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

Thu Mar 16 11:50:59 CST 2006

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dan_york at Mitel.com [mailto:dan_york at Mitel.com] 
> Sent: March 16, 2006 11:20 AM
> To: Eric Chen
> Cc: voipsec at voipsa.org
> Subject: [VOIPSEC] SPIT=telemarketing over VoIP - do we need 
> a better term? (was Re: Confirmed cases of SPIT)
> 
> 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?

The relevant Monty Python sketch is a must-hear for understanding the
potential uses of the term. It's like an echo, a cacophony, a dripping water
torture. "Lovely Spam, Wonderful Spam (SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM) . . . " and on
it goes. "But I don't like spam" spawns a whole new chorus of "Spam spam
spam spam".

Considering the origin of the term Spam (as applied to unwanted marketing),
I find that it logically applies to any form of in-your-face-and-annoying
type marketing. Heck, I even call TV commercials spam, especially after I've
seen the same one more than once in the same day. I would probably be an
avid TV addict were it not for the fact that the spam drives me away. It's
like waving a can of dog food under my nose when I'm trying to eat lunch.
Turns me off the whole experience.

So even the term SPIT is somewhat irrelevant - it's still spam in my mind,
regardless of the medium. Still, SPIT is such an excellent term that I'd
wager that the media will adopt it. The offense inherent in the term is so
bang-on.

Any word generally joins our vocabulary (and succeeds in becoming part of
the vernacular) based on popularity. I call it all spam, perhaps qualifying
"voice spam" vs. "email spam" vs. "postal spam", and I find that folks know
what I'm talking about. I'm planning on using the term Spam for all of it,
until it becomes clear to me that people do not understand what I mean. I'll
hork a bit of Spit in there every now and then too, just for a little
colour, but Spam just has more meat to it.

Terminology can be useful or not, depending on whether there is consensus on
what it means. Take the term "hacker"; does that describe a criminal? (no,
don't answer that or we'll have a holy war ;-)

Jim

--
Jim Van Meggelen
jim at vanmeggelen.ca
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2177

"A child is the ultimate startup, and I have three. 
This makes me rich."
                    Guy Kawasaki
--

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.4/282 - Release Date: 15/03/2006