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*

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?

[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?

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..

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.