Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam

Feds Cracking the Whip on Spammers 279

Posted by CmdrTaco from the little-to-the-left-please dept.
Britano writes "Fox News is reporting that the FTC has started to go after spammers and online scammers. So the governement has finally started on the side of the consumer. "The Federal Trade Commission announced Tuesday that is has created a nationwide task force that has already brought 63 law enforcement actions against Web-based scams ranging from auction frauds to bogus cancer-curing sites." Hey, this way we don't have to spend our own money on fighting this problem!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feds Cracking the Whip on Spammers More

Feds Cracking the Whip on Spammers

Comments Filter:

  • our own money? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @09:46AM (#3276646) Journal
    Where do you think our tax dollars come from?

    • Re:our own money? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by blacktar ( 570574 )
      Actually, this is controversial as the spammers reach far outside the U.S. If they are hindered, then the FTC does the rest of the world a favour -- a favour entirely payed by the U.S. tax payers.
    • "Only the little people pay taxes."

      -- Leona Helmsley

    • Worse yet, our own privacy. I remember seeing something in the "Carnivore Again" story about how maybe spam is a good thing, as it provides "noise" that runs Carnivore in circles.

      Maybe they have alterior motives? Dropping the noise level to facilitate their snooping?

      Yeah, yeah, color me paranoid.

  • hmmm. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Graspee_Leemoor ( 302316 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @09:47AM (#3276650) Homepage Journal
    I bet them spammers like the taste of the whip! Filthy bondage whores...

  • I wonder (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CrashRide ( 530844 )
    if this page will disappear as fast as the previous repeat about Kazaa...Posted by CmdrTaco on 15:30 3rd April, 2002 from the wow-this-is-crazy dept.

  • spammers or scammers? (Score:5, Informative)

    by room101 ( 236520 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @09:48AM (#3276659) Homepage
    From what I have heard, it isn't so much spammers as scammers. They are shutting down the illegal scams. If you have a real business, but use spam to advertise your product, I haven't read anything to indicate that they are being targeted.

    • Re:spammers or scammers? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Violet Null ( 452694 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @09:50AM (#3276676)
      From the article, it seems that they're also targetting spammers that don't offer a way to opt-out; those with 'remove' links in their emails that are dead, for instance.

      • Re:spammers or scammers? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by garcia ( 6573 )
        that opt a way out? You mean where you click the link so that they are sure that your email address is valid and it just encourages them even more?

      • Re:spammers or scammers? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:28AM (#3276908) Homepage
        • it seems that they're also targetting spammers that don't offer a way to opt-out; those with 'remove' links in their emails that are dead, for instance

        I feel that I have to point out that everything after the semicolon is redundant. ;-)

        Incidentally, I actually do click on the remove links (yes, I know I shouldn't, but I won't lower myself to their level, and really, how much worse could it get), but it's been at least five years since I actually saw one that worked. Serious question: has anyone here received spam (in the past three years, say) with a "remove" link that actually did anything but attract more spam?

        In addition, the stock lie "This is a one off mailing. You are not on a distribution list." (insert your own typos) is also trivially disprovable, once you get the second spam.

        Seems to me like the FTC could bitchslap just about any spammer they liked simply on the grounds of flat out deception - what we old folks used to call lying, before we all started speaking like weas^H^H^H^H lawyers.

        I know it's a small point, but I actually detest honest spam slightly less: just pitch the product, tell me how to give you money (you delusional retard), and then shut up. Don't compound the insult by pretending to give a damn about opt-ins, opt-outs or privacy. That's just insulting. That makes it personal.

        So if the only thing the FTC does is to stop the insulting lies, that will at least drop my blood pressure by about five points. Go for it, G Men.

        • I have always been against the opt-out strategy for SPAM. I thought it was a stupid idea when it was first proposed as a requirement. And my reasons for this opinion... well, they pretty much started showing up immediately. False "opt-out" links.

          The government (and anyone else involved in the opt-out standard) was simply beyond stupid. Although, it's a fine line between stupid an blinded by greed. How could anyone NOT see that opt-out had WAY too many loop holes that would take advantage and abuse the helpless public???

          If they were to choose for opt-out, they should have gone with a central "trusted" method of removal. They do this with the post office when you want to be removed from junk mailing lists. How can it not have occured to them that the same should apply to junk-email??? Of COURSE scam artists, and corrupt business will flury with the current opt-out standard. Duh!

