EchoDitto Blog

"Mass email", or email from the masses?

June 14, 2006 - 1:41pm

The internet could be hailed as the best thing for democracy since the Australian ballot, empowering the masses to participate meaningfully in politics. But the house.gov web portal has taken steps to make it more difficult for issue campaigns to get off the ground and for citizens to communicate with their elected officials by filtering out what it calls “mass email”.

Most internet users are familiar with CAPTCHA, those psychedelic letter combinations at the end of a form designed to determine your humanness (and screen out the robots). Now, the House of Representatives has installed its own form of CAPTCHA on its “Write Your Representative” (WYR) site, the chief online conduit between citizens and their representatives. Check it out (try with "District of Columbia" as your State and "00000" as your zip code).

WYR’s new logic puzzle improves upon traditional image-based CAPTCHA by asking users (in plain text) to solve a simple logic problem, such as “What is nine minus one?”. Hence, no doors are closed to the visually-impaired, though some might find the need to brush up on their Kindergarten math skills. Correct completion of the puzzle gives you a voice in Congress, or at least with the intern tracking constituent concerns.

For the moment, this puts a hitch in web-based “Tell your Representative” campaigns. Traditionally, advocacy organizations have simply tapped into the House’s WYR service to submit customizable form letters on behalf of individuals to their representatives. The logic puzzle, for the time being, puts a roadblock in front of such automation.

Given the growing consensus that many in Congress are “out of touch” (as evidenced by recent polls), these measures are a step in the wrong direction. Our representatives ought to embrace efforts at streamlining constituent-representative communication. “Tell your Representative” features may give Congressional offices more constituent email to file through. But such is the small price of extending civic activism to citizens who might not otherwise go out of their way to share their thoughts with their elected officials. These are the people Congress must hear from now more than ever.

Like most e-mail users, I’m a recipient of excessive amounts of junk mail and would sympathize with House.gov efforts to screen out questionable Ugandan investment opportunities and underground Viagra deals. It’s even reasonable to withhold Congressional e-mail addresses from the public in favor of a standard “Write Your Representative” form. But the introduction of the “Logic Puzzle” represents more than a legitimate interest in filtering out irrelevant scams and solicitations; it strikes at the heart of online organizing and advocacy.

( categories: Email | Organizing | Politics | Technology | The Web )

I think your response is an overreaction. If organizations were able to automate the old forms, there's no clear reason why they couldn't pass on the captcha to the user to solve when they click through to send something to their legislature.

Do you have any other recommendations for how the House might otherwise distinguish between forms submitted by a robot and forms submitted by an actual human? This is a hard problem...

Submitted by Scott T. on June 14, 2006 - 2:14pm.

It seems to be optional for the Representative. My home state rep, Rush Holt, doesn't have this, though you do have to click through to his website and use the contact form there.

And while I'm sure the puzzle could just be passed on to the user, that's one more step where you can lose people. I see some major backlash coming.

Submitted by Dan Myers on June 14, 2006 - 2:50pm.

Organizations will no doubt find ways to get around the logic problem captcha, and Scott's idea of passing it on the user seems pretty feasible.

Why should Congressional offices distinguish between e-mail sent through "Tell Your Representative" features ("robots" potentially screened by the logic problem) and messages submitted directly through House.gov's "Write Your Representative" service (an "actual human")?

Both types of correspondence ought to flow like water into Congressional offices. It can't take too many identical form letters for congressional staffers to figure out what's going on and apply their own mail filters to track/manage issue campaigns and constituent concerns. Traditional Spam blockers ought to do the rest of the job, eliminating most of the e-mail that our elected officials really don't need to be burdened with!

It's great that some representatives are choosing not to use it - perhaps we can encourage others to follow suit.

Submitted by Jamie Ruth on June 14, 2006 - 4:21pm.

I don't see what the problem is here. This is a great way for congressmen to filter out the so called "astroturf" campaigns that just send mass email form letters into congress. Insteasd, it will allow them to focus on legititmate constituent inquires and complaints...isnt that what we want them to be doing anyway ?

Submitted by jason on June 14, 2006 - 10:44pm.

