4 edits | reply to eburger68
Re: FTC Spyware Workshop: 1st Impressions Hi All:
Before I commence with my review of Panel 4 of the FTC's Spyware Workshop, let me point out that the FTC has posted a few more comments on its web site (#212-17):
»www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/index.html
This new batch of comments includes a response from PC Pitstop to the submissions from WhenU and Gator.
# 216 PC Pitstop-2 (04/27/04)
»www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/···onse.pdf
PC Pitstop points out that Gator's and WhenU's expressed interest in providing consumers forthright notice of installation (see »www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/···-com.pdf and »www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/···tion.pdf ) is completely undercut by PC Pitstop's research results on (unwitting) users of these software programs (see »www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/···stop.pdf and »www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/···stop.pdf ), who are largely unaware of the software running on their computers.
Also of interest in this small batch is the submission from Pest Patrol, which had two representatives at the FTC's Workshop, including one on Panel 2.
# 213 PestPatrol, Inc. (04/23/04)
»www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/···ment.pdf
Pest Patrol's statement is short (4 pages), but it usefully makes several important points, the most noteworthy of which is a call for consumer protection legislation to buttress or supplement other efforts and solutions:
said by Pest Patrol:
We contend that only a combination of consumer education and protection, disclosure through legislation, and active prosecution will provide the answer needed to address the spyware threat, right now. None of these solutions by themselves is enough, and while we advocate and applaud industry self-regulation, we do not believe that it alone will be speedy enough or dramatic enough to address the spyware problem.
Unfortunately, Pest Patrol wasn't on Panel 4, which could have benefited from hearing a sober assessment of the prospects for "industry self-regulation" and "consumer education."
Panel Four: Industry Responses to Spyware – Industry Best Practices and Working
with the Government
Panelists:
X - Brian Arbogast, Corporate Vice President, Identity, Mobile and Partner Services Group, MSN and Personal Services Division, Microsoft Corporation
X - J. Trevor Hughes, Executive Director, Network Advertising Initiative
X - Chris Kelly, Chief Privacy Officer and General Counsel, Spoke Software
X - Fran Maier, Executive Director & President, TRUSTe
X - Andrew McLaughlin, Senior Policy Counsel, Google
X - Jules Polonetsky, Vice President, Integrity Assurance, AmericaOnline, Inc.
U - John Schwarz, President and Chief Operating Officer, Symantec Corp.
Note: be sure to take a look at the photos of Panel 4 as well as the other other panels at Bill Pytlovany's blog page and Declan McCullagh's site:
Declan McCullagh - FTC Spyware Workshop Photos
»www.mccullagh.org/theme/ftc-spyw···r04.html
Bill Pytlovany's Blog from the Workshop
»www.mysteryware.com/blog.html
Industry Technological Reponses
Although I had anticipated that the discussion on Panel 4 would be dominated by talk of "industry self-regulation" through voluntary "best practices," this panel did address one other important topic: technological responses within the industry itself -- esp. among ISPs and the like -- to "spyware." This discussion topic was clearly connected with some of the points made on Panel 2 regarding the cost of "spyware" to ISPs and OEMs, who shoulder significant and burdensome costs because of the technical support that they provide to end users, their customers. While the technological responses developed and deployed by industry are clearly worth discussion, I am still at a loss to explain why the FTC chose to place the panelists who took up this issue (primarily Arbogast of MSN, Polonetsky of AOL, and Schwarz of Symantec) on Panel 4, which was billed as a panel focusing on "best practices." By contrast, technological responses deployed by industry seem to have been a better fit on Panel 5, which directly addressed technological responses more generally.
Several of the panelists on Panel 4 echoed the complaints of those on Panel 2 in calling attention to the costs of "spyware" to businesses. Most importantly, Brian Arbogast not only reiterated the technical support costs borne by service providers like MSN, but he disclosed that roughly 50% of Windows crashes reported to Microsoft through the automated crash reporting facilities of later versions of Windows are attributable to "spyware" and "adware," confirming what those who work in the trenches every day combating "spyware" already know: that such software severely degrades the functionality and usability of PCs, a problem that goes well beyond any privacy concerns that might be raised by such software. Arbogast also previewed the presentation of Microsoft's Jeffrey Friedberg on Panel 5, who would present a short but useful summary of the problems with the installation process for ActiveX controls -- the key component in "drive-by-downloads" of "spyware" and "adware" -- and the changes that Microsoft is making to that process in Windows XP Service Pack 2, to be released in the very near future.
