1
Introduction
In 1965, the California Public Utilities Commission struck down a proposal to
have the local telephone company mark the home telephone numbers of the individuals
that did not wish to be disturbed by solicitation calls, and warn such callers that their
intrusions were unwelcome
1
. Ironically, in January 2002, almost 40 years later, the FTC
announced its intention to create a national “Do Not Call” database allowing consumers
to have their phone number blacked out of telemarketing lists, and be added back in only
with the telephone owner’s “express verifiable authorization”
2
. In commenting on the
FTC’s privacy agenda, Commissioner Orson Swindle drew attention to consumers’
inability to prevent or remedy abusive commercial practices and cited consumers’ right to
be “let alone in their homes.”
3
Concerns with unwanted commercial advertisement are not new. The expansion
of commercial infrastructure after 1930 enabled manufacturers to develop new,
aggressive ways of reaching consumers. The advent of new media, and the development
of sophisticated marketing techniques and surveillance strategies have made it
increasingly easy for advertisers to profile and target desired audiences (Gandy, 1996),
and increasingly difficult for consumers to stem the flow of junk ads. In the words of a
1970 Supreme Court opinion, “…whether measured by pieces or pounds, everyman's
mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does
not know”
4
.
1
Mentioned in (Gale, 1970) on p.115
2
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/01/donotcall.htm
, visited on April 12, 2002
3
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/01/swindletsrstatment.htm
, visited April 12, 2002
4
Rowan v. United States Post Office Department, 397 U.S. 728, 1970, p.736
Page 1 of 25 
Convention