          I would hope that SOMEONE in control would do the whole "SPAM" registration thing, for several reasons.

          1. It would be clear which SPAMers are breaking the law and should be targetted (lower cost to enforce).

          2. The public would be better protected.

          3. We would KNOW when we should click on the "remove me" link to be removed. Or better yet... just have a standard website, with a SPAM code to enter.

          Stupid, ignorant, techno-brain-dead government oficials. *sigh* The worst part being that this effect isn't unique to email. Junk mail and telemarketting fall under the same concept, and yet, have protective rules/laws in place.

          *sigh*
          -Alex
        • My other favorite lie: "You're receiving this because you signed up at our site." Bullshit!

        • A while ago, I started receiving emails from Microsoft's home advisor web site. I think I visited their site a time or two to look at real-estate listings, but I never recall signing up for any type of email from them.

          Anyway, each time, their messages say I can click on a link to change my preferences (so I no longer receive this email "newsletter"). I've tried this at least 4 times now, and still - I get spammed with more of their mail.

          Now, honestly, I don't think a company the size of Microsoft is interested in purposely spamming people. (The negative press that would generate makes it a very bad idea.) Instead, I think their automated system for unsubscribing is just buggy/defective (or overloaded at the times I'm trying to use it).
    • There are very few spammers who aren't involved in some level of scam or fraud.

      There's the obvious scams - pyramid schemes, cancer cures, etc.

      Then there's the forged headers, something that causes real problems when domain names are hijacked. This also causes real problems when the spammers have technical problems - I once got over 20 MB of spam in less than an hour because a spammer (or virus) kept hitting my address with a large unwanted message. With bogus headers, it was impossible to notify the sender and difficult to notify the originating ISP.

      A related problem is the increased use of misleading, even abusive, subject lines. The issue isn't (just) that some spam has subject lines warning of past-due accounts, bounced checks, etc., but that this deceptive practice makes legitimate communications regarding such matters much more likely to be dismissed unread.

      Finally, there's the common practice of the spammer interpreting an "opt out" message as address validation, not as a true opt-out message.

      When you eliminate spam with forged headers or "repurposed" opt-out lists, there's very little left.
    • If you have a real business, but use spam to advertise your product,

      I don't know about *your* spam, but mine has almost never been for something I'd consider a legitimate product, even when legitimate is stretching the bounds of imagination.

      It's always penis tricks, porn, stock swindles, pyramid schemes and health scams. It's never anything else.

  • our own money (Score:2, Funny)

    by seinman ( 463076 )

    Hey, this way we don't have to spend our own money on fighting this problem!


    don't pay your taxes much, eh taco?

  • Why is it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dead Penis Bird ( 524912 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @09:50AM (#3276678) Homepage
    That it took so long for the Feds to finally realize that crimes on the Internet are no different than those off of it? Bogus charities and pyramid schemes have existed long before the net. It shouldn't be any different, should it?

    • Re:Why is it (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aozilla ( 133143 )

      That it took so long for the Feds to finally realize that crimes on the Internet are no different than those off of it?

      Because all the "real" crimes take place in the "real" world.

    • The point is that there are enough checks and balances to slow down the legislative process so that far-reaching, encroaching legislation doesn't show up overnight. How would you like the alternative? One day a group of lawmakers decide to outlaw mouthwash. Next day, it's a law, and people are getting thrown in jail for it. Then it takes years to overthrow it, people have their lives severely impacted, etc.

      The whole structure of our government is to balance power to protect the people from harmful government interference. Part of this is slowing down the legislative process, allowing time for deliberation and compromise between the branches of government.

      It really is more for your protection than you think.

  • Own money? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EDinWestLA ( 453682 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @09:51AM (#3276688)
    Hey, this way we don't have to spend our own money on fighting this problem!


    Um, who do you think pays for the FTC to do this in the first place?

    • Re:Own money? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by invenustus ( 56481 )
      I took the comment as sarcasm. As in net users' being happy because the Nanny State is taking care of it for us, and taxing the Big Evil Corporations (TM) to do so. But maybe the submitter was serious. In which case, that's a shame.
    • No, he's right.

