Washington Post Blog Shuts Down 75% of Online Spam 335
ESCquire writes "Apparently, the Washington Post Blog 'Security Fix' managed to shut down McColo, a US-based hosting provider facilitating more than 75 percent of global spam. " Now how long before the void is filled by another ISP?
As long as there is money in it... (Score:5, Insightful)
the spam will flow. It's the old "balloon dog" effect. Squeeze it in one place and it balloons in another. The ONLY way to attack this problem is to go after the advertisers who are willing to use spam as a medium to sell product.
Re:As long as there is money in it... (Score:5, Insightful)
So how do you set up a system where people can still be anon(even if the government issues some warrents) but held accountable for spam?Got any protocols which allow that?
How much spam? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, how much spam does everyone get each day on average? I think I get between 5 and 8, not much by most people's standards I imagine it's still depressing to see.
I'll be interested to see if this number goes down in the next few weeks, but I doubt I'll notice.
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
While many have an opinion otherwise, the fact is United States based internet service providers are protected by common [lectlaw.com] carrier [wikipedia.org] laws.
While shutting down this ISP may have slowed the spam for today, the two fundamental flaws remain:
ISPs are clueless? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also FTA:
'Two hours later, I heard from Benny Ng, director of marketing for Hurricane Electric, the Fremont, Calif., company that was the other major Internet provider for McColo.
Hurricane Electric took a much stronger public stance: "We shut them down," Ng said.
"We looked into it a bit, saw the size and scope of the problem you were reporting and said 'Holy cow! Within the hour we had terminated all of our connections to them."'
So, after much hand-waving here, and elsewhere, about what info the Gov. and your ISP may be collecting about you, they could not spot this, a major spam, child-porn and theft site?
Maybe the honest version would be;
"We were making shitloads of money out of selling bandwidth to these bastards, 'no questions asked', but now you've blown the whistle on them I guess we've gotta look responsible."
Re:Hosting Child porn? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have come to the conclusion that it must be impossible to engage in any criminal activity which does not somehow involve child porn, as it seems to me that all stories of illicit behavior include accusations of trafficking in child porn.
Evidence (Score:1, Insightful)
Would have been nice if they posted the evidence they sent to the ISPs.
Re:As long as there is money in it... (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem with spam filtering is that when a government official contacts you to ask you visit a website to supply your bank details so that they can wire frozen funds to you, the filter thinks something dodgy is happening.
Usually it is of course, but the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (UK equivalent of FDIC) actually did send such an email to Icesave customers to tell them how to get their insured deposits back from Icesave which went bust a few weeks ago.
Lots of ISPs, not just GMail, apparently use Google's spam filtering service, and it picked up the FSCS email as a 419 style spam.
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
I certainly hope The Washingto Post doesn't have to do the job of the Federal Authorities in the future.
I think this quote down on the third page was probably the best, from a Trend Micro researcher (emphasis mine):
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you just fill that in at random, or what?
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how providing evidence to the government is "vigilante justice". On the contrary it is government justice which is what government is there to provide.
Re:Better to NOT shut them down? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the other stuff, in a world scripted by Tom Clancy the supervillians simply switch to their backup systems. However in reality shutting down something that has taken a long time to establish can stop them for a long time and can open them up to exposure when they are trying to do it again.
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
The "federal authorities" cannot be everywhere at once. If you see a man getting beat by another man, do you just stand by and wait for the police to show-up 30 minutes later to collect the body? Of course not. You and your fellow citizens act to stop the abuse.
What happened here is no different. This reporter noticed an illegality, collected evidence, and then took action (called the ISP) to see if he could stop it. Later on, he will provide the evidence to the government.
The spam solution... (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem with spam isn't that people send out 35 billion emails... it is that SOMEONE out there is clicking on it. They just need one person out there to respond and they have made money...
The correct solution to this spam problem is to keep these places up. Find out who it was that actually responded and either
1) Go educate them about what they're doing
2) Show them how to shop on their own for hair growth and penis enlargement
3) Take away their internet connection
If they weren't making any money, they wouldn't be doing it.
It is like prostitution... Prostitution doesn't exist for the sake of existing. It exists because people will pay for sex. If everyone, everywhere stopped visiting prostitutes then there wouldn't be prostitutes for very much longer. They would have to get other jobs to survive.
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Be careful what you wish for.
I'd like to suggest quite the opposite, that this is the way it should be. Do not trust the government to protect your interests in this regard. Time and time again they've been proven slow, incapable, and even corrupt.
Meanwhile, it is private groups, reporters, etc. that keep things in check. While this system is far from perfect, it's certainly better than the government as the sole "protector" of our interests.
Re:Slashdot can shut down spammers, too (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny, laugh.
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Even child molesters have the right to not be beaten to a pulp. For one thing, the *alleged* child molester might be falsely-accused and completely innocent. Such judgments should be made in a neutral environment by due process of law (court system), not by people on the street. Therefore I would act to stop a so-called molester from being beaten - you can take him into custody without turning him into a corpse.
