FEC Permits Anonymous SMS Spam

crm114 writes "The Washington Post is running a story about the Federal Election Commission's decision today to waive the requirement that SMS broadcast messages indicate their origin..." And it'll only cost you ten cents to read each one. For what it's worth, you can read the agenda item which describes the issue before the FEC. It's rather interesting because it includes drafts of two possible responses by the FEC, depending on which way the commissioners actually voted at today's meeting. Although the company seeking the opinion suggested alternatives like providing a toll-free phone number in the message (preserving the spirit of the campaign finance disclosure rules), the FEC doesn't appear to have taken them up on it.

Comments

Dear Senator

[deathinc]

Dear Senator Jacka$$,

Thank you for your recent communication to my cellphone. While I appreciate your message, "WNT2BYurVOTE", especially it's efforts at minimizing my time, I would like to refer you to the enclosed copy of my the bill I received from my wireless carrier.

Also enclosed you will find an invoice charging you the $.10 I was charged for the reception of this unsolicited message. While I understand [Insert Political Party Here]'s fundraising isn't what it used to be, I still think this is reprehensible behavior.

Lastly, you'll notice the bill includes a $30,000 handling fee for the disposal of your message.

Thank you for your time, and if you really need to buy votes, please try Florida.

Become your own politcal party.

[Target Drone]

Can't spammers just start their own political party now and send SMS spam without fear of reprisals.

I can hardy wait to start receiving spam from the penis enlargement party.

A problem where user pays

[Albanach]

This is a problem that is exacerbated by the receiving party pays for calls and text messages trap that, as I understand it, only the US has fallen into.

Certainly here in the UK, the calling party pays for calls and text messages and it costs nothing to receive either. As a result, mobile (cellphone) numbers are handed out freely to all and sundry, with mobile phones being used much more conspicuously by everyone aged eight upwards.

While it does not justify spamming, the idea that SMS spamming where the receiving party actually has to pay for the junk is one that wouldn't be tolerated here, and shouldn't be tolerated in the US or anywhere else.

Hrm...

[Wrexen]

Boy, it sure would be a shame of thousands of /.'ers happened to come across the cell phone numbers of the people involved in this, and they were flooded with calls that were billed at their expense...yep, sure would be a shame...

Re:Solutution

[Jippy_]

Hello
There
---
Did you
know
---
that you
can
---
increas
e your
---
income
in
---
only
three
---
weeks
with ........

Oh yeah.. gonna be great...

The Slashdot Summary is somewhat misleading

[guttentag]

The Slashdot summary is somewhat misleading. Anonymous SMS messages are already permitted, but election laws prohibit campaigns from posting messages without proper disclosure. That way there is some accountability in the campaign to inform voters. The FEC's decision simply exempts the SMS medium from the ned for this disclosure, grouping them with buttons, bumper stickers and other mediums that are just too small for disclosure statements to be practical.

I can see why the FEC voted as it did. A standard disclosure statement like:

Paid for by Concerned Citizens to Re-Elect Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

takes up 74 characters, nearly half the 160-character limit. That doesn't leave much room for a message. However, it raises a larger question: is SMS a useful medium for campaign messages to begin with?

You can't fit much of a political message into 160 characters. Those that will fit, like "I Like Ike," are generally only effective if presented by a human being. Seeing a person wear an "I Like Ike" button is a much more powerful message than receiving an anonymous "I Like Ike" message on your phone.

And as the article points out, wireless devices are a personal and private medium for most consumers. They should not be turned into roaming, vibrating billboards, especially since the owners of the devices will be forced to read the advertisements.

Paying for unsolicited SMS

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for ATT Wireless, if you don't think it's right to pay for receiving spam text messages you should sign up. There is no fee for receiving sms or e-mail messages on your tdma or gsm phone like other carriers. I don't know how they expect to mass spam sms customers, we're sure as hell not going to let them use our network for it.

Two reasons

[Goonie]

1. In most of the world, it's much cheaper to send an SMS message than it is to make a call - here in Oz sending an SMS costs you 20c, whereas calls cost a minimum of 40c for a 30-second call (and most plans are more expensive).
2. You can send and receive SMS messages in a noisy environment such as on public transport or at a bar. This is rather useful to the young, urban and single :)

In Australia (and I gather everywhere else where mobiles are popular except the US) SMS is regarded as an essential feature by just about anyone under 30.

At&t prostitute alert!

[ChaosMt]

Anonymous coward indeed! 10 minutes after reading this, the following message was sent to my at&t phone:

"Good news! You can now use your AT&T Wireless phone to make international calls to over 220 countries. Visit [censored] for rates & info"
Sender: 9263
Sent: August 22, 2002 16:32 PT

It COMPLETELY freaked me out!!! Since I ONLY used the pager/sms as an emergency contact and I rarely get paged (unlike the sysadmin days), my first reaction was anexity and concern for my family. I had to stop being productive today due to At&t insisting on forcing their advertising through a service plan I pay for. Which, by the way, it is something I get charged for, and there is a line item on my bill. But that's not the point - we pay for it even if there is no line for it on the bill. Just because it's "included" doesn't mean I am not paying for the service. I find it deeply insulting that I should pay for a service that does not act as it should and actively seeks to dimish the quality of it's service through captive audience techniques.

I am very upset and harmed by At&t's actions and as such, I wouldn't mind hearing from civil litigation and personal injury rats^H^H^H^H^H laywers on how I may persue this matter and seek restitiution for the harm they have caused me:
- personal trauma
- loss of work
- theft of service
- telecom fruad
- bait & switch

Since government action has removed any hope of my ever being able to obtain lawyers, guns or money, I might suggest the slashdot effect be directed at the above sender. :)