      Not being from the USA I don't pay American taxes, American spammers are a big source of irritation for me as well.
      It's nice to see them fight this problem, while the money stays in my wallet.

  • Uh OK... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MasterBlaster ( 71519 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @09:53AM (#3276699)
    If you can manage to track the spammers down in another country...

    Anyway, this is mostly about scam spam. This wont even effect the "buy a million addresses on a CD" spam as long as they are actually selling that product.

    This just cracks down on something that was already illegal--it really doesn't have anything to do with spam.
    • This just cracks down on something that was already illegal--it really doesn't have anything to do with spam.

      Even if that's true, what's wrong with the feds finally enforcing laws that have been skirted for years? The only thing wrong with the stories about this is the headlines. They should read: Feds finally creack down on long-running crime

      • Even if that's true, what's wrong with the feds finally enforcing laws that have been skirted for years?

        It's a waste of taxpayer dollars. Frankly, the people who fall for stupid pyramid schemes deserve to lose their money, as far as I'm concerned.

    • So how do they want to check if people are actually selling the product, are they going to buy everything that's being offered to them in the spam messages in order to check it out?

      If that's the case, my spam to them will be something like: "buy ten addressess on a CD for only $1 million"
      and my mass spam could be somehing like "get rich fast by ripping off the USA government"
    • Yeah, that's a problem. I had a couple of youngsters in jolly olde England who got upset with me because I called them scammer spammers, and they jumped all up and down and turned red in the face and blew a few gaskets trying to harass me. Thus why I am now the official owner of a "sucks" domain :-).

      The thing about foreign scams, though, is that they are by nature limited in what they can do to/for you. The foreign scam I detail makes a number of ludicrous claims for their product (claims which are impossible for any product to fulfill, much less a piece of Visual BASIC bloatware being sold for three times what it's worth), but none of this will cause you any physical harm. You might lose your hard drive if the paranoid program decides you aren't a licensed user (the front man for the guys who put out the program is certifiable, often spewing paranoid and delusional rantings about anybody who has ever criticized his behavior or his program), but you aren't going up dead or anything. While I've heard that the FTC is investigating these particular people, I have mixed emotions about that. There's far worse scams out there, some of which could cause physical harm. Bilking the gullible for $100 beyond what the product is worth via deceptive claims and exaggerations is hardly my idea of a top priority for government enforcement -- going after the dangerous scams, or the ones that take people for all their lives savings, has to be top priority.

      -E

  • What an excellent way... (Score:3, Troll)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi@[ ]oo.com ['yah' in gap]> on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @09:55AM (#3276707) Journal
    for the government to get it's invasive little paws into the stream of email everywhere! Sounds like an excuse to install "Herbivore". "It's a SPAM-fighter! Honest!" Can't wait to see my tax dollars at work.
    • > for the government to get it's invasive little paws into the stream of email everywhere! Sounds like an excuse to install "Herbivore". "It's a SPAM-fighter! Honest!" Can't wait to see my tax dollars at work.

      You know, I'd much rather have Carnivore being used to track down and exterminate the chronic offenders like A--- R----- (priors for bank fraud) and other spam kingpins.

      In fact, if Carnivore can be used by the FBI to put pigfuckers (apologies to those of you who merely fuck pigs) like A--- R----- and E------ H----- and the others like them in prison for running multi-year criminal conspiracies to defraud, then I'd be all for it.

      Imagine the headline: DCS-1000 used to capture a guy with a multiyear history of fraud, seize his assets, and put him in jail.

      With the technology they've got available for deployment on the 'net, the Feds could end spam in a day and simultaneously gain widespread public support for Carnivore.

      Sounds like a win-win to me. Any G-men reading? Wanna pass this on to your PR guys, run a few focus groups/surveys, and see if it'll fly with the public? I've got a dozen Krispy Kremes that says it will. You guys probably have me pegged as one of "those silly privacy nuts". If even someone like me would support Carnivore as a spam-extermination tool, then Lord knows Joe and Jane Q. Public would go for it.

  • This just in... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Em Emalb ( 452530 ) <ememalb@gm a i l . com> on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @09:55AM (#3276710) Homepage Journal
    "Cyberspace is a wondrous place, but we are quickly learning it can also be a dangerous place for the unwary," she said. "Con artists who once relied on telephone boiler rooms and mass mailings can now rip people off through Web sites and e-mail."

