FTC Wants Secret Spam Investigation Powers

PingXao writes "Amidst the various anti-spam efforts underway in Washington, the FTC surprised lawmakers by saying they need to be able to secretly investigate the worst-offending spammers, according to a Washington Post article. I'm generally against government secrecy, but quietly investigating spammers isn't as bad as secret courts and arrests. Is this acceptable, or another mis-step down the slippery slope?"

Comments

well that's all well and good...

[sweeney37]

let's just hope they don't put the spammers on "Double Secret Probation"

Mike

another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

what is there even to ask? why should secret goverment agencies at once become good, just because they go against something the most of you dont like?

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[ePhil_One]

The FTC is not a secret government agency. We know its there.

The NSA is a secretive government agency, but it too is not secret (though they like to pretend)

A secret government agency is like the one SciFi's Invisible man worked for, their budget hidden in the Dept of Fish & Wildlife's budget.

I could name a real secret government agency, but then I'd have to kill you :^)

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[kaisa_sosey]

it seems to be a common "concept" these days that one can fight evil with evil ,-)

it's like cutting your leg to save your finger...

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Rimbo]

Precisely. In fact, the whole point of defending rights is that you can't be selective on whose rights you defend. You have to defend even horrible things, which is why the ACLU is generally reviled -- they are the ones who typically step in when no one else will to defend some of the worst garbage born.

Spammers are basically evil. Yet they must be dealt with through legal means and with respect for the same rights we all ahve.

As another poster already mentioned, the FTC is hardly a "secret government agency." They are not in the habit of doing surveillance. Nor should they get into it. They should need a warrant just like everyone else.

Or at least, like everyone else USED to need... *sigh*

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Jeremy Erwin]

Police departments and the FBI already have the ability to conduct investigations in secret. Police departments are not required to notify a gang of criminals long before raiding them. They are simply required to show a warrant.

Prior to obtaining this warrant, the police may conduct an investigation unbeknownst to their target. They may interview witnesses, collect crime scene evidence, etc, all without neccesarily notifying their target. The FTC, however, notifies targets before commencing formal investigations. Unfortunately, targeted spammers may use this notification to frustrate the investigation, destroy evidence, or otherwise interfere with enforcement activities of the FTC.

If the FBI were given jurisdiction over spam, perhaps investigations could be conducted with a modicum of secrecy. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Instead, the FTC, hampered by bureaucratic rules and procedures, must conduct preliminary investigations in the full light of day.

Secretly investigate?

[ePhil_One]

Is the FTC required to knock on folks door and inform them they are about to start gathering evidence? Why does a spam bill need to be passed for this?

Re:Secretly investigate?

[poofmeisterp]

As it stands now, yes. They are required to notify the subject of investigation.

Re:Secretly investigate?

[DustMagnet]

Does sending an e-mail to "remove@hotmail.com" or whatever fake address is included in the spam count as a good faith effort for notification?

How bout investagating them in the open first?

[Unknown Poltroon]

As near as i can tell, theres very little being done to stop spam from a legal/criminal point. Wht, its not exciting enough unless they can play at being a spy?

Well..

[pdbogen]

This might just be trolling, but...

How can we get all riled up about the one government organization spying on us, and be completely neutral towards (or should that read in favor of?) another government agency spying on someone else, just because that someone does something we don't like?

I hate spam as much as the next guy, but if we want a chance of keeping our privacy private, it has to be unconditional.

Re:Well..

[vladkrupin]

I don't see how in this case FTC can support their claim that they should be able to go beyond what ordinary private citizens are allowed to do. Nothing prevents them from gathering the evidence and not telling the spammer they are doing so. Just like I can watch you and gather evidence against you as long as it does not go beyond what's allowed by law. No secret powers needed. On the other hand, if you already have sufficient evidence, you can get a court warrant on wiretapping, etc - here is a mechanism for you to use some secret surveilance powers - and that's fine.

I think all the secrecy necessary is already provided to them to the maximum extent possible (and arguably even beyond that). Looks like just another government organization trying "ride the wave" of a popular legislation to grab a bit more power (that they don't even need).

