Things that Go ‘Bump’ in the ‘Net

Consumer Protection, Internet Style: ProFlowers.com

by on August 25, 2009 · 19 comments

Our job here at TLF is generally to talk about policy as opinion leaders, but I tend to be a little campaign-y sometimes. When I see something I don’t like, I’ll use this platform to sound off about it.

It appears that ProFlowers.com engages in a shady practice: handing customers who accept a “special offer” from them to a company that charges people a monthly fee for what appears to be some kind of credit monitoring service. There are write-ups of varying depth and quality here, here, here, and here.

Question: Does the Internet provide enough feedback to suppress this practice? How could the e-commerce ecosystem be changed to alert people about this kind of thing ahead of time?

Being a smart, informed, and aggressive consumer is each person’s responsibility if a free market is to operate well. The alternative is a negative feedback loop in which government authorities protect us, we rely on that protection and stop policing retailers. Thereby we abandon the field of consumer protection to government authorities, who—try as they might—can never do as good a job for us as we can for ourselves.

Should we each run a “scam” search on new online businesses before we deal with them? Maybe so. But that’s a little clunky. With the popularity of Firefox plug-ins for problem solving around here, maybe one of the consumer review/complaint sites could develop a plug-in to provide people reviews of a retailer as they visit the site.

I hope that prompting a conversation around the apparent ProFlowers.com credit card ripoff scam will alert savvy shoppers to a risk of doing business with them. (For the sake of searchability, feel free to blog a little bit yourself about the apparent ProFlowers credit card ripoff scam.) Perhaps this discussion will also generate a systemic fix that preempts shady dealings of the type alleged here.

SHARE: 19 comments

What is “Regulatory Capture”?

by on August 20, 2009 · 12 comments

One of my favorite recurring themes here on TLF is the definitional dispute/clarification. We point out where a term has been used in many different ways and explain the positives and negatives of the various behaviors described by that term. I just did this with privacy.

Of course, it is somewhat pointless to argue about the “true” meaning of a term, but that’s not exactly what’s involved here. Yes, we libertarians can lament when terms that used to describe things we believe in, like “liberal,” “freedom,” “rights,” “choice,” etc., get appropriated by others and terms that used to describe things we don’t believe in, like “coercion,” get ascribed to us. There may be some battles we can win, some terms we can hold onto, but these disputes often end up with two ships passing in the night.

But I’m talking about something a little different. Lots of terms that have, or get, normative connotations – that sound like they describe something good (think “democracy”) or bad (think “terrorism”) – get way overbroadened. Speakers use such terms to describe nearly anything (as long as it’s vaguely related to the original meaning) to which the speaker wants to ascribe the good/bad connotation. We here on TLF catalog those various ways such terms have been used – break the term down – and describe which ways are really good and really bad. As I said, I just did this with privacy. If this were a more lawy, as opposed to techy, blog I’d do it with “activism,” one of my pet peeve words. (Maybe I’ll do it anyway; after all, I posted on the best and worst Supreme Court decisions even though they weren’t especially tech-focused.)

But today, it’s “regulatory capture.” We have discussed it a bit recently, including just tonight. Tim Lee did some great posts on it back in the day. It’s definitely a recurring theme here. We seem to have something fairly specific in mind when we use the term. As Tim put it, it is when “established businesses argue in favor of regulations that they perceive as hurting their competitors (often smaller competitors) more than themselves.” Indeed, I argued with a commenter on one of Wayne’s posts that this definition that makes the most sense given the meanings of the words:

Regulatory capture is when businesses capture regulatory actions and use them as tools, backed by the force of government, for imposing burdens on their competitors. Businesses banding together to oppose government intrusion is not “capture.” Fighting an enemy is not the same as capturing him and using him to do your bidding…

Call Tim’s and my definition the “appropriation” definition. Continue reading →

SHARE: 12 comments

Twitter and Iran – It’s Not About the U.S. Government

by on June 17, 2009 · 8 comments

It’s fascinating to continue watching developments in Iran via Twitter and other social media.

The fact that Twitter delayed a scheduled outage to late-night Tehran time was laudable, but contrary to a growing belief it wasn’t done at the behest of the State Department. It was done at the behest of Twitter users.

Twitter makes that fairly (though imperfectly) clear on its blog, saying, “the State Department does not have access to our decision making process.”

