Benoit, > Therefore, the sender must be identifiable. If the sender is not > identifiable, the ISP of the sender must provide the identity of the > sender.
On what legal theory is this based on? > Art. 8 Right to information > https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920153/index.html#a8 > <https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19920153/index.html#a8> The best course of action you may find here is to define the provider as the „controller of a data file“, if he will not identify the actual controller to you. At most, you will get the information about when your email address was added to the providers’ database. > Art. 82 Communication of data to identify nuisance calls and unfair > mass advertising > https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/20063267/index.html#a82 > <https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/20063267/index.html#a82> This only applies to telecommunications services providers as defined in ordinance (and the telecommuncations law). OFCOM has a list of all registered telecomuncations services providers. It does *not* apply to anybody else. Yes, this is a gigantic loophole, and I spoke out against it during the consultation process. But you can’t just make up stuff. > Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (unfortunately not > translated by admin.ch) > https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19860391/index.html > <https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19860391/index.html> The unfair competition law (Art 3 lit o and s) is nice, but hardly relevant. A single spam(mer) will usually not pass the threshold of „to threaten the economic well-being“. Yes, another gigantic loophole. Even leaving jurisdiction issues aside, you will have a hard time to legally force a provider to reveal the identity of the spammer. I’m sorry that I don’t have better news. — Matthias
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