Google's Andrew McLaughlin also had a useful presentation (see »www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/spywar···hlin.pdf for a PDF version) in which he put a spotlight on what he billed a "Slimware Hall of Shame." McLaughlin gave several graphic examples of unscrupulous "spyware" or "adware" programs -- including CoolWebSearch and C2 Media's Lop.com -- that effectively "hijack" Google's pages and services on users' computers. McLaughlin noted that this not only damages Google's good name and degrades its brand in the market, but that it also generates a not insignificant volume of email from distraught and confused users who have come to rely on Google's search services. As with the comments of a few of the other panelsists, McLaughlin's presentation would have worked better on Panel 2, which addressed more fully the costs to businesses.
Such was also the case with the presentation and comments of Jules Polonetsky from AOL, who echoed the complaints of Dell, MSN, and Austin Hill (Zero Knowledge) regarding the volume of support calls and problems caused by "spyware" and "adware" among AOL's customers. Polonetsky also gave a short overview of the "spyware" protection to be incorporated into AOL's standard software package (see »www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/spywar···tsky.pdf ). Mike Healan notes ( »www.spywareinfo.com/newsletter/a···4/24.php ) that this software is based on Aluria's Spyware Eliminator, a reputable anti-spyware product. This decision by AOL, announced back in January ( »www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy···=printer ), mirrors Earthlink's own efforts to provide its customers with "anti-spyware" software (Earthlink uses Webroot's software) and is an important step in distributing effective tools to hapless internet users who are besieged by unwanted advertising software.
As welcome as these contributions from major online entities are, these companies nonetheless have adopted stances and policies towards the issue of "spyware" that are deeply troubling. All three companies signed the NetCoalition letter opposing the Utah anti-spyware bill ( »www.netcoalition.com/index.asp?T···898DF83} ). In that letter the industry questions bill's prohibition against installing software without notice to the user and without providing a conspicuous, usable uninstallation method. This letter, which mirrors the several statements made by the BSA (Business Software Association, a Microsoft-dominated industry group -- see »www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleas···logy.cfm and »www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/···mony.pdf ), also defends the use of "adware" and "popups" for targeted advertising, raising serious questions about the commitment of these companies to protecting consumers from unwanted and intrusive commercial software and messages. Indeed, Arbogast and McLaughlin both reiterated their companies' opposition to governmental regulation in their remarks on Panel 4 -- a depressing spectacle, given what both had already demonstrated about the nature of this invasive, destructive "spyware" and "adware."
Although the technological solutions discussed and previewed on Panel 4 are important contributions to the fight against "spyware" and "adware," they cannot be regarded as part of a larger industry response to the problem that would be an adequate solution to the complaints of consumers and internet users. At the very least, all of these companies have an uneven track record on consumer privacy, which should come as no surprise given the fact that these companies are in the business themselves of putting advertising before their customers. Thus, while these companies do have incentives to provide their customers with protection against some forms of unwanted advertising software, they are also in a position themselves to benefit from and exploit such software and advertising, putting millions of consumers in the uneasy position of seeking protection from intrusive advertising by relying on firms who have strong incentives to exploit it. That these firms have already gone on the record to defend certain forms of "adware" does nothing to inspire confidence in their ability to represent or defend the interests of their customers.
Indeed, the largest problem with the industry reponses to "spyware" and "adware" is that, coupled with their publicly expressed interest in defending advertising software, they move us closer to an online world in which consumers are utterly dependent on and at the mercy of paternalistic corporate entities who dominate and control every aspect of their online experiences, effectively nullifying the promise of the internet to provide citizens and consumers with an unprecedented level of autonomy in a communications medium. As the consolidation of large media firms into large oligopolies -- which already own most of the largest ISPs, cable providers, DSL providers, and content providers, not to mention phone companies who control large swaths of the hardware backbone of the internet itself -- proceeds at a breakneck pace, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that we are not that very far from an online world that is divided up into several large corporate fiefdoms. These proprietary online empires could set strict limits on the kinds of content or software allowed over their proprietary networks, structure every aspect of their customers' "online experience" to channel consumers into their own e-marketing services, and exploit advertising software themselves to push unwanted commercial content down on users, even as they provide protection against "unapproved"/"unauthorized" advertising software from other properietary networks and entities.
