Why U.S. Robocall Hell Seemingly Never Ends

from the your-car-warranty-has-expired dept

According to the YouMail Robocall Index, there were 3.6 billion U.S. robocalls placed last December, or 115 million robocalls placed every single day. That's 4.8 million calls placed every hour. Despite the periodic grumble, it's wholly bizarre that we've just come to accept the fact that essential communications platforms have been hijacked by conmen, salesmen, and debt collectors, and we're somehow incapable of doing anything about it.

Every 6-12 months or so the federal government comes out with a "new plan to finally tackle robocalls," yet the efforts only frequently make a small dent in the problem. One reason why is that each time the federal government unveils a new plan, it focuses exclusively on scammers. Said plan (and therefore the entire press coverage of said plan) discusses robocalls as if it's only something velour track suit clad dudes in Florida strip malls are engaging in.

Folks like Margot Saunders of the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) has testified before Congress for years about how the biggest robocallers are often legitimate companies, usually selling you services you don't want, or harassing people they know can't pay overdue bills with sometimes hundreds of calls per day. The group notes that as of last month, scammers continued to make up the minority of overall robocalls:

The issue has long been that the marketing and financial industries doesn't want any of this to change, and their influence on Congress, regulators, and policymakers generally means that solutions carve out large loopholes in rules that weaken their effectiveness. And their influence on the courts has consistently eroded what agencies like the FCC can do about much of it. Last April, a Supreme Court ruling (Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid) effectively nullified the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's ban on autodialed calls and texts to cell phones without your consent.

So folks like Saunders keep pointing out while we have a patchwork array of rules that sometimes limit pre-recorded robocalls, the rules governing annoying spam texts or live robocalls are negligible at best:

"A lot of the live calls that are survey calls and debt collection calls to cell phones that are so annoying to people are made with automated dialers,” Saunders said. “There is at the moment no way of controlling those calls unless the called party individually blocks the caller."

The onus is, as it often is in the case of patchy and flimsy U.S. consumer protection, shifted entirely to the consumer to tackle the problem themselves. Especially in a country where Congress struggles to pass any law that might dent the revenues of the nation's biggest and most politically powerful companies (see: net neutrality, privacy, climate, etc.). The lobbying of these companies does more than just weaken court and regulatory oversight. It has resulted in a discourse where robocalls are framed as only a problem involving scammers, not everyday companies (note the heavy presence of telecoms and banks on the list above) that utilize many of the same dodgy tactics as the scammers.

While that broader problem isn't changing anytime soon, one immediate area that could be cracked down on are so-called "gateway providers," who act as a proxy here in the U.S. for robocalls originating overseas:

"Gateway providers, and other originating providers, use Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to transmit voice and text messages over the internet to American landlines and cell phones. As an entry point into the American telephone network for foreign callers, gateway providers and the service providers that accept calls from the gateway providers are in a unique position to arrest the flow of harmful scam calls and illegal robocalls. Many illegal robocalls, especially the worst scam calls, originate overseas and are passed through U.S. gateway providers to complicit intermediary providers and then transmitted to American telephones."

That's not to say there hasn't been progress. Pressure to force wireless carriers to speed up deployment of technology that can help block robocallers who spoof their phone numbers (like SHAKEN/STIR) have netted some results. But we're still drowning in robocalls thanks to loophole-filled rules, inconsistent oversight, a corrupted court system, and a generalized fear of holding large, legitimate robocallers accountable for doing too little to protect their customers. Truly fixing the problem will require doing something U.S. policymakers don't like doing: holding larger companies accountable for failure, and crafting laws that aren't utterly polluted and defanged by lobbyist influence.

Filed Under: fcc, robocalls, scams, spam, tcpa, telemarketers

FCC's 'New' Robocall Plan Isn't Particularly New, Won't Seriously Reduce Robocalls

from the half-measures-and-good-intent dept

So for a long time the FCC has made "fighting robocalls" one of their top priorities. Though with Americans still receiving 132 million Robocalls every single day, you may have noticed that these efforts don't usually have the impact they claim. Headlines about "historic" or "record" FCC robocall fines usually overshadow the agency's pathetic failure to collect on those fines, or the fact that thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings, the agency is boxed in as to which kind of annoying calls and spam texts it can actually police.

