The BadAds Weblog: October 2003

Courts Make Spammers Pay Up

Online marketers encourage technological over legal solutions to the spam problem, but that's only because they want to be able to game the system and continue flooding the digital pipelines with their dreck.

However, recent victories in court show that outlawing spam does place a juicy target on spammers and clearly demonstrates the merits of banning this invasion of personal property by commercial interests. EarthLink, for example, won a $16 million judgment against a shady character known as the "Buffalo Spammer."

Individuals have also come out victorious in their battles against spam. In September 2003, anti-spam activist Nigel Featherston won a $250,000 judgment in a Washington state court in his case against Charles Childs and Linda Lightfoot, two Ohio-based spammers who do business as Universal Direct, Mega Direct and Ultra-Trim. Washington's anti-spam law, one of the toughest in the nation, says that a spammer can be charged $500 for each message sent to a state resident. Featherston had actually received a whopping 58,000 illegal e-mails, setting a maximum penalty of $29 million, but he asked for far less.

"This judgment sends a signal that people are not going to stand for invasions from spammers," said Featherston in an article on internetnews.com. "Some spammers have this warped idea that their freedom of speech is guaranteed all the way into my hard drive, but it is my firm belief that their rights end at my firewall."

If your state lacks an anti-spam measure, contact your state representatives and senators and provide them with the details of the Washington law. Sure, filters can reduce spam, but why should you be forced to adapt to the intrusive advertising habits of others?

October 8, 2003

PTA Beds the Carbonated Devil, Then Burps in Our Faces

In June 2003, we told you that the National PTA – which dubs itself "the largest volunteer child advocacy organization in the United States" – had added Coca-Cola to its list of "Proud Sponsors," a group that already included Microsoft, Disney, and the NFL as members.

Apparently that deal didn't bring the two organizations as close as they'd like to be. Since then, John H. Downs Jr., Coca-Cola Enterprise's senior vice president for public affairs and its chief lobbyist, has been placed on the PTA's board of directors. In an article in The New York Times, the PTA says that Downs' experience will help the organization with its marketing efforts, but that's small comfort to parents who send their children off to commercial-laden schools every day.

Oh, wait, maybe those schools aren't nearly as commercial-laden as they seem, according to a health and nutrition spokesperson for Coke quoted in the Times article. Says Kari L. Bjorhus, "We do not believe that having vending machines in schools represents a commercial presence in the classroom because the machines aren't in the classroom." Guess we can't argue with that.

Adds Pamela J. Grotz, executive director of the National PTA, "Coca-Cola is sponsoring National PTA's program; PTA is not sponsoring Coca-Cola or promoting Coke. We have a very strong policy on commercialism in schools, and we haven't changed."

If you feel that asking the fox to help guard the henhouse goes against the spirit of the National PTA's "very strong policy on commercialism in schools," we urge you to write and say so.

Linda Hodge, President
National PTA
Phone: 800-307-4782, x 312
Fax: 312-670-6783
E-mail: info@pta.org or l_hodge@pta.org

Those interested in learning the full extent of commercialism in schools are advised to read "No Student Left Unsold," the sixth annual report on schoolhouse commercialism trends. Compiled by Alex Molnar, Professor of Education Policy at Arizon State Unversity, the report covers a frightening number of instances of naming rights for sale, sponsored education materials, and corporate incentive programs. Do you know which of these activities are going on at a school near you?

October 5, 2003

To Call or Not To Call?

Who wants to be free of annoying telemarketing calls? Executives at the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), according to the Hartford Courant, which reports that the home telephone numbers of eleven DMA executives are among the 50 million numbers on the FTC's "do-not-call" list.

Unfortunately for those executives, and the rest of us phone owners weary of telephonic come-ons, the fate of the do-not-call list is uncertain since a judge ruled in late September that the FTC exceeded its authority in establishing the list. In a separate decision, U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham ruled that the list violated the commercial free speech rights of the corporations blocked from making such calls because charities and select other groups were not so prohibited.

