If someone tried to judge the content of your character by the contents of your e-mail inbox, how would you fare? Well, it's wouldn't be a pretty picture - if you are subjected to the torrent of unbidden advertising messages that plagues many e-mail users.
For that reason alone, it's worth applauding three national consumer groups' effort to persuade the feds to crack down on deceptive junk mail. After all, commercial e-mailers - purveyors of what's commonly known as spam - must think you're a deadbeat, in hock up to the neck. How else to explain all those "Quick Cash!" messages?
They also figure you haven't dated in years ("Lonely?"), that you're into kinky stuff no family newspaper would mention, and that you're looking to enhance . . . er, "performance" with some snake-oil product. Also: You're a sucker for every get-rich-quick scheme.
The truth, of course, is that you, if typical, are an unwilling recipient of all this junk e-mail. Didn't ask for it; wish it would go away. (OK, maybe not the "absolutely, positively free" week in Cancun offer.)
The consumer coalition - Consumer Action, the Telecommunications Research and Action Center and National Consumers League - feels your pain. They warn correctly that spam threatens to overwhelm inboxes, making e-mail useless as a means to communicate. The groups have asked the Federal Trade Commission to sue spammers whose e-mail pitches are smarmy.
How to do that, while at the same time respecting the free-speech rights of advertisers? The groups reasonably suggest the FTC could set standards for advertising e-mail.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The agency wouldn't - nor should it - ban any specific e-mail pitch. Rather, it would apply truth-in-advertising standards. For instance, e-mailers might have to give authentic return addresses, plus offer the option of being removed from a mailing list. And no e-mail could be sent to someone who had opted out of mailings.
The standards wouldn't stop spammers. But full disclosure might make some advertisers less interested in spam-style campaigns. That could trim the avalanche of messages. (E-mail filtering software is another option. But advertisers tend to find ways to get around such software.)
The FTC's current focus on prosecuting fraudulent spam makes sense. But it should consider setting e-mail standards that could put more manners on the worst spammers.
U-Wire