Which brings us to last week, when the agency announced yet another major action, this time proposed rule updates that would make it harder on the "gateway" companies (which connected overseas callers to U.S. phone networks) and the smaller phone operators that are the origins of so much of the problem. While the FCC's plan made a lot of headlines, experts were quick to note that most of the improvements were still far from being implemented:

"The plan as-is consists of good ideas, but I don't think it's going to make a big difference in the next couple of years,” Brad Reaves, an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at NC State University told Motherboard.

The proposal is just a proposal for now, and “gateway providers” still aren’t covered by existing rules. Neither are smaller providers with less than 100,000 customers, who’ve been exempted from the rules until 2023. “These two types are the providers that most in the industry believe are serving the robocallers,” he said."

In short, the FCC's big plan for robocalls was really just a plan to consider doing something about robocalls, eventually. To be fair, the FCC is doing something relatively good: it's forcing wireless carriers of all sizes to implement SHAKEN/STIR call authentication tech, which helps combat robocall spoofing. It's also requiring companies that haven't implemented this caller verification tech to track their progress in an FCC Robocall Mitigation Database.

But there are two other reasons that the FCC's well-hyped "solution" to robocalls isn't much of one. For one, the agency is boxed in thanks to a recent Supreme Court Facebook ruling (Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid) that left it hamstrung when it comes to policing spam texts or live-person marketing and scam calls made with an autodialier:

"The rules were, until April 1st of this year, that our cellphones were protected not only from pre-recorded calls, but unwanted texts, and unwanted live calls made by an autodialer,” Saunders said, referring to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). But in April a Supreme Court ruling (Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid) effectively nullified the TCPA’s ban on autodialed calls and texts to cell phones without your consent. So while there are growing but sometimes inconsistent restrictions on pre-recorded robocalls, annoying spam texts and many live calls made with auto dialers remain perfectly legal."

The other major problem is that the existing U.S. rules about robocallers are heavily influenced by the lobbying of numerous industries and telemarketing interests. That has historically resulted in rules and enforcement that fixate exclusively on "scam" callers, while providing big loopholes for "legitimate" telemarketers, spammers, and debt collecting robocalls who can be every bit as unwanted, and who often use the same exact tactics:

"Saunders’ Congressional testimony has highlighted how scammers often comprise the minority of overall robocalls. Many are debt collectors working for banks or telecom providers, who relentlessly harass consumers they know can’t pay their bills. Efforts to rein in those types of calls have often taken a backseat thanks to lobbying pressure."

So yes, some of what the FCC is doing is helping. Authentication tech helped trigger an 8% reduction in overall robocalls in August, though with this kind of cat and mouse game it's not clear if that reduction will last. But the bigger problem remains that the FCC's authority has been boxed in by the Supreme Court, and lobbying has resulted in existing rules often being a little too friendly to equally obnoxious, "legitimate" telemarketers. The reality is that Americans receive 5.5 million robocalls every hour. That's an absolute tidal wave that's not slowing down without significant changes on multiple fronts.

Filed Under: fcc, robocalls, spam, telemarketing

Malwarebytes Conclusion Shows Section 230's Best Feature: Killing Dumb Cases Before They Waste Everyone's Time And Money

from the 230's-procedural-benefits dept

A few years ago, Professor Eric Goldman wrote an important paper, explaining how Section 230 is better than the 1st Amendment. The key part of the argument is that if you treat Section 230 as a rule of civil procedure that kicks out frivolous and wasteful cases quickly, you realize how important it is.

Last month, a federal district court in California dismissed Enigma Software's high profile lawsuit against Malwarebytes. You may have heard about this case. We've been covering it for years, and it even got some (dubious) attention at the Supreme Court, regarding Section 230. Enigma didn't like that Malwarebytes (and others) found Enigma's "SpyHunter" software to be sketchy itself and started suing. Malwarebytes initially won on Section 230 grounds, pointing out that its opinions on what is and what is not spyware is a moderation choice -- in this case protected by Section 230's rarely used (c)(2)'s immunity for content that the provider deems "otherwise objectionable."

Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit reversed that ruling with a very weird opinion that seemed to contradict its own previous precedent. In that ruling, the 9th Circuit carved a new hole in (c)(2) arguing that you could lose 230 protections if there was an argument that the decision to block content (or call something spyware) was done "for anticompetitive reasons." From the ruling:

We hold that the phrase “otherwise objectionable” does not include software that the provider finds objectionable for anticompetitive reasons.

This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court who declined to hear the case, though allowing Justice Clarence Thomas to spew some unfettered unbriefed nonsense about Section 230.

Either way, that sent the case all the way back to the district court... where it was dismissed anyway because calling something spyware is protected opinion.

Like in Asurvio LP, Enigma has not pleaded that Malwarebytes’ alleged labels are verifiably false rather than just subjective opinions. Enigma’s allegations that users view statements categorizing Enigma’s programs and domains as “malicious,” “threats,” and PUPs as statements of fact rather than subjective opinions are not supported by the facts presented. The allegations ignore that users of Malwarebytes are aware of why it opines that a given software program may be a PUP based on Malwarebytes’ disclosed criteria and can choose to quarantine or un-quarantine the detected program.

In other words, after all this nonsense and back and forth over Section 230, years later, Malwarebytes still wins the case because the 1st Amendment protects its opinions.

This is similar to another famous 9th Circuit ruling on 230 from a while back: the Roommates.com case. In that case, the court ruled that Section 230 did not protect Roommates.com for content it places in a pulldown menu (that users used to select roommate preferences), but in the end (many years later) Roommates.com still won the case because the 1st Amendment protected it.

Both of these cases demonstrate two very important things: first, most of what people complain about regarding Section 230 is actually protected by the 1st Amendment, so even if we got rid of Section 230, the 1st Amendment would still enable websites to moderate how they see fit. But, much more importantly, both of those cases demonstrate the procedural benefits of Section 230, in that they enable these kinds of cases to be dismissed quickly and relatively inexpensively, rather than having to go through a years long process. In short, Section 230's civil procedure benefits are that they get frivolous cases tossed out of court much more quickly, and at less expense. And that's important, since so many of these cases are, in some form or another, SLAPP suits, designed to pressure companies not to moderate certain content.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, free speech, malware, moderation, opinion, section 230, spam
Companies: enigma software, malwarebytes

Content Moderation Case Study: Craigslist Implements Phone Verification To Fight Spam; Spammers Fight Back (2008)

from the spam-takes-many-forms dept

Summary: Craigslist -- the online marketplace that pretty much still looks the way it looked when it went live all the way back in 1995 -- has the same problems every online marketplace has: spammers and scammers.

The battle against people seeking to abuse the system has been ongoing since the site's inception, but in 2008, Craigslist implemented a new control measure that temporarily stymied spammers who had found several ways to beat the systems previously employed by the online market.

To mitigate spam and limit the effectiveness of scam operations, Craigslist began requiring a phone number for verification on certain postings. This posed a problem for spammers hoping to engage in mass distribution of their "offerings" since it was unlikely any spammer or scammer would want to have their personal phone tied to their illegitimate (if not actually illegal) operations. When an ad was submitted to Craigslist, the site's automated verification process would call the ad poster to relay a one-time code that would permit the listing to be posted.

That wasn't the end of this new weapon against spammers deployed by Craigslist. If successfully-posted ads were subsequently flagged by other users as spam/scams, the phone number associated with the ad placement would be blocked.

This led to a pitched battle between Craigslist and scammers/spammers who were interested in exploiting the market's reach. A long discussion on a message board frequented by spammers suggested several workarounds to avoid the countermeasures implemented by Craigslist. (To give you some idea how far back this discussion goes, there are recommendations for utilizing pay phones.)

Some suggested using a method favored by drug dealers and other criminal conspirators: burner phones. This was an admittedly-expensive workaround for a business model that requires hundreds of views to attract a few paying victims.

Others suggest buying subscriptions to online spam enablers -- ones that provided users with tons of disposable numbers without the expense of buying new phones every time a phone number was rendered unusable.

Many of these suggestions were rejected by forum members, which suggests spam is only profitable when costs hover near $0. Some members speculated Craigslist was eliminating even more options by rejecting any numbers linked to VoIP services -- the cheapest option for aspiring scammers. No solution appeared to work for everyone, strongly suggesting the phone verification move by Craiglist at least temporarily put a dent in scammers' efforts.