Congress took care of the first complaint by passing an emergency amendment, by margins of 412-8 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate, in which it granted the FTC the right to implement the do-not-call list. The FTC is appealing the second decision.

Even President Bush expressed rare support for the rights of the vox populi. While signing the Congressional amendment into law, he said, "While many good people work in the telemarketing industry, the public is understandably losing patience with these unwanted phone calls, unwanted intrusions. And given a choice, Americans prefer not to receive random sales pitches at all hours of the day. And the American people should be free to restrict these calls."

Bravo, Mr. Bush. Now replace the words "phone calls" with "e-mail messages" and sign a similar measure outlawing spam.

While all that was happening, a third federal court allowed the FCC to handle the do-not-call registry itself, despite an emergency request by telemarketers to delay such an action.

On Sunday, September 28, DMA President H. Robert Wientzen announced that the members of his organization have agreed to voluntarily stop calling those on the list. "We will honor the list the best we can," he said. "Although we believe this is an inappropriate role for the government, we don't want to catch the American consumer in our crossfire. We believe we should honor their wishes."

Oh, really, Mr. Wientzen, that's so nice of you to say. How pleased we are that your members will "honor the list the best [they] can" mere days after trying to kill it, that you'll "honor [our] wishes" only after failing to have them overruled by the courts. Your hypocrisy is astounding, your brazenness awe-inspiring, and your sense of what's right illusory.

Doubt what we say? Let's examine parts of a keynote speech from October 2002 that Wientzen delivered at the DMA's 85th Annual Conference & Exhibition:

"In January, the Federal Trade Commission proposed quite a few changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. And while they were at it, the FTC proposed the creation of a national do-not-call registry."

"To top that off, just a couple of weeks ago, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it, too, was going to consider creating its own national no-call system, probably because its jurisdictional reach over telemarketing is greater than the FTC's...."

"Folks, this all looks like the government is saying, 'We've had it! This industry cannot regulate itself!' And let me tell you, if they do regulate our industry, it likely will mean that 30 to 50 million people will, very soon, be on a national do-not-call list, and it will put us on a slippery slope headed toward national do-not-mail and do-not-email lists."

Good heavens, no! Not that, anything but that! Before you know it, you'll be forced to get jobs that don't rely upon bothering people in the privacy of their homes. More from Wientzen:

"A third issue relates to privacy. This one's also been around for a long time. But the Web has rocketed this issue into the stratosphere. As a result, there's been a barrage of negative press for our industry. And where there's press, there's politicians."

"And so there are legislative and regulatory proposals – at every level of government - that look to constrict our industry's access to – and use of - marketing data. In fact, at the state level, more than 1,500 privacy bills – in all 50 states – have been introduced over the past two-year legislative season."

"Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, dozens of bills and resolutions have been introduced. Some would give consumers access to their data. And some would impose a disastrous opt-in model, while others propose opt-out."

"Fortunately, it looks like Congress will adjourn without passing any privacy legislation."

Can you just feel his relief? Phew, no "disastrous opt-in model" passed this year! Better keep those Congressional donations flowing, though, because who knows what wacky laws they'll try to pass next year.

Normally we like to give contact information, but we as individuals have little swing in this fight. Contacting the FCC, FTC or DMA will have little effect. What you can do, though, is sign up for the FTC list to express your disgust with telemarketers side-by-side with millions of other citizens. Call toll-free 888-382-1222 or visit the Web site at www.donotcall.gov. Don't delay; the privacy you save could be your own.

October 1, 2003

Back to the Main Page

Get the BadAds Weblog updates via e-mail! We'll keep you up-to-date on news in intrusive advertising, changes to BadAds.org, and new ways you can fight "ad creep."

You are the
[an error occurred while processing this directive] visitor
to draw the line on
intrusive advertising.

sunny-clams knoll Feel free to reprint
any of the text on
this site - just
include a link to
www.BadAds.org.

- - - - - - - - -
Web design
by NewsJobs.Net
Perl CGI & HTML Code
by LServ