Indeed, as I remarked in a recent post here on DSLR/BBR ( »What's the *motivation* for hijack-ware? ), advertising software has the potential to be enormously attractive to such large online commercial entities because it represents an incredibly powerful means of "pushing" commercial content down on hapless users and establishing control over their "online experience" in order to advance the proprietary interests of corporations:
said by Eric L. Howes:
(This advertising) technology is promising -- at least from the perspective of the advertising community. This technology -- hijackware, spyware, ad-ware, or whatever you choose to call it -- has an enormous potential attraction for advertisers: the ability to put advertising right on users' desktops, to convert their computers into fancy direct marketing machines, and to capture eyeballs in a way no other form of online advertising has yet been able to do.
Remember the rage in the media some years ago over "push" technology? (And this enthusiasm for "push" technology was largely confined to the media -- ordinary actual users hated it.) "Push" technology promised to solve one nasty problem for traditional media folks -- esp. advertisers -- created by the internet: namely, the independence and autonomy of internet users. Commercial advertisers prefer a captive audience with little autonomy. Despite all the blather about responding to consumer demand, they'd rather control a medium where they can "push" content down to users rather than respond to the demands of users -- it's simply much easier and less expensive to do it that way. "Push" technology died a predictable death because users hated it -- they wanted to be in control of their online experience, not let their use of the internet turn into a high-tech version of TV.
In truth, "push" technology hasn't completely died: it went into hibernation or incubation and was reborn as "spyware" or "hijackware" or "ad-ware" -- whatever you prefer to call it. "Hijackware" is merely the latest incarnation of "push" technology. And it is enormously attractive to advertisers. This kind of software technology allows advertisers to grab eyeballs, so to speak, right on the desktop and push unwanted commercial content down on users who have tremendous difficulty escaping it. For advertisers it's a dream come true: the ultimate captive audience. For normal web surfers it's the ultimate nightmare.
As I said, the technology has a bad reputation right now, and many advertisers have stayed away -- for now. But that's changing. At the moment this kind of technology is more prevalent on porn sites and crackz/warez sites. But remember: it is well known that the online porn industry serves as a kind of "test bed" for new technologies and business practices. Technologies and practices that were once the exclusive province of porn sites just a few years ago are now commonplace on the "mainstream" internet. Moreover, as any number of spyware distributors themselves have argued, spyware could very well become an attractive means for large, "mainstream" online entities to push their commercial messages on users, especially given the problems that have plagued the online advertising industry over the past few years.
We're already seeing signs of this growing interest among "mainstream" commercial entities, as I pointed out above. Not only are outfits like WhenU and Claria attracting investors and clients, but very large and respected online entities have gone to bat against the anti-spyware legislation recently introduced into the Utah state legislature and the U.S. House of Representatives. (...) If you read carefully, you'll notice that once you get past the usual nonsense about "stifling innovation" and so forth their real concern becomes quite clear: that such anti-spyware legislation could kill the hijackware advertising market.
Thus, while such online giants would be expected to provide protection against advertising software from other online entities with whom it had no established commercial relationship, these giants would likely see fit to exploit the technology themselves to force their own commercial content down on users caught within the web of their oligopolistic networks. These online giants already see themselves as gatekeepers of sorts, controlling access to attractively large pools of consumers. In such an environment, the distinction that the industry seeks to make between illegitimate "spyware" and legitimate "adware" would simply be reproduced on a much larger level as these online media giants embedded their own preferred and protected forms of advertising software into the software layer of their networks and took steps to shield their captive customers from competing, external commercial messages. As I concluded in that earlier post:
said by Eric L. Howes:
At the risk of sounding alarmist, I would say that we stand on the threshold of a potentially enormous change in the way normal folks use the internet and the kind of autonomy they have -- the amount of control they can exert over their online experience. There are powerful entities who would prefer to turn the free, open internet into one vast corporate playground -- a high tech version of TV -- and "hijackware"/"spyware"/"adware" could very well be one of the technologies that allows them to realize their radical agenda.