Decisions to be made by Craigslist:

• Should reputation damage control (i.e., preventing being known as a host for scams/spam) be prioritized over customer growth (limiting entry barriers like phone verification requirements)?
• Does Craigslist have the funding and/or personnel to add human moderators to the verification process?
• Should users who are willing to verify their identities be given more credence when reporting ads that may lead to blacklisting of other users?

• Does requiring a phone eliminate users create a new barrier for entry that may push legitimate users to competing services?
• Does blacklisting numbers linked to reported ads limit the spread of spam? Or can it help spammers willing to report other spam artists to solidify their control of the market? 

Craigslist still uses phone verification for certain posts, limiting users to three verification calls a day to each account, which cannot be triggered more than once every five minutes. VoIP numbers are still forbidden to be used for verification calls, which unfortunately impacts some legitimate users with no other phone options.

Originally published to the Trust & Safety Foundation website.

Filed Under: content moderation, scams, spam
Companies: craigslist

Groups Worry New Text Message Spam Filters Aren't Being Built Transparently, Could Harm Legit Outreach Efforts

from the i-don't-trust-your-trust-score dept

As we noted recently, the wireless industry has been developing a new "trust score" to determine who is or isn't worthy of being able to send text message spam. The system is being contemplated after the 2020 election saw no shortage of text messaging spam that wireless subscribers found it difficult -- if not impossible -- to properly opt out of. The problem: a growing roster of groups are worried about the transparency of the process, noting that the Milan-based company (Kaleyra) running this new "Campaign Registry" hasn't been forthcoming or consistent when it comes to details of the system, launching in June.

Text messaging campaigns remain hugely effective, with 90 percent of text messages are read within 3 minutes. But a chorus of groups from Sierra Club to Planned Parenthood are growing increasingly worried that the overall system, dubbed 10DLC, could result in many of them losing their ability to engage in outreach:

"In recent weeks, a coalition of liberal and progressive advocacy groups have mounted a campaign to put the brakes on 10DLC, rejecting the characterization of their messages as spam and raising concerns that the blunt 10DLC rules will hamper one of their most effective organizing tools. The opaque registration and vetting process, the groups warn, could lead to discrimination against smaller organizations with less-established track records, as well as overwhelm them with new and higher fees."

With companies like AT&T at the helm of decision making on the issue, you should be able to understand their concern given AT&T's long, dodgy history. Particularly when it comes to the process being non-transparently hijacked to limit communications on issues not particularly near and dear to AT&T and friends hearts, like labor organizing:

"Though AT&T and T-Mobile claim 10DLC is intended to reduce unwanted text messages, these restrictions in actuality will quash grassroots advocacy, labor union organizing, and progressive movement building,” the letter states. “We strongly urge AT&T and T-Mobile to reconsider the damage that 10DLC will cause. We are also calling on leaders in Washington to exercise your executive and legislative authority to defend citizen engagement and call on AT&T and T-Mobile to reverse these restrictions."

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 is a dated piece of befuddling legislation that's been interpreted to mean that you can't send unsolicited text message spam en masse. But marketers and political campaigns have long wiggled around the restrictions via P2P text message efforts, which still let you send blanket text message campaigns -- just somewhat individually via pre-scripted templates. These efforts were ramped up by the Sanders campaign, and were even more heavily embraced by the Trump campaign.

Ideally you'd like a government agency like the FCC or Congress to transparently develop rules in open collaboration with consumers, stakeholders, and experts adequately represented. Instead, you've got a coalition of private companies with dodgy track records working on non-transparent "trust scores" that could limit the impact and outreach of countless organizations, regardless of party. For example, if the trust score is dictated by arrest records, would that mean activist groups whose members are often arrested at peaceful protests would suddenly find themselves labeled too problematic to verify?

"While the details of the trust scoring system are not well understood, it’s been likened to running a credit score on each group. “They could be looking at things like a group’s personal tax history, members’ criminal histories, they could also be googling to find groups associated with people they deem unsavory,” said Don Calloway, founder of the National Voter Protection Action Fund, which uses peer-to-peer messaging to combat voter suppression. “Grassroots orgs have members who get arrested all the time in peaceful protests."