Discussing this issue reminds me of the guy who was beaten in Chicago(?) and then just left to lay there and suffer, while thousands of people walked past him & ignored his plight. You don't just "let the government help him". You use your individual liberty to take the initiative, call an ambulance, and help stop the bleeding.
Re:is it morally right to DDoS spaming ISPs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck the spam issues, even though that was a good thing taking them out. I noticed that a blurb at the bottom said they where in with other criminal activities including hosting child porn sites. I want to know why someone isn't headed off to prison if this is a US based company.
Re:Hosting Child porn? (Score:2, Insightful)
...all stories of illicit behavior include accusations of trafficking in child porn.
Is this a new corollary to Godwin's Law?
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, besides the USSC ruling that the police are not obligated to protect/defend you, or come to your aid, it's one of those "basic human decency" things. I don't know if I'd use the word "responsibility," but a decent person probably wouldn't say "meh, not my problem" and walk away.
I've never understood the "you can't defend yourself or stop a crime in progress, that's the police's job" mentality. I mean, are we supposed to sit there and be dependent on daddy government for every single thing? Yes, if the police are there and doing something about it, stay out of their way unless they ask for your help. But if they haven't gotten there yet, do something about it!
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:2, Insightful)
That is like saying that a witness to ongoing child abuse is unaware because they choose to look the other way.
They are unaware if they choose to be.
Re:ISPs are clueless? (Score:3, Insightful)
the RIAA/MPAA have government support for forcing ISPs to finger subscribers accused of illegal file sharing, and are even allowed to circumvent the courts to obtain private user info. this may be the interests of a powerful industry lobby, but it in no way serves public interest. meanwhile, clamping down on SPAM originating domestically does serve public interest, but the government has done little to combat spam, even protecting spammers to an extent with the CAN-SPAM act by preventing individuals from suing spammers, or states from enacting stricter anti-spam laws.
Don't tell us, tell your Senators and Representatives. We all know this stuff already...
Dan Aris
Re:ISPs are clueless? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>>>The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to the lazy.
>>... nor is its purpose to raid lower- and middle-class people's wallets and give it to the rich...
No shit Sherlock. The common flaw with any of these actions is this - it's theft. Which is why I was strongly opposed to the 700 billion THEFT of taxpayer dollars to give to rich Wall Street fat slobs. And why I voted-out the politicians who voted "aye" to the bill.
Re:As long as there is money in it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hotmail, yahoo, and/or aol beats gmail by a significant margin, it's believed. Add them up and gmail becomes much smaller.
Smaller yet better, then. Gmail's spam filtering makes the rest of them appear laughable. I have a Hotmail account and it's nearly unusable unless I set the spam filtering to "exclusive", which means if I get a message from someone who isn't in my address book I won't even realize I have it... i.e. it's nearly unusable with the spam filter set to "exclusive", too.
Re:ISPs are clueless? (Score:3, Insightful)
Shit, I could dumb down the issues presented here into words of no more than 3 syllables, and my Rep (Joe Pitts, PA-16 [house.gov], a man who is (Not that it really matters..) significantly to the right of, say, Genghis Khan) who might actually agree to actually listen to me for 5 minutes or so if I asked him REAL nicely, and my 2 senators (Specter [senate.gov] and Casey [senate.gov] (who almost certainly would not) would not understand more than 20% of it.
I'd be better off talking to a wall.
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, one could say screw the system, let the world burn, but the problem is, once the fire goes out, the same rich fat slobs shall crawl out of their lairs and take over the world again, just as if nothing happened.
One more thing: I'm not a US citizen, so I might be wrong on who woted "aye" to the questionable bill, but I seem to remember, that it was just about everybody and their dogs (at least in the second round). So, whom did you really vote out?
Re:Not Just Spam (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a zero sum analysis of economics, which is incorrect from the outset. To your mind you are thinking scientifically: "The world is finite thus has finite resources". But the system does not behave in that manner, through observation it is known that this is not a scientific analysis. Output of resources and labour are variable in magnitude, and so the system behaves as such.
It is entirely possible, and has been clearly demonstrated in the last century that everyone can grow richer together, in principle. It may not be working in all corners of the world, and certainly looks like it is not happening in the USA, but it is entirely possible for everybody to gain something from economic output. Hell if your hypothesis were even half correct your lower classes would look more like poor african villages, but instead you have (likely) a roof over your head, food in your belly, television, a computer (clearly). Then theres the really important things: you have a sanitary environment, gifted to you by your peers through taxation systems, you have sanitary distribution networks for your food and water, and in principle access to the best medical facilities in the world. It looks to me that you are quite rich already, even if you are dirt poor.
This is not to say there are not problems with the current system, but over the centuries the current economic system you live under has grown you richer, and everyone around you.