Amazing, But True: FTC Doesn't Want To Rush Into National Privacy Standards
from the good-for-them dept
While there are plenty of gov't agencies that seem to rush into any chance to add more regulations that grant them more power, the FTC has a history of being quite reasonable and quite conservative about these things. You may recall that years ago, the FTC was against the idea of CAN-SPAM because it would effectively legalize plenty of spam, with one FTC commissioner noting that spam should be anything that you don't like -- and legislating against that is next to impossible. Specifically, he was worried (correctly, it appears) that in allowing lawmakers to define spam, it has merely opened up more possibilities for spamming.That commissioner (Orson Swindle) is no longer with the FTC, but the Commission seems equally skeptical of any sort of national privacy standards, noting that any set standards would deal with the market we see today, not the markets of tomorrow, and that could create serious unintended consequences. It's so rare these days to see federal agencies not leap forward to try to regulate, and to actually worry about the unintended consequences of regulating too soon, that it's rather refreshing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ftc, privacy, unintended consequences
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
spam regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: spam regulation
Now I know these tubes of yours can be hard to understand but you cant just go dumping a truckload of Bullshit onto them and hope the problem goes away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: spam regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: spam regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: spam regulation
I would argue that Yahoo is not providing the most valuable service. On my Yahoo account, I get 50-100 spam messages a day in my inbox, and I frequently have legitimate messages filtered as spam. On my Gmail account, I get 1-2 per month in my inbox. The spam automatically filters to my spam folder, though even that only gets a few per month. I have never had a legitimate message filtered on Gmail. This may have to do with their purchase of Postini last year.
The fact is, the best way to fight spam is through good spam filters. We can pass all the laws we want, but it isn't going away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: spam regulation
The solution I outlined just above in a previous comment addresses this. Individual email accounts are the ones who get charged, so an infected computer can't be charged unless their actual email account has been compromised (and the email providers would have heuristics to detect this and shut it down temporarily, at least after the first few high-profile people with enormous email bills; another idea would be the email providers capping the amount you are allowed to send unless you provide some human verification).
As for enforcing fees on foreign companies: you don't. However, if they want to send you email, they have to opt-in to the escrow service (or get verified as a legitimate business sender) or else their mails get automatically returned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: spam regulation
A similar idea has been seriously considered by a lot of smart people, but without the nationalistic problems inherent in your idea. Rather than being a corporate-driven thing, it can instead be easily market-driven, and I think eventually something like the following will appear.
Basically, the responsibility has to be on your email provider. You would have a whitelist of email addresses that are allowed to send you mail normally. Any mails from addresses not on your whitelist would be automatically returned with an error message *unless* they deposited one cent (US$0.01) into an escrow account hooked up to you. You can then either approve the message (whitelisting the address and refunding the cent) or spam it (blacklisting the address and keeping the cent). After a certain amount of time has passed the cent is automatically returned, so you don't have escrow accounts sitting around collecting money for long periods of time. If you receive an email from someone not on your whitelist without the automatic deposit, it will automatically return the mail with an error message.
The reason this works even with the tiny, tiny deposit is that spammers start with absolutely miniscule margins. Only a tiny fraction of the emails sent out ever generate a sale, but they still come out on top because they can send out millions of spams per dollar. Note that a lot of spammers have gone out of business in recent years because antispam technology has gotten much better; if you used to successfully plant 1 million emails in inboxes per dollar, but now only 100 thousand of them successfully get through, that's a 90% drop in potential revenue.
A one cent escrow would drop this to 100 emails sent per dollar. Virtually zero spammers can make money with that sort of ratio, and the spam industry as a whole would come crashing down.
This solution, naively implemented, would of course also kill corporate mailings, which aren't necessarily spam (though they can be to individual people). This can be gotten around relatively easily. Just employ a trusted authority to verify that an email address is a real business, similar to what Verisign does for security certificates now. These addresses would be put on a semi-whitelist by cooperating email providers, allowing them to get to your mailbox without the escrow deposit. You would of course still be free to blacklist them if you like, and particular email providers could choose to ignore this list (allowing people to use them if they *really* don't want any corporate email).
If just the top 5 email providers got together and provided this sort of service, the collective weight would force everyone else to adopt it as well, and spam would be a thing of the past.
This same idea can obviously be applied to blog commenting systems as well, and really anything that has a problem with spam. CAPTCHAs are gradually becoming less and less useful as the spammers create smarter bots, and eventually there won't be anything left that (a) is easy for humans to solve but hard for computers and (b) is easy for computers to generate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once this goes we ALL loose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or you could just not regulate anything
Spam's not going to go away, quit trying to make it stop and just get better at managing it.
Cheers,
Kevin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or you could just not regulate anything
Same with inhaling exhaust when walking on the sidewalk - it's not necessary, it's just that nobody wants to spend the money and effort to fix it.
Spam can be solved in the same way, with money and effort. There are actually some very good ways to completely throttle spam that aren't very expensive or difficult, it's just that nobody's bothered to set them up yet, as they need network effects before they become really usable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever helps you sleep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]