    In a related news story, Fox reports that gullible people often get ripped off.

    Ok, here's the thing. I strongly believe spam would go away if people would QUIT BEING STUPID. If they would just think for a minute and say hmm, it seems this magic Cancer cure is too good to be true. Why haven't I heard about it in other sources? Now, I will say that these bastards selling hope in the form of a cancer cure is genuinely despicable, and they need to share a room with Bubba for doing it. However, WISE UP PEOPLE!!!! Do you really think xsegry17l33t@yahoo.com is a viable businessman? Come on!

    -5 redundant
    • "Cyberspace is a wondrous place, but we are quickly learning it can also be a dangerous place for the unwary," she said. "Con artists who once relied on telephone boiler rooms and mass mailings can now rip people off through Web sites and e-mail."

      I take issue with the word "quickly" in the above quotation.

      DJS

    • Dude, you can't legislate against stupidity. You can't buy a commercial on national television and shake your finger sternly at the world and say "stop being stupid!" and suddenly all of the suckers disappear off the face of the earth.

      You and I would walk by a game of three card monty and laugh. A rural teenage tourist would possibly be suckered in and lose $20. That's why you still see that game on the street. It works, and it always will.

      "There's a sucker born every minute" as Barnum would say.

      What about the elderly, who might be losing their faculties and are preyed on by these folks? Is it still the victim's fault in your eyes? Blame the victim, blame the victim. "Look at what she was wearing! She deserved to be raped." How does that sound?

      The point is, if you are in a position of greater knowledge, looking at a group of people with less knowledge and saying "stop being a bunch ignorant fools!" doesn't do a dang thing for anyone, doc, except maybe for your feeling of self-righteousness, sorry to break it to you. Ironically, your attitude reveals a naivete about how the world works, similar to other forms of naivete that suckers of scam-artists possess.

      "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

      In your book is it "fool me any time, shame on me"?
      • Seems like a good idea at first, but when you think it through you realize that it's all relative. "stupid" is defined by anything that's lower than the average IQ.

        If you instantly got rid of anyone more stupid than you... you'd be the one considered stupid. Think about it. That's why I hang out at the casino. Honest.
      • Look at what she was wearing! She deserved to be raped." How does that sound?


        It sounds like a horrible analogy here's why: She had something done TO her, based on what whe was wearing, she was passive. The idiots that click on the spam link are commiting active stupidity, if the hypothetical she walked into a sex offenders anonymous meeting wearing nothing but her panties it would be more akin to patronizing spammers.


        Of course even the PC cries of outrage over the "look what she's wearing argument" have their problem. Certainly a person's clothing is no excuse to abuse them, howver Dave Chepelle said it best: "Ok you're not a whore, but you're for damn sure wearing a whore's uniform".


        I'm not trying to justify spammers, but when people actively do stupid things, I'm not going to feel sorry for them.

      • "There's a sucker born every minute" as Barnum would say.

        actually, a competitor od Barnums said that, not Barnum.
    • There are a few problems with that philosophy.
      1) We should protect the innocent from the unscrupulous
      2) Spammers are stupid too. How many actually make a significant amount of money from it? Just because there's no market doesn't mean they'll stop sending it.
      3) and most important, I'm not stupid (in that way), but it keeps coming to me. Any piece of spam I don't have to see because the person who was going to send it is doing time is less hassle for me. Spam doesn't only affect those who take people up on the "specail [sic] once in a life time opertunitys! [sic]". We all suffer from it.

  • mailto:UCE@FTC.GOV (Score:5, Informative)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @09:57AM (#3276719) Homepage Journal
    On the FTC web site [ftc.gov] they state:

    If you would like to forward unsolicited commercial e-mail (spam) to the Commission, please send it directly to UCE@FTC.GOV without using this form.


    So, add that to Securities and Exchange commissions abuse site enforcement@sec.gov [mailto] and you have some good places to forward your spam.

    Send all "Great new stock tip" crap to the SEC, send all the ripoff products to the FTC, and copy Spamcop on everything, and maybe we can crush these bastards.

    (Hey, by placing these addresses on a public site like /., they are likely to get harvested by the spammers....)