We are not there yet, but the panelists on Panel 4 who discussed the technologies being deployed by large online businesses against "spyware" and "adware" did almost nothing to inspire confidence in their companies' larger, long-term commitment to protecting consumers from invasive advertising and marketing.
"Industry Self-Regulation"
The main focus on Panel 4 was not technological responses from industry, however, but rather "industry self-regulation" through the creation of "best practices" or standards that would enable businesses to interact with internet users and consumers in an ethical manner. As I noted earlier, this is the FTC's own preferred method for addressing the problem of "spyware." Although I've already expressed my contempt for such a concept in numerous other places -- including the first post in this thread where I disparaged it as "oxymoronic doublespeak at its bureaucratic finest" -- the idea of "industry self-regulation" deserves a few more words to help readers understand just what this term actually represents.
All of the panelists on Panel 4 expressed strong reservations about the potential effects of governmental regulation, recommending an industry effort to craft a set of "best practices" as a preferable alternative to legislation and governmental intrusion into the marketplace. Their comments echoed those of earlier panels, esp. Panel 1, which was similarly dominated by industry representatives and apologists. The most vocal supporters of "industry self-regulation" on Panel 4, however, were J. Trevor Hughes of the Network Advertising Initiative -- an industry front group at forefront of industry public relations initiatives to head off governmental oversight and regulation of the advertising industry ( »www.networkadvertising.org/ ) -- and Fran Maier of TRUSTe ( »www.truste.org/ ), the organization whose third-party trustmark initiative was loudly hailed a few years ago as the solution to privacy problems on the internet but whose toothless audit program has largely served as a public relations front for industry exploitation of consumer privacy (see »www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,···,00.html ; »www.msu.edu/~larose/es2003post.htm ; and »www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/priv-···uarantee ).
What was remarkable about the discussion of "industry self-regulation" on Panel 4 was its utterly vaporous quality, even allowing for the thin and sorry history of co-opted public policy and corporate malfeasance on which the discussion necessarily had to build. The several enthusiasts for "industry self-regulation" largely repeated the term "best practices" over and over, breathlessly exclaiming over its wonderous potential for facilitating "consumer choice" and avoiding the evils of governmental regulation. What none of them did, however, is suggest what these "best practices" might look like, what they would do, or who would be following them. Nor was it explained what enforcement mechanisms might be put in place to compel compliance, though presumably Truste or some similar initiative might play some role.
Indeed, one of the industry reps on the panel remarked that "best practices" would necessarily have to be pluralistic and flexible -- that there could be no single set of "best practices" because we couldn't impose inflexible solutions on corporations. That kind of talk should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that "best practices" are simply not intended to set high standards for corporate behavior, but rather to allow corporations to make them into whatever happens to be convenient.
In one of the more nauseating moments of the afternoon, FTC Commissioner Mozelle Thompson quipped that the FTC was happy to hear the views of the large companies represented on the panel because they were truly the "elected" representatives of consumers. The corporate reps smiled at this bit of bureaucratic groveling before business interests, as Thompson was in fact chirpily parotting one of Corporate America's most cherished and noxious propaganda lines -- namely that the market is equivalent to democracy, and that the public, democratic institutions in which citizens actually participate (or are supposed to participate) are comparatively illegitimate. On this view, America is a democracy of consumers -- one dollar, one vote -- rather than a democracy of citizens.
Despite the vacuous discussion of "industry self-regulation" on this panel, we actually do have a good idea of what it means based on the history of earlier industry efforts at establishing "best practices." Industry self-regulation largely means that the industry will launch a massive public relations campaign to convince users that its software is not objectionable. The more massive the public relations campaign, the more successful it will be judged to be. This is completely consistent with Commissioner Swindle's estimation of the success of earlier "industry self-regulation" efforts. In his video-taped remarks shown before Panel 2 in the morning ( »www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/spywar···ndle.pdf ), Swindle noted:
said by Commissioner Swindle:
The debate that has ensued about spyware reminds me of the early dialogue we had about privacy policies, that was filled with a lot of emotion and calls for regulation. As a result of a continuing and energetic dialogue between industry, government, and consumer groups, industry responded to the public’s demand for greater disclosure and better privacy notices — without legislation. Today, almost 100% of the most frequently visited websites offer some form of privacy notice.
