Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Original letter from the senators to the FTC chairman here [PDF]: https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5.6.19_Lette...


sort by: page size:

This is just a letter that someone sent the FTC, it is not the FTC actually doing anything.

To the FTC. It's in the (linked) headline.

Petition you Rep to nudge the FTC into doing their job.


To explain my downvote, you are ascribing a perspective to the collective which doesn't match what many of us think. The letter is of interest because it presents the FTC's perspective on this issue, which is surprisingly nuanced. They are affirming that oversight of business practices is important, even when it comes from non-governmental agencies.

Here is Senator Flake's explanation:

https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/op-ed-f...

He says he just wants to go back to "the FTC’s successful sensitivity-based framework".

Is he wrong? Is it spin?

Jeff Flake is my senator and I honestly like him on so many issues. I'm very confused by this and trying to get to the bottom of it.



The FTC

Very interesting I had not seen this.

Note there are five ftc commissioners. Christine Wilson is one of three republicans. She is unfortunately the one who seems the most trumpian. She misleadingly quotes a filing her own agency made in this op-ed. Because of that, and a few other turns of phrase in here that appear frequently in Qualcomm PR (such as the factually incorrect statement that this case was filed during the Obama administration--it was actually filed under Trump) I'm willing to bet a lot of money Qualcomm wrote this and gave it to her and she signed off on it.


> How hasn’t the FCC shut them down?

Should be FTC, but yeah. This seems like a clear case of an unfair and deceptive trade practice that (literally, physically) injures consumers.


Did you read the first paragraph of the FTC link I posted? I put the quote in the comment. It seems to strongly disagree with you.

> Sorry, www.ftc.gov is down for maintenance. It will be back up shortly.

Here's a Google cached version:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...


As always, it's interesting to read any dissent to what sounds like "obviously a good thing": https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P221202Section5...

There is also an interesting bit of back-and-forth between the dissent and one of the supporting statements: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Section5PolicyS...

I'm still inclined to think it's a good thing. I'm not educated enough on this topic to agree or disagree with any of the commissioners' opinions, but the FTC is clearly interested in sending a signal to the public.

I'm moderately optimistic, although it will be interesting to see what happens after the next presidential election. It's possible that the commissioners are concerned about it, and are trying to make some kind of mark and set precedent before they're all fired and replaced if a Republican (Trump?) takes office in 2024.


"I wonder what the Federal Trade Commission thinks about that claim"

Would be my reply to the email, coupled with my demands.


>So what? ... we need the FTC to take action

Kind of answered your own question there.


> I still can't quite follow.

FTC = bad.

FTC investigates companies for small problem while ignoring other companies that do way worse.

Hope this helps.


And that of the FTC...

I believe this is the report referenced.

ABUSE OF POWER, WASTE OF RESOURCES, AND FEAR: WHAT INTERNAL DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM CAREER EMPLOYEES SHOW ABOUT THE FTC UNDER CHAIR LINA KHAN

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j.....


Press release from the FTC (and no paywall): https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/...
next

Legal | privacy