FTC: Consumer Privacy Comments Concerning Russ Smith--P954807

consumer-info.org

Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
Room H-159
Sixth Street & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20580

Consumer Privacy 1997 -- Request to Participate, P954807

Second Set of Reply Comments Submitted by Russ Smith

All three sets of FTC Comments are reproduced at
http://consumer.net/FTCprivacy97.htm
http://consumer.net/FTCprivacy97reply.htm
http://consumer.net/FTCprivacy97replya.htm

BACKGROUND

This is a final set of three comments filed on April 15, May 30, and these comments to be filed July 14, 1997. These comments are to clarify some points raised at the hearings and to summarize events since the hearings.

Hearings

The FTC staff working on the hearings seemed well prepared and fully aware of the issues. However, the structure of the hearings work to limit the input of average consumers. The comment period was difficult and arduous requiring six hard hard copies to the FTC's Washington office even though this was a hearing on the Internet. Comments are being accepted via the Internet at Democracy.net, but this was not publicized by the FTC and I expect the response to limited. I did publicize this comment avenue both at my web site [ http://consumer.net ] and via the newsgroups. The Commissioners seemed somewhat informed on the issues. The FTC Chairman did not appear to be involved in the hearings.

The time allotted clearly favored industry representatives. Many members of both industry and consumer groups were named to panels even though they submitted minimal comments. Some openly admitted they did not fully understand the issues. Others discussed somewhat irrelevant points that involved other agendas. Several junk e-mailers were given substantial amounts of time even though they did not submit any comments. While this was going on several interested consumers who wanted to simply attend the hearings were turned away by the guards. Some were later allowed in while others had to sneak in during breaks and found empty seats.

I feel the Commission needs to have a comment period open to the public via e-mail on these issues in addition to the current formal proceedings.

E-Mail Relaying

The issue of e-mail relaying was not fully discussed during the hearings. Commissioner Varney discussed e-mail 'bouncing' from one computer the next making it sound like a random occurrence. However, this 'bouncing' occurs at the network or 'backbone' level. An example message would go from my computer to my Internet Service Provider (ISP) to their 'backbone' provider (say MCI) to the receiver's 'backbone' provider (say Sprint) to his ISP and finally to the receiver's computer. The 'bouncing' occurs within and/or between these 'backbones' and not at the user level.

It is also possible to log into a mail server from anywhere on the Internet. If you are away from home but want to get your e-mail you can log onto your mail server using your password. This is how mail relaying is done. One method is to simply find some user names from a domain by getting some e-mail addresses. The next step is to use a program that checks all words in the dictionary (plus appending them with the numbers 1 through 99) until one works as the password. Relaying to servers overseas (presumably to avoid lawsuits) has drastically increased over the past few months as discussed below. As a result, e-mail server software companies are upgrading their products or are providing intricate instructions to restrict this relaying [such as http://www.software.com's Post.Office product and http://www.sendmail.org ] if their product is to remain competitive. However, if relaying is completely restricted the legitimate user would no longer be able to send e-mail if away from home.

Privacy at Sites

Another issue that was not fully discussed at the hearings was what happens when someone rejects a site's privacy policy. Unless the policy is published with some third party, the user's Internet Protocol (IP) address is still captured by the site in their log file. The subsequent log file analysis is described in my initial comments in the responses to 2.1 et al.

Privacy Policies

Privacy Policy Statement

Welcome to the Riddler Web site. The following summarizes the conditions under which we will use information you may supply us while visiting Riddler.

First off, you should know that you can remove your name, address, and any other information we have for you by contacting us in writing.

Our postal address is:

Interactive Imaginations, Inc.
915 Broadway, Suite 1608
New York, NY 10010

We can also be reached for this purpose via email at removeme@riddler.com. Please be sure to include your user name in the subject line of your email message, or in your postal letter, to help us properly process your removal request.

As is true at all Web sites, our Web server automatically recognizes the domain name from which you contact us. We do not automatically get your email address. Only the domain name is recognized automatically.

We maintain aggregate information on what pages consumers access or visit. This may include user-specific information volunteered by you in response to survey questions we may ask. We also retain address information of those who register at our site, post messages to our bulletin board, communicate with us via email, or post to our chat areas.

The information we collect is used primarily to improve the content of our Web pages and to notify users about updates to our Web site. From time to time, we make the addresses of those who access our site available to other reputable organizations whose products or services we think you might find interesting.

If you supply us with your postal address,you may receive periodic mailings from us with information on new products and services or upcoming events. You may also receive mailings from other reputable companies.

In all instances you can, at your discretion and at any time, have your name put on our do-not-share list by sending email to us at the above address or writing to us at the above address. If you have any questions, please contact us directly at adhelp@riddler.com.

© 1996, 1997 Interactive Imaginations, Inc.

