Spammers Start Abusing Cell Phones 266
slimyrubber writes "Just when you thought that spam couldnt get any worst, Cell phones are becoming the latest target of electronic junk mail, with a growing number of marketers using text messages to target subscribers. Is cell-phone spam likely to evolve into something that big, something approaching the scale of e-mail spam? Not if you help to kill SMS spam where it starts. Hopefully."
Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't sms spam fall into the same category?
The major problem with SMS spam... (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) It is not easy to filter out, given the majority of people here now only uses phone that cannot be programmed easily (at least, not as easy as using the OE plugins or the MacosX Mail.app)
(2) Usually they are more intrusive - nowadays people carry cell phones around and when you are bugged by SMS spam TOGETHER with important SMS.. it's friggin' bad...
(3) They know where you read it... the positioning system of the GPS/w-cdma networks allow them to track your place...
now what? right - do it with legislation.
SMS is somewhat protected anyway, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
For one thing - SMS are limited to 160 characters, and secondly - SMS cost money to send. Granted - even email costs money, but you could send probably several thousand emails of a few kb each for less than US$1. With SMS you're paying a few cents for each individual SMS of max 160chars. Therefore for SMS spam to become a real phenomenon, you would need way higher returns for the messages you send.
Companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Wherever there's money, there's abuse of power.
Re:SMS is somewhat protected anyway, isn't it? (Score:4, Insightful)
For example: 5555551212@provider.net
So what happens is the spammers use the same techniques of spamming regular email addresses but it's too easy to guess an email address with a number that is in a fixed format, a number that doesn't bounce usually incremented by 1 is a good place to goto next.
Re:SMS is somewhat protected anyway, isn't it? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a LOT easier for a spammer to figure out SMS addresses (almost always the phone number) than email addresses. A simple random number generator and a a script can send potentially thousands of messages a minute
Re:Hmm. (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't have text messaging enabled for your phone.
Better blocking on phones (Score:2, Insightful)
So why can't they implement a similar function for SMS? If the number's not in my phone book, I don't want to hear a tone, and I don't want the message sitting on my phone - just flush it straight away.
Don't look to companies to solve this problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The major problem with SMS spam... (Score:4, Insightful)
Filters are NOT the answer to this problem. Spam is already taxing a lot of networks who have tons of bandwidth, imagine what a spam epedemic could do the cell phone networks...
Although this accompanied with cell phone virii could be great news for the Russian mafia, imagine threatening Verizon or Sprint with a DDOS attack.....
Re:SMS is somewhat protected anyway, isn't it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd think it to go to the same category as fax spam.. spam that's possible to cut from happening by legislation/enforcing the current laws(sms does actually get used a lot in the real world by real people).
Texting is not free. (Score:3, Insightful)
The scam that has been turned up recently over here in the UK has been targetting schoolchildren. You get an SMS saying that someone fancies you, or something like that. You reply, and get hit for a 1.50 ($3) charge. However, the regulations were recently changed to prevent this kind of thing - IIRC, you're not allowed to send an SMS that doesn't explicitly state if the reply is going to cost more than normal.
Re:The major problem with SMS spam... (Score:2, Insightful)
thus you never get overseas telemarketers..
Re:Consent is bogus (Score:3, Insightful)
Opt-in consent is the best system we have... if you really want to opt-out you should have the blocks set up on the systems you control because clearly an opt-out-by-law system is never going to function.
Re:this is way WAY out of line (Score:3, Insightful)
Because a handful of people with a lot of money like the fact that it exists.
Re:Off? (Score:3, Insightful)
The big problem with just turning off SMS is that most people use SMS (Or at least, us teenagers do), and there is no reason for the option.
Not going to last.... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not a trivial solution for users... (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, does the average teen using SMS want to remember a password for every single person they send SMS messages to?
Thirdly unless you made it a "proper" "secure" password (which would be a bitch to enter with predictive text) it is vulnerable to a simple dictionary based attack.
Now all we need is a huge list for "why your SMS spam prevention technique will not work" (a la smtp one that's always popping up on
Re:UK, sender pays... 2 spam txts (Score:3, Insightful)
it makes so little sense its invention must have been motivated purely by desire for profit, bypassing all consideration of anything else.
Re:the worst (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:glad (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I'm glad my cel-phone company does charge for receiving. That means I've got a line on my bill documenting financial damage from the unsolicited message. That's very helpful when filing a small-claims action against the originating company when they won't knock it off. It's also helpful when dealing with the FCC since the cel-phone company and the commissioners can't fob it off as "Oh, but you're not paying for that message." and if they suggest buying an unlimited plan I can respond "Oh, so I should pay more for a service I don't need just to avoid having to pay for someone else's advertising?".
Leave the FCC and the cel-phone companies to argue about how the cel-phone companies are going to pick up the tab and pretty quick the cel-phone companies will do something about the problem at the source.
Simple solution.. (Score:3, Insightful)