Anyone who is familiar with corporate "privacy policies" will know that these policies have almost nothing to do with regulating actual business practices -- they are merely public relations methods for companies to paint big smiley faces over their privacy-invasive practices ( »www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/priv-pol.htm#that ).
Notice that on Swindle's account, the mere posting of privacy policies counts as success and proves that a solution to earlier online privacy problems was in fact reached. It does not matter what those privacy policies say or what the behavior of the companies who post them happens to be. In this bizarre world, the public relations campaign is itself evidence of its own success.
If this industry fantasy of "self-regulation" is allowed to preempt strong governmental action to protect consumers, much the same will happen on the spyware issue. It will not matter how many people's computers are being hijacked, how many desktops are trashed with unwanted advertising, or how invasive corporate data gathering becomes -- it will only matter that the industry posts "consumer-friendly" notices on its web sites and in its license agreements to say in so many words: "We're not spyware, we're adware." (See »www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/priv-···#example for a comparative lesson in what weak protections current corporate privacy policies provide.)
Some would counter that earlier self-regulation initiatives were not just "public relations" campaigns, but were actually substantive efforts to change the privacy landscape by providing improved notice and disclosure, which are important parts of the four Fair Information Practices. But these privacy policies and related efforts simply cannot be regarded as substantive efforts to provide meaningful notice and choice because:
* these privacy policies almost always give the companies an "out" by allowing them to revise them without notice or penalty, rendering these documents well nigh worthless on an informational level;
* like so many of the EULAs used by advertising software companies, these privacy policies often consist of slippery, unreadable legalese designed to bury unpleasant information beneath a mountain of fine print;
* there is no strong monitoring to provide consumers with reliable information about the actual privacy practices of businesses, thus denying consumers the ability to make truly informed choices;
* there are no strong enforcement mechanisms to give potential corprorate offenders effective incentives to abide by their stated privacy practices instead of merely hyping them in an effort to persuade consumers to consent to their invasive software and services.
And indeed we have plenty of examples where companies have in fact: 1) revised their privacy policies when they became too inconvenient; 2) broken their privacy policies with no substantial penalty ( »www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/priv-pol.htm#that ). In this kind of environment those privacy policies DO NOT serve as adequate notice and disclosure because no consumer could ever be expected to seriously trust the information provided in those policies and make decisions upon them. They are nebulous, and function more as public relations efforts than anything else.
"Industry self-regulation" and "best practices" would almost certainly be just more of the same.
"Consumer Education"
Although billed as one of the topics for Panel 6, "consumer education" was an important part of the discussion on Panel 4 as well, because "consumer education" and "industry self-regulation" go hand in hand. Both are billed as means to improve "notice" and "choice." "Industry self-regulation" ideally means that companies will provide consumers will better notice and disclosure about their privacy practices, and "consumer education" (facilitated and promoted by public bodies like the FTC and private entities like Truste and the NAI) will give consumers the knowledge to make sense of these posted notices and make informed choices and decisions about their online behavior.
As with "industry self-regulation," the term "consumer education" deserves "scare quotes" because its actual meaning diverges significantly from what we mean by "education" in other areas of our lives. For most folks, education means a dynamic learning process or experience through which learners acquire ever more powerful means to make sense of the world and act intelligently within it so as to lead richer, more rewarding, fulfilling lives. At its best, education is an individual and collective endeavor that facilitates empowerment, growth, and community. It's the process through which individuals grow ever more capable of connecting with the world and around them and working productively within their communities for a meaningful life.
For the industry, however, it means something entirely different. "Consumer education" largely means a preferred body of knowledge or world view that the industry attempts to implant in consumers' heads in order to facilitate proper consumer behavior and consumers' good regard for corporations. Put baldly, when the industry talks of "educating consumers about spyware," "consumer education" effectively means two things:
a) "We're not going to change our business practices; you'll simply have to learn how to live with them."
b) "The problem isn't our software, it's what you think about it."