The problem with the idea of passing on the CAPTCHA is that many organizations, particularly large organizations that can direct many people to write their representatives at once, rely on their ASP to provide those advocacy tools. So now these groups need to wait until Kintera, or Convio, or Get Active figure out solutions, debug them, and integrate them into their adovacy modules.

Ifyou haven't dealt with these orgs before, let me assure you that they move at a snail's pace, so this does strike at the heart of some advocacy camaigns. At least for a while.

Conversely, understaffed and underfunded orgs don't normally have great tech staff. So even a relatively easy solution may be beyond their means.

Submitted by Mike C on June 15, 2006 - 1:59pm.

I have to agree with Scott and disagree with Jamie. The problem with allowing bots to send messages is that one computer can easily send a message per second. This allows a one person or a small group to be louder than an actual group of supporters. That isn't democracy.

Most spam filtering solutions would obliterate these form letters. They look just like spam; they have similar content and come from the same place. CAPTCHAs provide a way to differentiate between the automated mass e-mails and the unautomated (human supporter) ones. So, I think we should cooperate. I'm interested enough to volunteer some of my time and thoughts.

The logic puzzle thing is stupid. They will be broken as soon as they become widespread and, if Mike is correct, then the "right people" won't have a solution for a while. A better solution to the accessiblity problem is audio CAPTCHAs, which can be easily generated. The free software packages festival and sox work can be used to generate audio CAPTCHAs pretty easily.

I don't recommend captchas.net because it looks very weak to me. If someone's interested, I can probably be persuaded to do some cryptanalysis.

Submitted by Nikolas Coukouma on July 3, 2006 - 4:35pm.

Er, I suppose I should note that captchas.net is also the wrong tool for this job (it assumes that the site with the form is the same one that the form is being submitted to)

Submitted by Nikolas Coukouma on July 3, 2006 - 7:19pm.

As Gisele reported in her recent post on this issue, several Representatives have already taken the logic puzzle down, and I'd bet its ineffectiveness (coupled with such broad opposition) had something to do with these decisions.

Nikolas argues that some form of CAPTCHA is appropriate to block automatically-generated e-mail messages. A distinction must be made between PFAW sending out 50,000 e-mails to each representative on behalf of its membership, and PFAW putting up a "Tell your representative" web form with a customizable default message.

It's fair for Reps. to try to limit the former; mail filters are ideal for this purpose. CAPTCHA is unnecessary.

The latter human-supported scenario represents a legitimate form constituent communication which must not be "reined in" as the logic puzzle (and any form of CAPTHCA) inherenly does.

While CAPTCHA may stop more of the excessive communication generated by bots than mail filters, it comes at the price of blocking too much legitimate communication. For the sake of democracy, it's critical that Congress air on the side of caution.

Submitted by Jamie Ruth on July 7, 2006 - 1:02pm.

I think it's important to recognize the importance of e-activist sites that make it simple to "Take Action" on an issue. After being an activist for 20 years I have become frustrated in the past few years with a lack of time to make the phone calls, write letters, etc. Submitting letters via email to Reps and businesses through automated forms has enabled me to stay current and active in the political process.

Just because I don't customize an email every time I "Take Action" through a third party website does not mean that I am not a legitimate constituent making my opinion known. I am simply doing it, most times, late at night after the kids are asleep and I can steal a few minutes to make a few clicks and still feel connected to the people who are supposed to represent me.

I think that Reps need to recognize and acknowledge that people are actually taking the time to "Take Action" through these third party organizations whether they have customized their letter or not. This tool has also helped me to deal with the extreme anger and frustration I have felt against our government in recent years. I can feel like I am at least doing something! Even if it is the 20th email I have had to send against bills attempting to destroy the Arctic Wildlife Refuge!

Besides, if I customize my email will that really make any difference? Don't they usually just read the subject? I certainly get form letters in return. Is it possible to route emails into separate folders based upon the subject? This may already exist, but it would surely make the massive amounts of incoming mail easier to handle. I know that all the sites I send letters from require my address, etc. and that should show that it is from a person and not sent out in mass via a computer program.

I am passionate and extremely concerned about this issue (having just learned about it this evening. )I can't imagine how frustrated I would be without this modern and convenient First Amendment tool that gives me such a sense of continued participation in the political process.

Thank you for posting on this topic.

Submitted by Aletha Zsido on July 9, 2006 - 11:37pm.