[VOIPSEC] SPIT=telemarketing over VoIP - do we need a better term? (was Re: Confirmed cases of SPIT)

[dan_york at Mitel.com]

Eric Chen wrote:
> Despite the incidents, I wonder how effective SPIT is from a marketer's 
> point of view.  In a spam email, the advertised website is only one 
> click away, but with SPIT, spammers would have to be more creative using 

> only voice messages.  Simply asking people to write down a URL and 
access 
> later doesn't sound effective.  (Maybe effective for advertising 
> pay-per-call numbers, if they are available on VoIP)

I found this note from Eric fascinating in that it points out a basic 
problem
with the language we are using here.  The term "SPIT" has entered our 
jargon
and we say it is "SPam for Internet Telephony" but yet it actually has 
really
nothing whatsoever to do with the "spam" that we are used to in e-mail.

It does make me wonder how many folks upon hearing the term "SPIT" will 
think that somehow we will now be receiving messages about various 
performance-enhancing products, watches, sons and daughters of deposed 
dictators, better mortgages, and various stocks that are sure to bring 
in millions of dollars.

Yet, to me and others with whom I have discussed this, "SPIT" is simply
the sending over VoIP of all the standard telemarketing calls that we all 
have
been receiving - usually at dinner or other inconvenient times - selling
us potential vacation getaways, insurance, better mortgages, magazine 
subscriptions, soliciting donations for (questionable) charities, or
whatever other products or schemes people think we will buy or fall for.

(And I would be very interested to know if others have different
interpretations.)

In my mind, there's no fundamental difference *to the end user* between
the type of telemarketer calls that interrupt my dinner now over the PSTN
and the type that would occur over my VoIP phone.  Both interrupt my 
dinner
and both are trying to sell me stuff that I probably don't want.  (And 
yes,
you can tell by my attitude that I'm on the US do-not-call list.)

The only difference is on a *technical* end where it is just that much 
easier for the telemarketer to make the calls.  Instead of having to pay
for all the PSTN-connected lines, equipment, etc., and having the time
delays inherent in the PSTN connection sequence, a telemarketer just needs
a big fat pipe and appropriate software.  (And needs there NOT to be 
appropriate identity standards that might prevent their actions.)

Other than that, it's the same unsolicited direct calling we get today.

But it does point out a difference in our language.  At least here in 
North 
America, it seems that we generally use these terms for unsolicited direct 

marketing in various forms:

1. Regular postal mail  -  "junk mail"
2. Phone (PSTN)         -  "telemarketing call" or "telemarketer"
3. E-mail               -  "spam"
4. Instant messaging    -  "SPIM"   (have also seen this just called 
"spam")
5. SMS                  -  ??   (just "spam" or "SMS spam"?[1])
6. VoIP                 -  "SPIT"

Yet (to me, at least) #6 and #2 are essentially the same thing.   Do we 
need to try to use a different term?  (As if the headline writers of the 
world would let us retire a term as great for them as "SPIT"!)  Any 
suggestions?

Comments?  Thoughts?
Dan

[1] Remember that I'm in North America where SMS isn't as big as the rest
of the world... so I don't honestly get exposed to spam over SMS.

-- 
Dan York, CISSP
Dir of IP Technology, Office of the CTO
Mitel Corp.     http://www.mitel.com
dan_york at mitel.com +1-613-592-2122
PGP key (F7E3C3B4) available for 
secure communication