For comparison, remember the not-so-old antiterrorist bills that had everything-and-a-kitchen-sink in them. Since the antiterrorist bill is obviously going to pass no matter what, why not cram something totally unrelated (and hard to get passed otherwise) into it? Everyone, from FBI to RIAA tried to put their own little pieces in. Now we have a different popular legislative wave - this time for a righteous case of SPAM fighting.

There will be tons of people who will try to cram privacy-invading clauses and amendments into any legislation under the anti-SPAM banner. Since SPAM is arguably becoming the biggest legislative target after terrorism, it's a good vehicle to drive your little privacy-invading amendments into becoming the law.

Re:Well..

[g_arumilli]

Oh? Show me where it says in the (US) Constitution you are entitled to unconditional privacy?

4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is certainly not unconditional (and I don't believe that's what the previous poster intended with those words), but the key point is that probable cause is required for the issue of any warrant. The FTC, like any other investigative agency, needs a warrant to probe personal files/information. Publicly sent spam, obviously, is open for investigation as it always has been.

Finally, keep in mind the 9th Amendment. The Bill of Rights' purpose is not to enumerate the only rights which we hold, but instead lay out some of those which the government may not trample upon. Just because some are not enumerated does not "deny or disparage" their being "retained by the people."

A little irony anyone?

[dragoncortez]

FTC commissioner Orson Swindle told the lawmakers that spam "has become the weapon of choice for those engaged in fraud and deception."

I wonder if he got that job just on the basis of his name...

secret investigations are commonplace

[Anonymous Coward]

be it by a federal law enforcement or your local police. It's really useful in cases where a subject of the investigation is a flight risk. But - the secret parts dont last long - once someone outside the circle of investigators gets interviewed, the cats out of the bag.

It's the internet

[Transient0]

most of it is public by default and by definition. I may have left my tin-foil hat on by mistake, but asking for the right to hack into the boxes of suspected spammers when all the evidence is sitting in public mail routing logs strikes me as a serious breach of privacy for the general public. Now I have to worry about being a suspected terrorist AND a suspected spammer?

Seriously, most spammers are not organized criminals. I doubt that they have concealed themselves and their activities so well that a few well placed subpoenas can't get at them.

freedom

[ccoder]

I don't think this kind of thing NEEDS to be secret. While spam is annoying, it certianly doens't fall under a heavy enough category in my book (rape, murder, mass murder, etc) to require ANYTHING near secret investigative power...

If we all have the right to face our accuser - NOTHING should get in the way. Nothing short of the threat of further murder, at least in my book.

Freedom is the right to voice your opinion.

Is this anything new?

[WIAKywbfatw]

How is this that different from a cop going under cover to bust a drugs operation or a fraudster?

If they use every dirty trick in the book and think nothing of emailing paedophilic pictures to anybody and everybody, don't spammers deserve the same level of attention as other criminals? Why should they be any different from other people who openly break the law for personal profit?

Journalism 101

[eyegone]

Apparently the reporters at The Washington Post didn't feel the need to even ask why these investigations should be secret.

Woodward and Bernstein would presumably be rolling over in their graves if they were dead.

Explain this...

[c0dedude]

Why should we let them place wiretaps on spammers, who, mind you, at present commit no crime? Why not just make spam a crime and let them get a warrent like any other enforcement agency? It seems, at the least, they should have to go before a judge. To give a commerce regulatory agency spying powers is absurd and smacks of a police state. Let them regulate commerce, but leave spying to law enforcement and national security.

Re:Explain this...

[taernim]

Incorrect. As the article states, this is for Washington, where spam IS illegal if it has fake headers, etc.

So I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to spy on them. The people don't go to court when we sue them and they don't pay up when they lose... so if the government wants to help stop the problem, I'm all for it! (And yes, I'm a Washington citizen too)

Re:Explain this...

[dubiousdave]

FTC's purpose from http://www.ftc.gov

To ensure the smooth operation of our free market system, the FTC enforces federal consumer protection laws that prevent fraud, deception and unfair business practices.