Unfortunately, many companies refuse to develop a simple, understandable policy such as this. This is exemplified by the telemarketing industry's failure to provide a clear written do-not-call policy as required by the FCC rules Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) [47 USC §227, 47 CFR §64.1200(e)(2)(i)]. Two of the pending lawsuits I filed (Bell Atlantic and CompUSA/Warrantech) contain allegations of a failure to provide a clear policy to consumers. Of course, anyone with a telephone can simply try this at home when they get a call and see the results. I bring up these telemarketing examples as they are becoming well documented since the TCPA went into effect in December, 1992. Also see the Congressional TCPA 'Report Card' Reports at http://consumer.net/rptcard1a.htm and http://consumer.net/rptcard2a.htm where Congress gave the telemarketing industry a grade of 'F' and the securities industry a 'C' for their do-not-call policies. Some telemarketers (pp. 4-5 of the telemarketing report) refused to provide a policy to Congressional staff!

Industry Groups

Since the hearings I have attempted to conduct a public inspection of the tax returns of several tax-exempt organizations. Namely, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), The American Telemarketing Association (ATA), and the Interactive Service Association (ISA).

The DMA initially failed to have the information available but agreed to mail it to me. They waited until after the FTC hearings and mailed me their returns with the salary levels of their officers missing. They also failed to include their application for tax-exempt status as requested. The ATA is essentially the same story. The documents were not made available initially (ATA claimed it was not required) and when it was sent, several attachments, including salary information of key employees, was missing. Their tax exempt application was also missing. The ISA will not even return my call to schedule the appointment so I can review the records. Since there is no private right of action under this law I would need to convince the IRS to institute any penalty.

As a side note, another Internet self-regulatory body has emerged. The Intergov (short for Internet Government) and the associated Web Police and Internet Consumer Commission web sites [ http://www.intergov.org ]. This site claims to have 2.3 million members and says it is the 9th biggest site on the Internet. When I questioned this I was kicked out of the organization. When I put up an informational page about the organization [http://consumer.net/Intergovfaq.htm], Intergov put up pages listing me as an Internet crime suspect and placed me on a list of dangerous persons. The list contained two people, an alleged child pornographer (according to Intergov) and I. Even the DMA has not gone as far as listing me as a dangerous person ... as far as I know.

The IEMMC is discussed below.

Junk E-Mail Since the Hearing

During a break in the FTC hearings I asked Mr. Wallace about the so-called Internet E-Mail Marketing Council's (IEMMC) filtering list and why it has not gone into place. Mr. Wallace indicated, in the presence of Martha Landesberg, that it would take another 2 days. Prior to this I discussed the remove registration with Walt Rines (IEMMC spokesperson), sent their 'backbone' provider notice [Apex Global Internet Services (AGIS)], and discussed the matter with an AGIS attorney. I attempted to register the 'russ-smith.com' domain with their remove procedure.

The amount of junk e-mail to this domain has increased. Most of it comes from CyberPromo 'customers'. Others have come from other IEMMC members, including Mr. Rine's company Quantcom. Many of the messages contain IEMMC removal instructions. Much of it is now relayed from servers outside the US. I have contacted some of these foreign providers and they have indicated they did not give CyberPromo's customer's permission to do this. This also violates the IEMMC guidelines.The amount of messages for pornographic material, by percentage, has also increased. Much of it includes a response address to a CyberPromo administered domain.

I finally sent AGIS an offer to send additional messages to the russ-smith.com domain based on their standard of $25,000 [http://www.agis.net/reward.htm]. I discussed the matter with their attorney so they fully understood the offer. They have accepted the offer numerous times.

Mr. Rines, IEMMC spokesman, posted an inflammatory message about me on a newsgroup during the week of the hearings. Other than that I have had no contact. I have not received any response the the complaint I filed against CyberPromotions for violation IEMMC guidelines. This is discussed in my first set of reply comments filed May 30.

CDT Spam Summit

I understand the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) recently held a spam summit. I made requests to both the CDT and the Voter's Telecommunication Watch (VTW) that I participate in the talks proposed by CDT at the hearings. However, I was not notified of the talks and only found out about the meeting after it was over via Internet newsgroups.

I contacted both groups about this. CDT did not have a chance to respond but VTW did. They indicated they only chose people on the specific e-mail panels. They asked if I submitted comments and/or if I testifies. While I did submit lengthy comments and I did testify, I do not understand why I need to explain this to VTW or otherwise seek their approval. Particularly since the comments they submitted themselves were minimal.

The CDT comments, and the testimony provided by Ms. Mulligan at the hearings, were more in-depth but focused on the freedom of speech issue. However, these comments fail to fully address the delineation between the freedom to publish and forced speech and the unauthorized procurement of private equipment to send these messages. According to CDT's own comments: "Many of the Commission's questions regarding 'unsolicited commercial email' seek facts or quantitative data. CDT is unable to provide such information..."

I have again requested that I be permitted to participate in these proceedings.

Respectfully Submitted,

_______________________

Russell Smith

July 14, 1997

Hand Delivered To:

Secretary, Federal Trade Commission
Room H-159, Sixth Street & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C., 20580