? What is late stage about it? What is | the next stage? These words have always felt so meaningless | to me... | throwawaygh wrote: | The original answers to "late?", "collapse?, and "what's | next?" questions all require recalling that the term | originated in Marxist circles. | | The "late" meant something like the type of capitalism | that emerged out of ww2, characterized primarily by post- | colonial global trade networks. That's quite a bit in the | past for us, but "late" by the standards of an | ideological tradition that started in the 1800s. Even | still, of all your questions, this is the one that has | changed meanings perhaps the least in the last 80 years | or so. That's because a lot of the things that | characterized "late stage capitalism" in the mid 20th | century are still with us, and perhaps intensified. If it | helps, think of "late stage" as "post-colonial + | globalization + financialization". In contrast to the | much more mixed political economies of Europe in the | 1800s. Or, for an even more modern usage, you might read | it as "jet-setting billionaires and the MBAs that manage | their factories and open offices". That's the vibe it's | supposed to give off, I think. | | The "collapse?" and "what's next?" questions sort of have | standard Marxist answers (or, at least, standard | delineated lines of debate within mid-century Marxism, | from what I understand). Careful dispassionate reading | the Communist Manifesto... like, the way you would read | Plato or Hegel or whatever... can give you a general | sense for why "collapse" plays an important role in | Marxist theories and what Marxists generally suspect is | "next". (Namely, alienation of workers and a resulting | violent revolution of the working class against folks who | own/control capital.) | | nb, I'm not really sure that most people using the term | now have much -- if any -- background in Marxist | economics/philosophy. I think for the average user, these | terms function roughly the same way as "critical race | theory" does on the social right. If that makes sense. | | So, the "late" retains real descriptive meaning relative | to 1800s/early 1900s capitalism, but the "collapse" and | "what's next?" have sort of drifted from their original | answers and probably play a more rhetorical than literal | role these days. Like CRT. No one knows what they mean. | They are shibboleths for "change is needed and | inevitable", with no specifics for what or how. | | Hope that helps. | pempem wrote: | ^ this is a great answer. | | The vibe is one where you have :searching for something | accessible: a hunger games approach where society is | driven towards exploitation rather than the sustenance | and growth of the majority. | | In general however, its dangerous to think "its always | been this way". I would argue societally we've been in a | continuous struggle between the two and there are many | moments in the recent past where the US was building a | more egalitarian society than found elsewhere, despite | the rampant incessant racism that existed. | | Public schools and libraries, the rise of unions and | creation of the wknd, stopping child labor, centralized | mailing systems, well managed interstates, growth of home | ownership, social welfare, and for a moment really great | emergency care at hospitals, had moments of real | existence and came together in combinations rarely seen | outside of the USA. | | Assuming things have always been kind of shit and are | likely to just get shittier takes us all off the hook far | too easily imo. | throw10920 wrote: | > Assuming things have always been kind of shit and are | likely to just get shittier takes us all off the hook far | too easily imo. | | I've seen this same mindset that you're pointing out. | | However, I don't think that it is usually used to "let | people off the hook" - most of the time that I've heard | it used (a bunch of times in real life, not just on the | internet), the subtext is "...and so we should replace | the current government with another [highly | authoritarian, non-constitutionally-limited] one that can | fix these issues, either through voting for an extreme | candidate/party, or straight-up violent revolution". | | That might be just my experience, though - I went to a | university with a significant anarcho-communist group in | the student body. | rootusrootus wrote: | > "...and so we should replace the current government | with another [highly authoritarian, non-constitutionally- | limited] one that can fix these issues, either through | voting for an extreme candidate/party, or straight-up | violent revolution". | | The interesting thing to me is that this kind of attitude | has become dominant across the spectrum of political | ideology, in just the space of a few years. A large | number of people, or at least the most vocal