As my Cato Institute colleague Justin Logan notes, events in Iran are not about the United States or U.S. policy. They should not be, or appear to be, directed or aided from Washington, D.C. Any shifts in power in Iran should be produced in Iran for Iranians, with support from the people of the world – not from any outside government.

People are free to speculate that the State Department asked Twitter to deny its involvement precisely to create the necessary appearances, but without good evidence of it, assuming that just reflects a pre-commitment that governments – not people and the businesses that serve them – are the primary forces for good in the world.

SHARE: 8 comments

For Real-Time News from Iran . . .

by on June 15, 2009 · 7 comments

. . . follow @persiankiwi.

SHARE: 7 comments

Nuts & Bolts: A User’s Guide to ISP Network Management

by on February 24, 2009 · 16 comments

This is the third in a series of articles about Internet technologies. The first article was about web cookies. The second article explained the network neutrality debate. This article explains network management systems. The goal of this series is to provide a solid technical foundation for the policy debates that new technologies often trigger. No prior knowledge of the technologies involved is assumed.

There has been lots of talk on blogs recently about Cox Communications’ network management trial. Some see this as another nail in Network Neutrality’s coffin, while many users are just hoping for anything that will make their network connection faster.

As I explained previously, the Network Neutrality debate is best understood as a debate about how to best manage traffic on the Internet.

Those who advocate for network neutrality are actually advocating for legislation that would set strict rules for how ISPs manage traffic. They essentially want to re-classify ISPs as common carriers. Those on the other side of the debate believe that the government is unable to set rules for something that changes as rapidly as the Internet. They want ISPs to have complete freedom to experiment with different business models and believe that anything that approaches real discrimination will be swiftly dealt with by market forces.

But what both sides seem to ignore is that traffic must be managed. Even if every connection and router on the Internet is built to carry ten times the expected capacity, there will be occasional outages. It is foolish to believe that routers will never become overburdened–they already do. Current routers already have a system for prioritizing packets when they get overburdened; they just drop all packets received after their buffers are full. This system is fair, but it’s not optimized.

The network neutrality debate needs to shift to a debate on what should be prioritized and how. One way packets can be prioritized is by the type of data they’re carrying. Applications that require low latency would be prioritized and those that don’t require low latency would not be prioritized.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 16 comments

Nordstrom is Using a U.S. PTO Error to Throw a Small Competitor Under the Bus – and What You Can Do About It

by on February 9, 2009 · 10 comments

I’ve gotten an unusually strong reaction to a TechKnowledge piece that went out today describing how the Nordstrom retail chain is capitalizing on a Patent and Trademark Office error to throw a small business under the bus.

Beckons is an organic yoga and lifestyle clothing business that Nordstrom is trying to force off of a trademark – or out of business. It’s owned by two businesswomen in Colorado who have done everything right to get a trademark, but now may have tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills to defend it. The short article is called U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: FAIL.

I wrote about it because I think it’s an outrage. People have written to me since I published it asking what they can do.

Well, there are a couple of things. The original error is with the PTO, so you can send a copy of the story or a link to your Member of Congress. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is within the jurisdiciation of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

But it’s Nordstrom that has really taken advantage of things. And you don’t have to beg for a politician’s help to bring companies to heel. Here’s a four-step plan for helping Beckons beat Goliath. Do one or all of the items listed below.

  1. Send this page to all your friends. That’s probably the most important thing, because the more people doing the other things on this list, the better.
  2. Write a letter to Nordstrom, telling them that you disapprove of their abuse of the trademark process, and that you won’t be shopping there until they mend their ways. Here’s the address for the president of the company.

    Blake W. Nordstrom, President
    Nordstrom, Inc.
    1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 300
    Seattle, WA 98101

  3. Print this page, copy it, and hand it out at Nordstrom. Or slip copies into the purses they sell – especially any with the “Beckon” label!
  4. If you do yoga, or know anybody who does, shop at Beckons! (Be sure to send this along to friends who do yoga.)

So those are just a few ideas for getting Nordstrom to correct its abuse of the trademark process against this small business. Please feel free to put additional ideas or report on your successes in the comments. (Got a sample letter to Nordstrom, for example?)

A well-functioning marketplace requires assertive consumers – so assert yourself!