    • Re:mailto:UCE@FTC.GOV (Score:5, Funny)

      by The G ( 7787 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:23AM (#3276856)
      UCE@FTC.GOV

      Excellent. Now I'll just provide that address to all of those "you must provide your email address -- not that we'd ever spam you..." registration-required sites.
      --G
    • I thought Spamcop was a good idea until I realized that spammers were including the To: addresses in the bodies of spam. This is roughly equivalent to just replying to the email, since many times complaints will make it back to the spammers. I don't use them anymore.
  • "I think all of us have found something in our e-mail that is highly suspect," said Eileen Harrington, associate director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Affairs. "They may be subject to law enforcement."

    Does this mean that I can sue all these US spammers who invite me to become a callgirl, get cheaper payments om my house, get a higher turn over on investments or grow a larger penis ;-)
    Not that I actually fall for these things, I never assume for a minute that I can get a loan in the US based on my house in the Netherlands, but it would be nice to sue somebody, just for the experience...
    I can get really pissed of about this stupid spamm stuff which does not even discriminate the difference between continents when offering local (scam) stuff.

  • They're starting to crack down now... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dimer0 ( 461593 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:00AM (#3276731)
    .. because after I read a story here last month and found out about the uce@ftc.gov address they want spam forwarded to, I've probably crashed their email servers 10 times with the volume I've pushed to them.

    People - use this address to bounce your spam to - it appears something is actually being done about it!

    (This is debatable) Better to have the feds go after these people then report to spamcop and have, well, ISPs breathing down your back.

  • User's Problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kkirk007 ( 304967 ) <kkirk007NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:01AM (#3276735)
    One of the alleged scammers the government is investigating is David L. Walker, who is said to have charged between $2,400 and $5,200 on his Web site for a cancer treatment hoax

    I understand the desperation that's felt by someone with cancer, but really, what kind of person is going to believe that the miracle cure for cancer is sitting on some shady website and not in the hospitals?

    A fool and his money are soon parted...

    • David L. Walker (Score:3, Informative)

      by young-earth ( 560521 )
      Apparently the state of Washington is already going after [wa.gov] this Walker guy, as of last October. So the feds are a little slower, at least they've jumped on the bandwagon...
    • > I understand the desperation that's felt by someone with cancer, but really, what kind of person is going to believe that the miracle cure for cancer is sitting on some shady website and not in the hospitals?

      Anyone who hasn't been trained in the ways of logical reasoned thought is a target for quacks.

      Quackery is a multimillion dollar business in America. (Depending on how strictly or loosely you define it, it's a multibillion dollar business.)

      The best answer to your question is here:

      A Special Message for Cancer Patients Seeking "Alternative" Treatments [quackwatch.com]

      If you don't have time to go through that whole list, the short answer to your question is that quacks use every trick in the book [quackwatch.com] to find the most efficient way of separating the emotionally-vulnerable from their money, and (like any other group of professionals), they're extremely good at it. They even have lobby groups [quackwatch.com] to get laws changed in their favor.

      Unlike most professionals, of course, quacks harm [quackwatch.com] their clients, rather than helping them.

      I'm gratified to see the FTC moving in on these bastards as part of the spam problem, but I'm afraid it's just the tip of the iceberg.

    • The same folks who believe in crystal healing and other New Age foolishness? There are some who reject traditional Western-style medicine because it comes from the West, it seems.

    • I understand the desperation that's felt by someone with cancer, but really, what kind of person is going to believe that the miracle cure for cancer is sitting on some shady website and not in the hospitals?

      The kind of person who is dying of cancer. And has already been to hospitals, which told him/her that there's nothing they can do.

    • what kind of person is going to believe that the miracle cure for cancer is sitting on some shady website and not in the hospitals?

      Well, how about:

      What kind of person is going to believe that there is a better OS than Windows and it's free?

      or a closer analogy:

      What kind of person is going to believe that there is a better OS than Windows sitting on some shady website somewhere and Microsoft isn't selling it?

