Quoting Daniel Liston <dliston@sonny.org>:
> Even when a member is "Forced" to be zubscribed via employment policies,
> HR practices, or other organizational requirement, it does not give that
> employer, department, or organization the right to hide the information
> from the member. I agree that we commonly accept these announcements as
> part of our daily lives, but I also view it as an invasion of privacy.
That's nice, dear.
When someone works for me and is using a corporate email system, they don't
have the right to choose whether they are or are not going to receive
marketing department email. Control of which corporate mail they do and do
not receive is not up to them. Since the only method allowed them to
unsubscribe is "resign," that information is hardly hidden from them.
> If we get added to a list simply by the virtue of "having the technology"
> we should also have the moral obligation to get an acknowledgement from
> the member being added to the list, that they realize and accept that this
> will be happening.
Nope.
You are confusing the technology used with one of its uses.
It really is none of the user's business whether the technology we use is an
org chart hard-wired into the MTA, an organizational LDAP server, or an MLM.
They have no need to "accept" anything, and there's nothing for them
to "realize."
> Locking somebody in without hope for escape or parole
> is not the kind of list I want to be a member of.
Fine. Don't work for any corporations that have a way of mailing to their
employees internally.
> But if I can't unzub
> from it, I can surely ignore it via client filters. What has been gained?
> Nothing. What has been lost? Time, morale, bandwidth...
First, probably 98% of the world wouldn't know an email filter if it bit them
on the ass.
Second, the notion that your boss can't mail to you and your co-workers
without notifying you that there's an alias you're on to do so is jerkism of
the highest order. What next -- does he have to tell you he's put you in an
alias in his MUA also?
Third, if I ever (for instance) notified my employees of an emergency meeting
by email, one failed to attend, and he told me he didn't see the mail because
he was being harrassed by someone whose name starts with "R" so he set up a
filter that auto-trashcanned mail from people whose name started with "R,"
well, he can expect consequences.
> Signup cards are an acknowledgement, if I am aware of policy and told I
> will not get or hold a position unless I accept the policy, when I sign
> up I am acknowledging.
Nonsense. A company no more has to tell you they've added you to an
organizational alias than they need to tell you what brand of paper is in the
copiers. And the fact that an MLM is the tool used is irrelevant.
> Simply posting the information obscurely on a
> web page, cafeteria bulletin board, or a printed corporate newletter is
> not.
The point is that "you and your co-workers can be reached by mailing to 'mkt'"
is relevant. "'mkt' is managed by majordomo@mailserver.foo.com, and the
command to unsubscribe is 'unsubscribe mkt', but pretty-please don't use it"
is not.
As for others, such as clients of ours who maintain the mailing list on their
reservations system manually and download it into the MLM every time they're
going to do a mailing, they were told they'd be on a mailing list when they
signed the piece of paper that says they wanted to be on it. The address and
software used to maintain it are irrelevant; as long as each post tells them
how to get off the list -- which is not by using the MLM, because changes
there go away every time the address store is replaced before a mailing -- the
software, commands, etc. are just an annoyance.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