The fact that many of these groups don't know how this trust score is being calculated just months before launch speaks for itself.

This being the wireless industry, there's also the threat that they could view this entire system as yet another revenue model, unfairly saddling less affluent organizations with fees and surcharges they won't be able to afford. As such, you can see how letting the wireless industry lead the show could result in its two major concerns (avoiding liability, generating revenue) driving most decision making processes. While it's certainly possible many of these worst-case scenarios won't come to pass, given the history of the telecom industry, and the total lack of regulatory oversight at the moment, it's definitely worth keeping an eye on.

Filed Under: political outreach, spam, text messaging, transparency, trust score
Companies: at&t

Wireless Industry Eyes Nontransparent 'Trust Score' To Determine Who Can Market Via Text Message

from the this-could-easily-go-south dept

Though text messaging is starting to look somewhat archaic in the WhatsApp era, it's still the most effective way for political campaigns and nonprofits to reach their target audience, in part because 90 percent of text messages are read within 3 minutes. But the collision between wanting to allow these organizations to market their candidates and campaigns -- and protecting consumers from an ever-steady array of scammers, spoofers, and text messaging spammers -- has proven to be a cumbersome dance of dysfunction.

The latest chapter in this saga: wireless carriers say they're working on a new system that would give each organization looking to send text messages a shiny new trust score. So far wireless carriers aren't saying how this trust score would be determined, but those who don't rank highly enough on the scale won't be able to send text messages en masse. The system is being contemplated after the 2020 election saw no shortage of text messaging spam that wireless subscribers found it difficult -- if not impossible -- to properly opt out of.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 is a dated piece of befuddling legislation that's been interpreted to mean that you can't send unsolicited text message spam en masse. But marketers and political campaigns have long wiggled around the restrictions via P2P text message efforts, which still let you send blanket text message campaigns -- just somewhat individually via pre-scripted templates. These efforts were ramped up by the Sanders campaign, and were even more heavily embraced by the Trump campaign.

Wireless carriers want to make sure customers don't get annoyed and leave, but they also want to ensure they won't be held liable under the TCPA. At the same time, many political organizations are understandably a bit nervous about companies like AT&T determining who is or isn't trustworthy in a way that probably won't be transparent:

"The possible crackdown by AT&T and T-Mobile is causing an uproar among progressive organizers who say the system is ripe for abuse. Organizers say the scores will be based on an undisclosed formula without any real possibility for appeal, raising the prospect for algorithmic bias, and that one third-party vendor handling the trust scores has ties to a major donor to former President Donald Trump."

Eighteen groups, including Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, and the NAACP signed a letter to Democratic lawmakers and the Biden administration asking them to intervene, but there's been no response yet. And there's likely not going to be a response because wireless carriers are stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Consumers are drowning in robocalls and text message spam, and these companies don't want to be held liable for doing too little under the TCPA. At the same time, these organizations are probably right to be nervous about these scores being determined in a nontransparent way.

A new organization dubbed the "Campaign Registry" will be overseeing the new score system. It's a subsidiary of a Milan-based company named Kaleyra. But nonprofit organizers say they've heard absolutely no information on how Campaign Registry will determine scores, despite the fact the system is set to go live just around three months from now:

“I would have extensive questions about what’s going to go into the trust scores,” Cleaver said. “Who’s going to determine the algorithm? What’s going to go into it? What is the process going to be if you want to appeal it?” She said VoteAmerica is already a federally approved nonpartisan charity for tax purposes and that the carriers should work from that basis. “The idea of the telecommunications companies assigning trust scores to registered nonprofits is laughable given their long history of exploiting and mistreating consumers,” she said.

When you look at AT&T's misbehavior track record, you have to think she has a point. But given this is genuinely about reducing the burden on consumers in terms of text message spam, I tend to think this system isn't the worst idea in the world. But that's only if carriers and the Campaign Registry maintain transparency as to how the algorithm is determining trust, and US regulators are ready and willing to step in if the system isn't transparent or is being abused. Given how much political power the companies building the system have, neither of those things are sure bets.