      I thought that Slashdot would be one of the last places where it would be assumed that the best solution (medical/technical) available is automatically mainstream. Don't assume that because it hasn't been accepted means it doesn't work. If I found out that by gargling vinegar my cancer went away, and I tell all my friends and they all gargle vinegar and all their cancers go away, would the Amercian Cancer Society declare me a hero?? What about all that money (is it billions of dollars?) that go EVERY YEAR into cancer cures? No one can patent vinegar, no one can make money off of it. Sure, a doctor who has taken an oath to make you well would LOVE to see you better, but drug companies have taken no such oath. They are out to make money. The American Cancer Society (ACS) has recently been chided by Congress to look at alternative therapies and to stop squashing competing research - sound familiar?


      I could go on - my father died from cancer 3 years ago, and I did a huge amount of research to try and help him - the ONLY thing that did was so-called alternative treatments - but because we tried them after mainstream medicine chewed him up and spat him out (uncurable - would you like some morphine with that? Oops, looks like your lungs are collapsing - wow, he woke up after you fed him that tea, must be a fluke - oh well, tea didn't fix the damage we did, it was inevitable anyway).


      OK... gotta stop ranting and get back to work. If you want to e-mail me I'm at ian at epperson dot com.

  • This is only happenning because the online scam people don't have an effective Washington lobby and don't make enough campaign contributions.

    After the FTC goons have pushed them around a bit, they'll get the idea and start paying the protection money, ah, sorry, right, that should be the "campaign contributions" (like the media industries do).

    Buy a few senators and the FTC will fight with you not against you.
  • So the governement has finally started on the side of the consumer.

    Let's not get carried away there. I have no illusions about gov't. and it's attitude towards consummers. I'm sure he government is just looking for a way to tax spammers. There's money being made and not spread around the right circles.

  • Help the FTC fighht SPAM. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:03AM (#3276748) Homepage
    I have automatically directed some SPAM to the FTC. I have an address on my website, for SPAMBOTS to grab. This address has an automitic forward to uce@ftc.gov [mailto]. Some spammers might be smart enough to filter out .gov, but this avoids the filter.

  • Devil's Advocate (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Dolohov ( 114209 )
    Y'know, as annoying as spam is, the FTC taking action is not necessarily a good thing. For all the complaining people do around here about the increasing corporatization of the Internet, I should think you would notice that the spammers these people are really going after are largely individuals and very small companies. They're not touching the big corporations (Who never spam, of course, just occasionally send out large-scale "commercial" email) who will soon find that with all the small spammer out of the way, people will be far more likely to reply to THEIR spam.

    As much as I detest spam, it at least inspires most people to develop BS detectors.

    • The deal with large corporations is that they rarely run outright scams. They generally push the envelope insofar as what constitutes a deceptive claim (or not), but not outright scams, Enron excluded of course :-).

      Scam artists who run outright scams (as vs. the Herbalife sort who do sell a product, sorta, kinda) tend to be small fry by nature because if they get big enough to pull in megabucks, they attract regulators like a cow pattie attracts flies. The fact that the online scammers that the FTC is going after are all small fry is a product of the effectiveness of the FTC (and simple bad publicity) at handling outright scams -- bigger fry have already been smacked down.

      -E

  • Who's paying again? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sammy baby ( 14909 )
    From the original story:

    Hey, this way we don't have to spend our own money on fighting this problem!

    Well actually, yeah, we do. The task force will be driven by the FTC, which means that you paid for it in the form of tax dollars. Just like you pay to have a police force and public schools.

    This time around, though, instead of those of us who have to deal with spam daily paying to treat the symptoms, the government (and us, by extention) will be paying to attack the disease. Still a step in the right direction.

  • Bouncing/replying/etc. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:10AM (#3276781)
    Yes, send it to them if they want it.

    One thing you shouldn't do, which sadly, too many end up doing.. is bouncing it back to the (fingerquotes) sender (end fingerquotes).

    More often than not, bob@randomisp.net isn't the one spamming you. Bob is just your average Joe who thinks spam is that stuff in a can that tastes darned good friend up on toast. (No, really, try it sometime.)

    Anyway, the people who think they're 'sticking it to the spammers' by sending spam back.. Are really just contributing to the problem. IMO, they're no better than the actual spammers.

    *hands out clues* E-mail addresses can be forged. Servers can be used to relay things. Maybe you should talk to a system admin somewhere, but it's not going to be Bob, who's just trying to check how his shares of Hormel are doing.