From what they say in the article, it seems that are trying to track down people who are, in fact, committing the crime of fraud. The article also says they are asking for the anti-spam powers to be modelled after the powers they already use to fight fraudulent telemarketers.

If these secret investigative powers are harmful, it seems that it's a little late. They already have them and are simply attempting to apply the same standards to electronic commerce that are applied to telecommerce.

It seems highly unlikely that the FTC will be sending brute squads to our houses, even those of us who send out lots of email pretending to be hot teenage girls. Provided, of course, that in said e-mails you are not trying to sell your used panties as a penile enlargement/cancer treatment tool, particularly if you are actually a fat, balding, middle-aged man.

So what?

[cperciva]

If the police are investigating you for fraud, they're not required to write to you in advance to let you know. As the law stands right now, the FTC *is* required to give notification to anyone they're considering investigating. This proprosed change would simply put the FTC more in line with law enforcement agencies.

That said, I don't think this should be handled by the FTC at all. Rather than having the FTC go after spammers for "misleading advertising", we should have the police go after spammers for fraud and theft of services. Still, given the current regulatory situation, where the FTC seems to have the best chance to shut down spammers, I see nothing wrong with changing the rules which govern the FTC to help them.

Re:Come on people use logic

[sqlrob]

I'm a pragmatist in another way.

Give powers to the government and they WILL be abused.

Repeat after me, trying to keep a straight face:
DMCA will only be used against pirates
RICO will only be used against drug dealers

Empire Building.

[AgTiger]

This is just yet another attempt by a government agency at empire building. SPAM is nowhere NEAR a level of importance or National Security that would require investigations or legal proceedings to be held in secret. Conduct those in the proven existing methods. Very little NEEDS to be kept secret.

Have the representatives of the people once again intentionally forgotten that little fact: they represent the will of the people, and they govern solely at the sufferance and will of the people?

Has anyone checked the watering schedule for the tree of liberty recently?

First they came for the....

[jon787]

First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

-- Alara Rogers

(why did the lameness filter try to block this?)

How is this Privacy?

[oaf357]

The FTC wants more power to stop spammers. GREAT! Let them have it. If the size of my inbox goes down and I don't have to implement as many spam filters then it will be great.

The FTC is involved because the Internet has become a way to trade. The Internet though isn't solely a money venture, it's a library containing a great deal of information (among other things). The only reason this is a "privacy" issue is because of this information. If the sole purpose of the Internet was to make money it might not even be an issue of privacy.

The ability to keep criminal investigations private isn't a new thing. There is no reason that the FTC should have to divulge information about on going investigations regarding spammers. The FTC should have the ability to say, "Yes, we're investigating a number of spammers." and not have to tell Congress and the public who.

The only thing that really concerns me is this:

"The FTC also said Congress should revoke an exemption in the law that restricts its authority over telecommunications firms and other 'common carriers'."

If Congress decides to let the FTC do as it wishes with common carriers that might unknowingly harbor spammers it could be very, very bad for Internet users and ISPs. The FTC should not become the RIAA/MPAA. The FTC should go after the people generating the spam, not the networks the spam traverses.

how do they intend to investigate

[moocat2]

I don't have a problem with secret investigations provided the law is not broken in order to carry it out. For example, if they wish to purchase the advertised service to check whether the claims about it are correct, I see no problem in doing that without informing the person who they are looking into. On the other hand, if they start doing phone or data taps, they had better get a warrant first.

And another question is what happens once the investigation is done. If punishment can be handed down with due process, then that is seriously troubling. But if after the investigation, an open court proceeding is still required, then I don't see this taking us down an Orwellian path.

Secrets lead to abuse

[Weasel Boy]

The problem with secrets is, it makes it too easy for someone with power to screw someone without it. History has shown, over and over again, that secrecy inevitably leads to abuse. Transparency is the key to honesty. The only way to protect the rights of individuals from being trampled is to forbid the government to keep secrets except in matters of extremest urgency. The end does not justify the means.