The points raised by earlier contributors to this topic are very
interesting while the matter of possible libelous/abusive use is
obviously concerning! I wonder who feels it might be useful for the MLA
to obtain a firm legal opinion ASAP and publish it on the MCG board for
the benefit of our community?

That said, there are several points worth making that relate to the
discussion so far.

Firstly, the concerns raised in Mark Nesbitt's email.

I do not believe the spamming issue need be of great concern, certainly
we have had no experience of an ecard system being used in this way.
Furthermore, if necessary, it can be prevented with simple technical
solutions. On the other hand, the idea of the system being used to send
anonymous messages or messages purporting to be from other people is
obviously more serious.

I understand Mark's concern about implementing an 'unfriendly' user
registration procedure but I think there may be an acceptable
half-way-house in this regard.

Most ecard systems require that the sender enters their own email
address. Given this, a system can easily be configured to mail back to
the sender a link that they would use in order to send their card to
the intended recipient. In this way there's actually no 'registration'
protocol whatsoever to dissuade genuine users from having fun with the
system but there is a 'check' on the sender's address. Of course,
knowing this address might not make it possible to find an abusive user
or guarantee a 'no risk' position for the ecard providing institution
(see below) however it does address the concern raised by Neil and his
contractor. If one wanted to take this notion a step further a system
could even be made that would mail a new card to its creator in order
that they forwards it on to the intended recipient. This. I believe,
might well release the institution from all forms of risk

James Johnson and Nick Poole have focused much more on the legal
aspects of providing an ecard service. Not being a lawyer I have only a
little to contribute to the exchange in this regard but, for what it's
worth, here is a very brief synopsis of my understanding of the
situation:

1) It is considered advisable for service providers to not monitor the
content any systems they offer, as this minimizes their
responsibilities for the content.
2) It is essential for them to ensure that complaints about content can
be easily made and to offer adequate systems to received and
investigated these quickly.
3) If necessary, materials or services should be removed or suspended
quickly pending investigation.
4) To ensure their right to do so, providers must offer clear and
properly written terms and conditions that make users fully aware of
the basis upon which they make use of the service.
5)  Under the current law it seems to be the publication of a libel
that is actionable, (communication to third parties). However it seems
there are moves afoot to extend this to include the retention of
information electronically. This would seem to be an area for serious
concern!

Given these points, a set of terms and disclaimers on the homepage of
the e-Card function and embedded into the signature of the resulting
email would seem to be a good idea (as recommended by Nick Poole). So
too would be the means for recipients to easily report abuses to the
provider and an established management protocol to facilitate a quick
response to such complaints.

All this said, given that there seem to be moves towards extending the
existing defamation laws in relation to electronic communication (point
5 above) a professional legal opinion for our community would seem to
be very welcome.

For readers keen to explore these matters further, a very good web site
offering access to free legal advice can be found on
http://www.out-law.com (registration is required to read the legal
guidance offered).

Nick Tyson
The Regency Town House Heritage Centre and Adaptive Technologies Limited