Accused Spammer to Debate SpamCop Founder 187
Weezle writes "Wired News is reporting that OptInRealBig's Scott Richter is going to debate SpamCop's Julian Haight in public next month. Richter had the nerve to file a lawsuit against SpamCop recently claiming that the blacklist keeps his company from sending out 'marketing messages.' (in lay terms, spam) Not surprisingly, Richter himself is being sued for $20 million by NY Att. General Eliot Spitzer. Sounds like it's going to be a real nasty fight."
Re:hmm (Score:1, Interesting)
How many people? (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope the line to serve him will not be too long.
OptInRealBig is not the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
They're annoying, but they're not the problem. I used to get OptInRealBig messages. I clicked on the "unsubscribe" links a few times. They stopped coming.
All of Richter's emails (at least that I've seen) come with contact information for the sending company and unsubscribe instructions as required by law. And as far as I've seen, the unsubscribe instructions work. If anybody here has unsubscribed from OIRB and still gotten mailings, that's different. But as far as I've seen, OIRB uses real reply-to's, real headers, and really only gets addresses that left a "email me" checkbox checked somewhere.
Richter is annoying, but he's not the main spam problem. He runs a real company that complies with the letter if not the spirit of the law. The real problem is hijacked boxes and east Asian server farms sending billions of fraudulant, forged, difficult-to-trace messages every day. Shutting down Richter and easing the burdens on people too stupid to uncheck the "let partners email me" checkbox won't solve that.
Why attack OptInBig? (Score:2, Interesting)
They also don't make and distribute spyware, as far as I know. Clicking a simple unsubscribe link is much better than deleting spyware.
Plus, I always make sure to uncheck the special offers checkboxes. I'd say it's the websites that are the problem, this guy is just providing a business service. I am sick of the silly website subscription games.
Is OptInRealBig a victom of spam? (Score:3, Interesting)
However I've receaved spam from this guy and I know I never opted in.
So the question is how come Scott believes his actions are lagit?
Answer:
I do get a lot of "Welcome" messages from marketting lists. Most of them say something like "Please click on the link below to conferm". Eather spammers are being creative and trying to trick me into opting in to stuff I don't have any intrest in or someone spammed my e-mail address to them.
How dose ReallyBig work? Could a jerk spammer stuff the box?
How dose Scott get a large opt in e-mail database?
It would make sense that he would have some program set up where third partys do the opt in for him. If so is there any screening for "stuffing the box"?
This presumes Scott isn't putting on a show. We can never forget that spammers are at least in part con artists. They take the PT Barnem school of marketting tactic. A sucker born every min and the real trick is to find em.
However I'm reminded of some research done a while back. Someone said that most spammers are just looking for valid e-mail addresses and don't actually sell anything.
Hence the mark isn't the spam targets but the spammers who actually try to sell stuff.
Thies people buy e-mail addresses.
And I just did conclude that this is probably where Scott got his marketting list.
In short...
Scott is this minuts sucker
Or the modern PT Barnum.
Sadly you can never know for sure.
Re:Opt-Out Real Quick (Score:4, Interesting)
Richter's claim is semantic. (Score:2, Interesting)
It doesn't matter what hoops he jumped through. All that matters as that in the eyes of consumers his company was in error, and cannot be trusted with what is normally benign personal information.
Spam is a statement about the unwelcomness of the email, not whether someone might have left a "I hate puppies" checkbox unchecked. If the people recieving the mail say it is spam. It's spam. End of story. SpamCop collects these opinions and merges them into a fact. Many people consider Scott Richter to be willingly, misleadingly, and habbitually sending vast quantities of undesirable email, and generally being a nuisance. That many people have this opinion is a fact. Now it may be true, or untrue. But over a large number of iterations it is probably an accurate predictor of what is true.
The only thing shaky is SpamCop is making an argument ad populum. And knowing who those people are doesn't change that. However, this is more than mitigated by the fact that sysadmins use this to make a likely better experience for their users. Other people would wish this to go away, my users might too, people being mostly similar.
That all these people think Scott Richter is a spammer is not libel. In fact it's accurate, particularly in light of a The Daily Show interview. Why even his government officials think he's a spammer. Were I to claim, "I have pictures of Scott Richter raping an underage goat in Tijauna. The goat was "pitching," but man you should see the smile on Scott's face!" and not have such pictures. That would be libel. I for one doubt the existance of such pictures, I was just using that as a possible example. And if someone does have such pictures, I would appreciate it if they were never sent to me. In fact it might just be better to burn them, the internet is awful enough as it is.
Scott doesn't have a God given right to make sure everyone gets his mail. Sorry. He doesn't. Just like anyone can refuse him entry into their place of business or home for any reason based on his actions, or their thoughts on him as a terribly flawed and failed human being. That's all people who are using spamcop are doing. No dice Scott, your business isn't welcome here, we don't like you, people don't like you, go sell your penis enhancements in China.
Re:Regulation of Blacklists? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why attack OptInBig? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seconds before writing this response, I created an email alias called "optinbig@domainwitheld.com" and instructed optinbig.com to unsubscribe me from all.
Mind you I JUST CREATED this address and it has never before been used for anything. If it starts getting spam, then it's clear they are using the information to send more spam.
I expect to receive spam within the next hour personally...
FBI claims to be "investigating spam" (Score:3, Interesting)
The "Notable early accomplishments" read very strangely. They seem to have been drafted for maximum deniability. "Developed ten primary subject packets developed and for referral to Law Enforcement" "We are already planning meetings to ensure that this initiative is on track, and to further define the scope and packaging of this activity are being planned." Doesn't sound like a major roundup of criminals is in the works.
The FBI doesn't actually produce many arrests per hour expended. The FBI's Baltimore-based child porno operation produces about 1.6 arrests per agent year. They have 200 agents on that operation, or about 2% of their agent staff. (The FBI isn't that big. There are only about 12,000 agents. The NYPD is four times as large.) So to shut down 100 spammers per year, they'd probably have to devote about 75 agents to the operation, which is a big bite for them.
Only a handful spammers (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a notable drop in reports on 28 april 2004. The exact day two US-spammers were arrested. (see eweek.com [eweek.com])
A handful other spammers in jail, and the spam-rate will drop to below 5% of todays volume.
Opportunity... (Score:3, Interesting)
Brave man! Not to mention, reckless...
Re:Lemmee lone!! (Score:2, Interesting)
And that right includes not only the right to be left alone by spammers, but the right to be left alone by anyone else we do not wish to hear. A demonstrator's right to be heard does not trump my right to be left alone. Any attempt to speak to me when I do not wish to listen is not "the right of free speech", it is an assault on me, and I should be free to take appropriate action. You are free to say what you want to people who want to hear you; you are not entitled to force your unwanted advances on those who do not.
Re:Proof of Opt-In (Score:3, Interesting)
Legsilation like that in Scandinavia, and being introduced inthe rest of the EU is ok.
marketing-material sent to individually-adressable (such as sms, fax, email) electronical devices are only allowed if the recipient has given prior, informed consent, *or* if you have a running business-relationship with the customer.
The burden of proof is on the one sending the marketing-material ofcourse. There's no way anyone could prove that they did *not* in any way give permission.
There *is* the sligth loophole that a company you're doing bussiness with can spam you for other, unrelated services they're offering (they cannot however send you spam on behalf of other companies), but the thing is, in those cases you have leverage: You're a customer. You're free to call them up and say the equivalent of "Stop it, or I'm an ex-customer."
What's to debate? (Score:1, Interesting)
Now, its another fcuking chore. Thank you very much. Its another bill (for antispam software) and a source of infection with virii and worm euphemistically called malware and adware.
Worse still, its the only form 'direct marketing' that can kick the recipient off the network because of receipt of too many messages.
How many times have your contacts had difficulty contacting you via email because you went over limit because of spam?
This is nearly as annoying as FAX spam, only because Congress eventually got off their fat, lazy, amoral asses and did something about it.
If I were a spammer, I wouldn't let people know who I was, for fear of being pelted in public with all kinds of unmentionables.
Thank you spam, for making mention of penis size enhancement AND high yield investments occur in the same sentence.