ones, now | seem to support an authoritarian extra-constitutional | goverment, they just differ on who they think should be | crushed first. | manigandham wrote: | What exactly are these stages? | throwawaygh wrote: | feudalism -> domestic industrialization and the formation | of capital markets (1700s) -> imperialist competition in | global markets and the height of colonial exploitation | (1800s) -> the fully privatized multinational firm, | global financialization, fully privatized competitors in | global markets (post-ww2 ie late). | claudiulodro wrote: | There is a lot of space to play around with outside of "pure" | communism, feudalism, or ancient capitalism. For example, the | EU seems to be making a strong attempt to balance consumer | protections with corporate-friendliness. | istjohn wrote: | There is a long-standing idea in American political thought | going back to James Madison that the centralization of | capital in too few hands poses a danger for democracy. | | In the Gilded Age, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act | and later created the FTC. | | In 1941, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: "We can | have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of | great wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both." | | Then in the 1970s the Supreme Court nerfed the Sherman Act, | and it's all been downhill from there. | wahnfrieden wrote: | Graeber goes into many examples in his new/last book, Dawn of | Everything, based off cutting edge anthro and archaeological | evidence | sillyquiet wrote: | Right? These are just re-treads of the 'rich, powerful, and | influential face fewer consequences for misdeeds' that has | been a factor of human life since probably forever. Other | economic systems have so far not proven themselves immune to | this. | | I won't go so far as to say that capitalism has more controls | to mitigate this effect, since I think there is a fair point | to be made that we _do_ need to start checking the power of | corporations, and those controls have not so far presented | themselves without assuming government intervention. | azinman2 wrote: | I think the idea behind a robust capitalist society is that | there would be government intervention required, otherwise | you have trust issues. | | In fact, I'd argue capitalism is generally better tuned for | this because it decentralizes power. It's much easier for | the government to regulate someone else than to regulate | itself. | | Now if we could solve campaign finance issues, then | corruption would be dramatically lessened. | gordon_freeman wrote: | or enough people or someone "influential" start to complain on | social media and it gets enough traction. | encryptluks2 wrote: | revscat wrote: | I echo the sibling comment on asking for an explanation as | to why you feel that this is a bad thing. Are you American? | If so, would you rather the government not make their case | to influencers? | encryptluks2 wrote: | Yes I would rather the government not use social media | influencers to try to change public opinion on matters. | They shouldn't be performing PsyOps on their own | citizens. | revscat wrote: | Except that what they were doing is better described as | outreach, and was done openly and in apparent good faith. | Such outreach is especially important given the | prevalence of FSB psyops -- actual psyops -- throughout | the world. | [deleted] | Razengan wrote: | > _The White House is "briefing" TikTok stars about [what | to say about] the war in Ukraine_ | | If that's not propaganda, what is? | Zpalmtree wrote: | but this is good propaganda!!! | [deleted] | cryo78 wrote: | cryo78 wrote: | Why do you believe that everything the government does is | nefarious? If you really believe your government is after | you and everyone else you can try to change it or leave the | country. The one option that doesn't change anything is | posting unrelated comments on the web. How is the | government informing people bad? Are schools bad? | Universities? | encryptluks2 wrote: | cryo78 wrote: | nkozyra wrote: | > So you'd be okay if on Jan 6, Donald Trump used the | emergency broadcast system | | The article you linked doesn't seem to say anything about | using EBS. Trump used every platform available to spread | the notion that the election was rigged, so I'm not | following the whatabout here. | ecf wrote: | boredumb wrote: | cryo78 wrote: | guntars wrote: | The fact that not being able to unsubscribe from marketing | emails counts as gangster capitalism for you.. well.. that must | mean things are pretty good. | hoppyhoppy2 wrote: | it's to opt out of having your purchase history sold, not to | opt out of receiving marketing emails. | | >U.S. cardholders may opt out of Visa using their card | transaction data for VAS, a suite of aggregated data products | in the US. | azinman2 wrote: | I'm guessing you can still write or call them. | [deleted] | robertwiblin wrote: | A description of what you are supposed to be able to opt-out from | on Visa cards is here: | | "In some countries, Visa enhances card transaction data and uses | it to generate anonymised and aggregated consumer spending and | marketing reports and other data products that enable companies | to improve their marketing efforts. These solutions help | companies identify consumers that they can target." | | https://www.visa.co.uk/legal/privacy-policy-opt-out.html | toomuchtodo wrote: | https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/assistant | | https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ | | California residents: https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer- | complaint-against-busine... | | EU Residents: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data- | protection/refo... | | (i cannot say for sure if/what regulatory impacts this might | have; let regulators know, let them figure it out, that's why | they exist) | boatsie wrote: | This is what is so frustrating about companies harming many | people by small amounts. There is no actual recourse for the | individuals. If an individual missed a credit card payment by | mistake, the bank would assuredly charge them a late fee, report | the payment to the credit agencies, etc. But when the company | makes a mistake like this, no penalty, no consequences. It really | should be the other way around--we should extend grace to the | person rather than the company, yet the company basically has | more "rights" in a way than the person. | WaxProlix wrote: | Gah, it's an asymmetric war. I feel like, as programmers, we | should be able to leverage automation for individuals to fight | back smarter where corpos fight harder. | | Might be hard to do without incurring the ire of the state, | whose allegiances will probably not lie with the bearded fat | man spamming Visa's webforms with the contents of their own | emails or whatever. | paxys wrote: | Depends on local laws. And they'll likely say that they have a | phone number you could have called. | pilgrimfff wrote: | It is a violation with a theoretical hefty fine of around $40k | per infraction. But in practice, laws don't apply to companies | like Visa. | | XFINITY's email marketing system has been ignoring opt-outs for | years and nothing has or will ever happen. | labster wrote: | Even the law was enforced, Visa would just get 3.5% of the fine | back immediately. | whathappenedto wrote: | When I tried to get my annual credit report, I find that the | credit agencies constantly have trouble validating my identify | online even though I have one of the simplest reports. A single | same address for decades, no loans, paid off every month. | | They randomly will say that I can't be verified, and I need to | snail mail them copies of a bunch of identifying documents to get | my credit report. I imagine this is a common issue, and somehow | still satisfies their requirement to offer the annual credit | report online. | colejohnson66 wrote: | Why not just view them online? Sites like CreditKarma have | existed for years. And if you don't trust third parties, | Experian let's you view theirs on their own site. The benefit | is being able to see updates more than once a year. CreditKarma | updates every _week._ | whathappenedto wrote: | Yeah that's what I'm trying to do, to view them online. I've | looked up what's going wrong, and quite a few people have | this issue that they can't be verified online. | colejohnson66 wrote: | That's bizarre. Apologies for not understanding. | couchand wrote: | I had a similar experience recently: one agency report came | through fine, one report came through with mysterious issues, | and one just would not ever let me verify without snail mail. | | When it came time for my "real" credit report to be run, | however, there was no problem at all verifying my identity or | getting the accurate information. Weird, huh? | sidewndr46 wrote: | Same here, there is at least one credit union that essentially | treats me as persona non grata when I contact them. | | Somehow each time that I go to do a hard credit check, they are | able to provide a credit score for the lender however. | bprasanna wrote: | Dark patterns all around! Same i experienced with Coinbase after | registering, when i searched for delete account, there is no such | thing! | ShakataGaNai wrote: | https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/managing-my-account/up... | markstos wrote: | IANAL, but if the page is used to opt-out of marketing emails, | then yes, Visa is in violation the US CAN-SPAM act, which | requires promptly processing opt-out requests. | | https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act... | | As