Filed Under: marketing, spam, texting, transparency, trust, trust score
Companies: mobile industry

No, Google Isn't Hiding Elizabeth Warren's Emails To Promote Mayor Pete

from the not-how-it-works dept

Content moderation at scale is impossible. This time, it's email content moderation. This week a new publication called The Markup launched. It's a super smart group of folks who are doing deep data-driven investigative reporting of companies in and around the tech space -- and I'm very excited to see what they do. I was going to write about the project overall and its goals, but instead I'm going to write about one of its first stories, done in partnership with the Guardian, entitled Swinging the Vote?, and which looks at Gmail's filtering system, specifically as it regards political emails from Presidential candidates.

A few years back, Google added the "Promotions" tab to Gmail, as a way of hopefully, automagically sorting not-quite-spam emails, but general promotional emails that you probably don't want cluttering up your inbox. Personally, I don't use it, as I use a different filtering setup entirely that overrides Gmail's defaults. However, for many people it's proven to be quite useful. The reporters at The Markup conducted a worthwhile experiment:

The Markup set up a new Gmail account to find out how the company filters political email from candidates, think tanks, advocacy groups, and nonprofits.

We found that few of the emails we’d signed up to receive —11 percent—made it to the primary inbox, the first one a user sees when opening Gmail and the one the company says is “for the mail you really, really want.”

Half of all emails landed in a tab called “promotions,” which Gmail says is for “deals, offers, and other marketing emails.” Gmail sent another 40 percent to spam.

Very interesting! What was perhaps even more interesting was the chart -- which quickly rocketed around social media -- showing that some candidates had their emails go into the Primary Inbox at a much, much higher rate than others:

You'll notice a few standouts. 63% of Pete Buttigieg's emails made it to the Inbox, as did 47% of Andrew Yang's. Everyone else was much closer to 0% with quite a few -- including both Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden -- at 0%.

The reporters at The Markup also published a companion piece that gives the details of how they went about doing this research and (yes!) they even provide the data and the code on Github. This is a fantastic and transparent way of doing such journalism -- and I applaud them for that.

However, the very framing of the original story itself... is problematic. It's one thing to be open about how you conducted the research. But starting with a title like "Swinging the vote" and highlighting the chart above almost immediately resulted in lots of people on Twitter assuming (or suggesting) that Google was doing this deliberately, and that they were purposely making the decision to tilt the playing field towards Buttigieg. This includes vocal big tech critic Roger McNamee, who declared this was evidence that "Gmail has its thumb in the scale." Another Google critic, who is fond of misleading conspiracy theories about the company, called it "election meddling" and claims that Google was giving certain candidates "special treatment."

Except... that's almost certainly not the case. No one at Google on the Gmail spam team is thinking about promoting one Presidential candidate over another. Instead, this is just yet another example of Masnick's Impossibility Theorem, but applied to email moderation, rather than social media. Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well and will always piss off some people.

Indeed, looking over the data, the most obvious and most likely solution is simply this: Buttigieg and Yang hired competent email marketers who know how to craft emails that are (1) less likely to trigger the algorithm, and (2) less likely to be clicked on as spam by users (an important signal that feeds back into the algorithm). The rest of the candidates... did not. And thus, their emails went to the promotions and spam folder because they had characteristics that are more closely associated with promotions and spam. And, yet, The Markup story doesn't bother to get into any of that -- and thus leaves the speculation wide open, allowing plenty of folks to leap in.

Again, I'm super excited about The Markup as a project and believe it will put out plenty of important and impactful journalism in the days, weeks, months and years to come. I recommend people read over The President's Letter from the site's President Nabiha Syed (a past podcast guest) and Editor's Letter from Julia Angwin -- both of which present a compelling vision of what The Markup will be.

But this story shows how important context is in presenting a story. This is a data driven story -- which is great. But if the necessary context is not provided, especially on a topic so fraught with speculation, people are going to rush in and jump to conclusions. The Markup itself did not directly say that Google was doing this deliberately, but its total failure to suggest why this might be happening, along with a cringe-worthy headline, opened the door for others to jump in and assume as much -- and that's a shame.

Filed Under: andrew yang, content moderation, content moderation at scale, elizabeth warren, email, gmail, pete buttigieg, political emails, promotions, spam
Companies: google