In other words, "consumer education" in this scheme of things isn't really education as we normally understand it; rather, it's public relations and propaganda -- manipulating consumers into the "correct" ways of thinking about the software. And this was made perfectly clear by the several industry representatives on Panels 1 and 4, who insisted over and over that we get it into our heads that their software is "adware" not "spyware." Indeed, one of the representatives on Panel 4 (though just who I am at a loss to recall) let the cat out of the bag when he or she helpfully explained that "we need to educate consumers so that they understand what this software really is." A more naked, forthright statement of just what the industry has in mind for consumers would be hard to come by.
Concluding Remarks on Panel 4
As anticipated earlier ( »FTC Spyware Workshop Panelists - Worries... ), Panel 4 was a depressing display of self-indulgent, corporate public relations. Panel 4 was useful though in highlighting two important issues:
1) It would be a mistake to regard the problem of "spyware" as a fringe issue that involves only dubious, fly-by-night scam artists, rogue web sites, and pushy marketers who nip at consumers' heels when they veer off the beaten track of the "mainstream internet." That may have been true a few years ago, when bewildering varieties of commercial malware began appearing on porn and warez sites and somewhat more polished forms of advertising software began piggybacking on "free software" downloaded from the internet. That time is long past, though, and the problems with "spyware" and "adware" are now better understood as part of a larger story or process that involves the ongoing consolidation of media interests and the threatened takeover of the free internet by corporate oligopolies. No longer a problem on the margins of the internet, obnoxious corporate crapware threatens to become increasingly central to the efforts of large media giants to control their customers' "online experience" and transform the internet into an e-marketing dystopia.
2) It would also be a mistake to regard the FTC's Spyware Workshop as being only or even primarily a public venue for exploring ways to offer consumers the protection they need from unwanted, invasive, destructive advertising software. Indeed, there is a good case to be made that the workshop actually served as a public relations vehicle for corporate interests attempting to get political leverage and mount public opposition against the spate of anti-spyware legislation at the federal and state levels. Coming right at the start of legislative debates over anti-spyware regulation, the workshop gave corporate entities a prominent stage on which to showcase their own preferred non-solution to the "spyware" problem. Put baldly, the FTC Spyware Workshop was less about protecting consumers from unscrupulous advertising software vendors than it was about protecting corporate interests with designs on consumers' desktops from governmental regulation.
Such remarks will undoubtedly raise the hackles of those sympathetic to commercial interests, however, I think this understanding of the workshop was only confirmed this past week by the performance of Commissioner Mozelle Thompson and FTC bureau director Howard Beales before the House subcommittee on Energy and Commerce (see »FTC Goes to Bat for Spyware Industry for the details). The performance of the CDT before the same panel was scarcely less contemptible.
In closing, I should remark that I am surprised that the FTC has not yet posted a transcript of the six panels, though perhaps it will be forthcoming this next week. I am already anticipating that the transcript will underscore the wiliness of human memory, and I will be happy to make corrections and emendations to these posted remarks where my own memory of the workshop has proved to be less than completely reliable.
-----
Note: those interested in an eye-opening discussion of the disturbing changes in the media landscape in this country and around the world -- both online and off -- could do worse than to consult the following works:
* Ben Bagdikian. The New Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon, 2004. ISBN: 0-8070-6187-5
* Robert W. McChesney. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. New York: The New Press, 1999, 2000. ISBN: 1-5658-634-6
* Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols. Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democractic Struggle Against Corporate Media. New York: Seven Stories, 2002. ISBN: 1-58322-549-8
* Lawrence Lessig. Code, and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic, 1999.
* Lawrence Lessig. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. New York: Random House, 2001.
* Lawrence Lessig. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin, 2004. ISBN: 1-59420-006-8. Online edition available: »www.helptools.net/netdoc/starthe···p=4&js=1
And for a hilarious, acidic critique of the "market as democracy" line, see:
* Thomas Frank. One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism, and End of Economic Democracy. New York: Anchor, 2000. ISBN: 0-385-49504-8.
-----
Best,
Eric L. Howes |