long as the opt-out page is broken, they should not be sending | out marketing emails and could be open to a class-action lawsuit | from people they email with no ability to opt-out. | aidenn0 wrote: | IANAL as well; #6 says that no information other than an e-mail | address is required to opt-out, but when I was presented with a | login-page for an unsubscribe, my research indicated that it's | not cut-and-dry that requiring a login is banned by CAN-SPAM. | codingdave wrote: | > with no ability to opt-out. | | That is the key. Does the web page being down mean that there | is no way to opt out? Or is it just more difficult? The page | you linked says: "Give a return email address or another easy | Internet-based way to allow people to communicate their choice | to you." Take note of the "or" in that statement. | | So as long as they check replies within 10 days, they seem to | be OK. If they fail to do so, maybe there is a problem. FWIW, | I'm in agreement that this link being down is not good. But | there is not enough info to hazard even guessing whether this | is a violation of law. | hoppyhoppy2 wrote: | >if the page is used to opt-out of marketing emails | | Though I can't access it, I don't think that's what it's for. I | believe it's for opting out of having your credit-card purchase | history used for marketing purposes (i.e. sold to other | companies, not for Visa itself to send you marketing emails). | | >U.S. cardholders may opt out of Visa using their card | transaction data for VAS, a suite of aggregated data products | in the US. | | (from the first result on | https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&q=visa+marketing+re... | , which points to the same subdomain on visa.com) | JacobThreeThree wrote: | Yeah, this opt-out is clearly not related to the sending of | marketing emails. | LukeShu wrote: | > could be open to a class-action lawsuit from people they | email with no ability to opt-out. | | CAN-SPAM does not grant standing to individuals. The only | recourse individuals have under CAN-SPAM is to report the | violation to the FTC and hope the FTC does something about it. | manquer wrote: | Do individuals have standing against FTC if they don't action | ? | | Lack of FTC action is causing you material harm , or is there | immunity against FTC as well? | charcircuit wrote: | How much harm does a marketing email even do. Waste 0.001 | seconds of your time? | behringer wrote: | If you don't like it perhaps you can petition the | government to get rid of the can spam act? | paskozdilar wrote: | So just because the harm "feels small" to you personally, | that means it's _not really harm_? | charcircuit wrote: | When you go to sue Visa to get them to pay for the harm | they caused you I imagine a $0.01 of harm is not worth | the trouble. | | Edit: I forgot the context. I should have said the FTC. | tobyjsullivan wrote: | From the URL in the root comment: | | > Each separate email in violation of the law is subject | to penalties of up to $46,517 | drdaeman wrote: | A single one - barely any. Although you have to be a | Superman to be able to entirely process it in 1ms. | | At scale, it might take up to a few minutes off your day | and under certain circumstances (heavy spam) even start | contributing to a mental fatigue. It's a minor nuisance | but a nuisance nonetheless. | convolvatron wrote: | don't forget that that the presence of spam makes it | quite a bit more difficult to manage your own email | | regardless, it introduces a non-zero chance that | legitimate email might be misclassified | | it seems like everyone in the ad industry has this | opinion - if you don't like it, just delete it and move | on. but there are thousands of them, and somewhere in | there is that job offer I really need. | georgebarnett wrote: | A single email will waste anywhere between 3-30 seconds | of my life. | | On aggregate, junk email, enabled by disrespecting | marketers and ongoing minimisation such as your comment, | will waste months. | rootusrootus wrote: | > Do individuals have standing against FTC if they don't | action ? | | You can petition them, certainly. Individuals and business | are not able to sue the FTC. | iudqnolq wrote: | It's complicated, but under certain circumstances you can | sue agencies for not doing something. It depends on the | specific laws governing the specific agency and how | you've been harmed by the inaction. Broadly speaking, the | Administrative Procedures Act required agencies to have | procedurally fair processes. If you're concretely harmed | by an agency's inaction and you can show they didn't | follow the correct processes, you can sometimes win. | silicon2401 wrote: | Does anybody have a phone number or other resource that can be | used for opting out of marketing? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-29 23:00 UTC)