aubreyturner.org

October 10, 2003

Spam And Telemarketers

Last night when I got home and checked my email I'd gotten a spam from some company calling itself "As Seen On Television", which was sent via servers at Catfish Software using a mailing list. As usual when confronted with spam I investigate the headers to see what address of mine they're sending it to. The address looked like one that I would have created when doing business online, but I could not find any evidence that I'd ever done business with that company. So, I began to suspect that perhaps the spammers were on to my trick of making up names and were trying to take advantage of that.

Even though the email included an "opt-out" link to a web form, I reported them to SpamCop, since I never respond to spam (it only encourages the bastards). When I checked email again this morning I'd gotten an email from Jerry Hilburn, the founder of Catfish Software.

You purchased a product from us long ago. I would be happy to remove you from the list if you would supply me with the footer code which you cutoff in your report. You can goto our unsubscribe which really does remove you permanently from the list. Or you can send me that number and I will send you a copy of your order with the proof that we did do business with you. Or you can keep sending me these notices without the full message body and we can keep going through this process.

Please advise...

Jerry Hilburn - Founder
Catfish Software, Inc.
[phone removed]
I found his tone to be annoying at best. First, there was the assumption that simply because I'd done business with them (if I had actually done so, as I am not convinced that I would have), that I would be receptive to SPAM from them. Then there was the snide comment about not sending the full message body. I know that I entered the ENTIRE message body into SpamCop's reporting form. If he didn't get the whole thing, then perhaps SpamCop is cutting them and only sending the headers.

In any event, I wrote back to him to inform him that I didn't care if I'd done business with them because I would never have given permission to receive this kind of junk. Further, that I'd included the full text of the message in the report, but that I would include the footer of the message since it seemed important to him. I also asked him to tell me exactly what I purchased and when I did so. We'll see if he can make good on his promise. Finally, I told him that all email sent to the address used in the spam would now be sent directly to their list manager address (owning your own domain and having control over the disposition of email aliases is a handy thing when dealing with spammers; they don't like it when spam gets sent back to their contact address).

But all this got me to thinking about the cavalier way a lot of online businesses treat the email addresses of their customers. Most of them seem to think that a single business transaction with them justifies putting me on their email list. A good example of this is Plantronics (who makes telephone headsets). I had ordered an accessory kit for my headset from their website. It turns out that Plantronics farms out fulfillment to a number of other companies. The one that fulfilled my order was based in Kansas. When I got a spam at the Plantronics address from this company in Kansas, it took me a little while to put it together. But once I did I was furious because they had ignored my explict instructions not to be sent emails unrelated to my order (I never, ever, ever allow this kind of email and I always check the "opt-out" box if available). I reported them via SpamCop and set the email address to bounce (although I should have redirected it to their marketing address).

Let me make this clear. My expectation is that if I engage in a transaction with a company that my email address will be used solely for the purposes of fulfilling that transaction (i.e. questions about the order and sending me updates on the status of the order). I will not, do not, and will never give permission to receive marketing emails. This means that as far as I am concerned, absense of the "opt-out" checkbox on a checkout form does not imply consent to receive email. And frankly, I don't give a flying damn if the company thinks otherwise. I'm going to report them to SpamCop, redirect the email back to them, and raise a stink about it. Why? Because to me it's the electronic equivalent of having a salesman running out of the store after you trying to get you to buy unrelated crap after you just completed a sale. I won't put up with that in real life and I won't put up with it online just because it's easy for them to do it. Maybe once a company has earned my trust I might consider what else they can do for me, but not before that and that won't happen based on a single sale.

Telemarketing ties into spam in my mind because they both represent an intrusion into your private space in an attempt to sell you something. I was glad to hear that a higher court has reversed the order against the do-not-call list. While the use of government to enforce such a thing offends my libertarian sensibilities, I don't see it as violating the free speech rights of the telemarketers (although one could probably make a valid argument that Congress has no explicit Constitutional authority to pass such regulation).

We all have the right to speak our minds and say whatever we want. However there is no corresponding right to be heard. Since such a thing would impose a duty on the listener, it cannot be a right. But that appears to me to be exactly what the telemarketers and the spammers want. All I want is to be able to establish the telephonic and email equivalent of a "No Solicitors" sign on my door. As a property owner I have the right to exclude any person I choose from my property, and the "No Soliciting" sign is simply a manifestation of that right. I regard my email account and my phone in a similar manner. They are my property and I control who may enter said property.

With regards to telemarketing, the phone companies missed an opportunity to avoid regulation in this area. They could have used technological means to establish a do-not-call flag on my phone, and required telemarketing companies to check and obey that flag. Further, they could have charged a small monthly fee and turned it into a profit center (like they do with everything else) (and I would be willing to pay a few dollars a month to put up a telephonic "No Solicitors" sign).

The overwhelming popularity of the do-not-call registry and the near-universal loathing that people have for spam should serve as a wake-up call to the "intrusion industry". They have lost the battle for public perception and it's time to admit it and move on. Email is not going to be a viable medium unless it's done through verifiable (and overt) opt-in (i.e. no assumptions and it has to be obvious to the user when and how his address will be used). Opt-out email will just associate the company with spammers in the user's mind, forever tarnishing their reputation (and damaging their bottom line, since I will never do business with a spammer). Opt-out links and "reply to this email to be removed" methods will be ignored, even for truly honest companies because they're operating in an environment filled with unscruplous bastards who have polluted it for everyone. Likewise, telemarketing has been forever tarnished by carefully-scripted high-pressure marketing scams. Even if the product isn't a scam, I make it a point never to do business with a telemarketer.

In the end I think people are sick and tired of being marketed to every single minute of the day. All they want is to be able to reclaim their private spaces, both in their homes and in their electronic inboxes. All I want it to be able to put up my electronic "No Solicitors" sign and to be left alone at home.

But then I'm a curmudgeon who prefers to be left the hell alone anyway.

Update: Well, it turns out that I did purchase something from them. Specifically it was a video that was advertised on TV (one of those stupid funniest home video things--yes, I know...). But I bought it on 12/10/2000! No wonder I couldn't remember them. In his response to me he tried to justify sending the email, claiming it was legal under California code (i.e. because of past business relationship). The only problem with that is that the current site that they're spamvertising bears no directly discernable relationship to the one I originally purchased from. He also said that the order form has an "opt-out" checkbox. If it did back then, I would have checked it. I'm very careful about that sort of thing. I think this was yet another case where they were lax about checking the privacy choices of the customers on their email list. In the end he apologized, so I suppose I should just let the matter drop. He claims that I won't be getting any more email from them. Let's hope so. Of course, if I did, I wouldn't know it, since that address is now redirected to his list operator address...

Posted by Aubrey at October 10, 2003 02:29 PM | TrackBack
Comments
Site Meter