SHARE: 10 comments

CONTROVERSIES ROCK ALF 7 – ORGANIZERS PLEDGE TO CARRY ON

by on November 4, 2008 · 7 comments

WASHINGTON – November 4 /TLF News Service/ — The recently announced Alcohol Liberation Front event, Thursday, November 6 from 5:30pm on at Gazuza (1629 Connecticut Ave NW), has already roiled the social media world, but organizers pledge to carry on despite the ALF 7 controversies.

“I ain’t a quitter. People ask me to quit. ‘Stop Tweeting – it’s hurting my eyes,’ they say,” said someone other than Brooke Oberwetter, ALF 7 organizer. “But I ain’t a quitter. I’m keepin’ on keepin’ on. ‘Keepin’ on keepin’ on’? Did I just invent that! Better Tweet it!”

Trading on shares of privately-held Facebook remained suspended on the major markets today after it was revealed that the platform doesn’t permit the names of events to be changed. A typo rendering ALF 7 as ALF 6 on the Facebook event page threatens to bring down the social networking giant.

“Facebook won’t let me change the event name,” roared an enraged Berin Szoka on the Facebook page announcing the event. “I pledge to do everything in my power to destroy Facebook,” he didn’t say.

Meanwhile, one pageview of the Facebook event page displayed an ad that caught TLFer Jim Harper as an outrageous effront to the law of trademark. The image at right, displayed exclusively here on TLF and anywhere someone deems it appropriate, shows a screenshot of an ad that may violate Apple’s rights in the iPod trademark.

“It’s not outrageous. Don’t say that. I just think that calling a shaver the ‘iPod of shaving’ has the potential to cause consumer confusion as to the source of the shaver by suggesting that it’s an Apple product. There are so many mistaken allegations about trademark law – this could be a real trademark violation, and it’s worth pointing out.”

Asked if he would be an expert witness in any case brought by Apple, Harper replied, “You’re not funny, you know. You’re writing this yourself, by yourself, and not interviewing anybody. Oh yeah. You’re being ‘meta’ or something. Whatever. How stupid.”

“Sourpuss” Harper will be one of the attendees at the Alcohol Liberation Front event, Thursday, November 6 from 5:30pm on at Gazuza (1629 Connecticut Ave NW).

SHARE: 7 comments

Twitter Terror

by on October 27, 2008 · 14 comments

I was amused to read that a draft Army intelligence report identified micro-blogging service Twitter as a potential tool for terrorists. On the other hand, it’s regrettable that this terrorism mania persists to foster this kind of report and media attention. There’s no distinct terror threat from Twitter. (Do check out the send-up of an Osama Bin Laden Twitter feed by clicking on the image.)

Sure, it’s possible that terrorists could use Twitter, just like it’s possible with any communications medium. Twitter is right up there with telephones, pen and paper, email, SMS, and smoke signals as a potential tool for terrorism. Each of these media have different properties which make them more or less susceptible to use for wrongdoing — and more or less protective of legitimate privacy for the law-abiding.

Like most common digital communications, Twitter is a pretty weak medium for planning bad things. Copies of every post are distributed far and wide — and all “Tweets” are housed pretty much permanently by a single organization.

If you want to get caught doing something wrong, use Twitter to plan it.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 14 comments

soma fm is cool

by on October 23, 2008 · 10 comments

You should check it out and figure out which channel you like best.

Then you should donate.

Or buy the music you like.

Or buy a t-shirt.

SHARE: 10 comments

ASTRA Urges U.S. House Members to Support Economic Recovery Bill

by on October 2, 2008 · 10 comments

I received the most fascinating email from a group called ASTRA just now. I don’t think I ever even heard of them before, but apparently I’m on their mailing list. ASTRA is the Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America, a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Most people know that non-profits are not allowed to lobby for passage or failure of legislation. So let me now share with you ASTRA’s email to me. It may not be orginated by ASTRA and there could be several innocent explanations, but on the surface this looks like a clear violation of non-profit rules by an over-excited Washington, D.C. supplicant group.

[Update: Cooler heads have it right. Non-profits are allowed to spend some percentage of their funds on lobbying. What I’ve noted here is an unclear violation of non-profit rules. What’s clear is that ASTRA is a big-government supplicant group not to be trusted by proponents of liberty and limited government.]

Continue reading →

SHARE: 10 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →