Results 1 to 6 of 6
January 9th, 2008, 02:33 PM #1FTC decides to allow Online Ad industry to self-police
Online Ad Industry Groups Take Steps To Self-Police
Friday January 4
The online ad industry dodged a bullet when the Federal Trade Commission proposed that internet marketers and sites self-police instead of imposing its own rules, as had been feared. Both the Interactive Advertising Bureau and the Network Advertising Initiative are working on guidelines designed to obviate the need for government interference in online advertising.
I'm trying to decide whether we should lambast the FTC from not learning anything over the last several years about the behavior of these folks... or to congratulate them for officially giving them all enough rope to go hang themselves in the years to come...
I don't think the FTC is smart enough to regulate Online Advertising yet, so perhaps it's for the best.
In any case, officially, the news is that the FTC told the ad folks to clean it up yourself or get hammered, and the ad groups came back with proposals for how they'd regulate themselves and the FTC, suckers that they are, bought into the self-policing plan...
Kellie, Ben, Eric, Wayne... the government just made sure you've got years of steadily growing work ahead of you... and you've got some documents to analyze that'll be coming from the bigger foxes about how they plan to protect the hen house... the smaller foxes will remain in hiding, unpoliced...
Someone do me a favor and research how the US gov't appoints the FTC leaders, I need to figure out which incumbents to vote the hell out. With identity theft rising like a bad moon, the gov't opted for self policing... usually, self-policing is granted where you first prove that you can effectively police...
One article I read called this decision a Christmas gift for spammers.
Self-policing will keep the honest folks honest. Gov't policing and enforcement would have put teeth into catching bad guys. If you think the bad guys will join these industry organizations and voluntarily follow privacy protocols, you're nuts. They'll be happier that pigs in slop knowing the somewhat decent ad guys everywhere volunteered to have one arm tied behind their back -and- to put themselves under a microscope -and- convinced the gov't that policing isn't needed.
January 10th, 2008, 09:20 AM #2
The FTC is just like every other government agency. It has in this case 5 members, and no more than 3 can be from one political party. Each member's term is 7 years.
According to http://www.voluntarytrade.org/newsit...p?cat_id=2#q26, the current FTC is all Bush appointees. So I guess you know who to be mad at....Jason Rosenbaum
January 10th, 2008, 09:43 AM #3
Dang, what a mess. And not one of the current political candidates has addressed the spam or identity theft issues.
Woe is me. I'm not happy with whomever is running things now at the fed and state* governmental levels and don't see anyone I am happy with (or even encouraged by) for the upcoming presidential election.
(* With the exception that I believe our new governor in Maryland is trying, almost single-handedly in some cases, to do a responsible job.)
January 10th, 2008, 01:45 PM #4
MindSprinter, THANKS for the research! It does say in what you linked that while GW did appoint them, he did so for the ones from the other side of the aisle, on their counsel. So I feel like I'm left without being able to blame their appointor. That same info said they're not clearly part of the executive branch either. I'm beginning to think these things are the problem itself. Political choice aside, one thing votes do for us, is that we get a voice in picking people who make decisions - not so with the FTC. It appears that it's part executive agency, part senate committee oversight and such... I'd prefer an agency that was all of one or the other so I could know better how to express my voice effectively for change.
Not being able to blame someone is one thing, but it is crystal clear that one party has certainly had it's chance on this issue, that's beyond debate.
I don't need an over involved government but when it comes to protecting people from real financial harm, that's in our financial interests globally, I'm not expecting them to come blow my nose for me - I expect them to chase down cybercriminals and shut them down and lock them up. They continue to issue guidance and warnings and have no real enforcement backbone. That's a shame, cuz it costs us billions. We're presently bailing out banks and lenders for bad mortgages they issued, all the FTC did earlier was to issue warnings on deceptive mortgage ads....
We don't need warnings, everyone knows there's bad stuff out there - we need the arm of our gov't, the arm we PAY taxes for that's supposed to protect us collectively, to grow some teeth. I served my country for nearly a decade... I consider a warning, while citizens are knowingly getting hurt, to be dereliction of duty.
When it comes time for me to vote, I'll be looking for consumer advocacy and online security as important issues, and I never thought they needed election year highlighting before. If I read another article about some big company letting someone walk off with my personal data, I'm going to .
My wife's a teacher and our state reported to us last week that her data, including a lot of personal data about my family, was compromised to an unknown extent. Their letter basically tells us to protect ourselves by being vigilantant. WTF kind of crap is that!
How about this state agency works with our federal gov't and the first time this data surfaces, we roll out and jack boot the perps.
Asking everyone to collectively "watch out" isn't a response, it's the politically correct version of protecting themselves from being sued for not informing us that they didn't bother to control our data. It's not proactive, it's lawyerly reactive.
I'd like to get a letter that says... we caught them, your data's been recovered and they're in the pen and we've published their personal data online here for everyone to see and for international data thieves to steal, tit-for-tat. Plus we're serving them stiff green jello and yesterday's lima beans, plus leftovers from the salvation army shelter.
January 10th, 2008, 02:03 PM #5
Somebody here who is passionate about a candidate (I'm not yet), please contact them and share your own views about the FTC and it's affect on our industry, our populace and our economy. This is an area worth their focus - and it seems to be getting missed by the talking heads.
I'd love to see BO talk about it, give me yet another reason to break ranks.
PS - sorry to miz in some politics here, but this thread is really about our online marketing industry and the oversight of our stuff (or lack thereof) and it's other non-affiliate arms as well.
January 11th, 2008, 07:25 AM #6
MODERATOR NOTE: Just a friendly reminder that we're clamping down on political discussion between now and the November elections. You're welcome to discuss political issues related to affiliate marketing, but let's not even have a hint of anything that could ignite political flames.
By Rhia7 in forum Newbie Affiliate FAQs & Helpful ArticlesReplies: 3Last Post: May 4th, 2013, 01:11 PM
By Trust in forum Midnight Cafe'Replies: 7Last Post: November 15th, 2006, 05:51 PM
By Donuts in forum Midnight Cafe'Replies: 0Last Post: October 3rd, 2006, 03:48 PM