  • Damn! (Score:3, Funny)

    by cecil36 ( 104730 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:12AM (#3276790) Homepage
    I'm suspecting that Shifman Consulting won't be on the list of people to be sued. I don't recall ever seeing Bernie Shifman providing or ever promising a service, other than providing hemorrhoids to his spam recipients.

  • We need to whip them, into shape (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ukab the Great ( 87152 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:22AM (#3276837)
    Shape them up. Get them straight. We need to go forward and move ahead. Try to detect spam. It's not too late to whip them. Whip them good.

  • My own solution (Score:3, Funny)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:23AM (#3276850) Journal
    My own solution has always been along the line to make spammers pay money. period. Part of what makes Spamming attractive is that the spammers do not bear the cost of their "advertising" - we all subsidize it.

    There should be a spam tax, or something similar.

    This is all commercial speeach, and so therefore the government can charge a fee to defrays the costs to the system.

    My own solution is to make every spammmer have a spamm license, so that they are easily traceable for billing purposes. We can all bill them. I have also suggested a cute orange ear tag for spammers, nut this is merely an optional element for the plan.

    The other part of this is to make it profitable for people to track down illegal spammers and get them arrested, make them pay the fees we shoiuld be charge them. Enough people do this for no money [track them down], and are expert at it, so why not let them get some financial reward out of it?

    Future spam:

    Make Money Fast Tracking Down Illegal Spam!

    [smile]

  • I really enjoy some spam (Score:3, Funny)

    by marijne ( 536748 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:27AM (#3276893)
    it's always interesting to read all the possible things a guy can be tricked into doing with his penis (enlarging, pumping, drugging it with viagra (herbal or normal), etc...)
    it's a whole new world for a gel

  • Guess Carnivore is choking on all that Spam (Score:4, Funny)

    by theLunchLady ( 97107 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:30AM (#3276924)
    Not that spam is meat, but anyone notice the appropriateness of the name Carnivore?

  • Link to FTC's own press release (Score:5, Informative)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @10:37AM (#3276979) Homepage Journal
    The FTC's own press release is at

    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/04/spam.htm [ftc.gov]

    Plenty of further links to PDF's of the FTC's spam actions.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • Wait a minute.. are you sure this wasn't supposed to be posted on April Fool's Day? ;-)

  • Back in 1997, I started forwarding every piece of fraudulent spam that I received to the ftc. By that, I mean stuff about pyramid schemes, tax evasion and all the "send me your bank details so I can deposit $100 beelyeeon dollars", clearly labelled with a stock header that identified it as a consumer complaint. Can you guess the result?

    The FTC told my ISP to disconnect me for spamming them.

    Not once did they respond to my emails personally. If they'd provided (at that time) decent online contact details, I would gladly have used them. If they'd told me to stop - once - I would. They didn't. They just ignored me for a few months, then went crying to my online momma. Fortunately, the techie at my ISP who informed me of their complaint saw the funny side, and told them to get lost, but I stopped sending the emails out of courtesy.

    So, OK, give them the benefit of the doubt, but bear in mind that they might be soliciting, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they're listening. Quite apart from the resource problem, unless they've been beaten hard with a hell of a big clue-by-four in the tech section, this might turn out to be no more than a PR exercise, just collecting metrics that will get filed away until their next budget pitch. Just a thought.

  • So, what do libertarians think about this? Isn't the market supposed to regulate itself?

    • So, what do libertarians think about this? Isn't the market supposed to regulate itself?

      If it goes over the internet, it shouldn't be illegal. It can however be used as evidence of real world illegal activies.

    • The market is based on property rights. When someone violates those rights by theft (in this case, theft of bandwidth) and fraud (show me one spam that does not have one or more of the following: 1)a deceptive subject line, 2)a lying claim that the recipient opted in for it, 3)a bogus "unsubscribe" option, and/or 4)some form of false advertising within the message itself), a crime is committed and punishment is appropriate.
  • So what about the 'spammers' that offer an opt-out solution but as soon as you remove yourself from their list they sell your email address to another company or sign you up for 3 additional 'newsletters' about how to lose 30 lbs in 3 days.

    I've tested this with brand new email accounts. Sign up for 1 slightly dis-credible newsletter amd then remove yourself. See how many emails you get in the next week or so.
  • I see signatures from Russia, Singapore, etc. These are the newcomers. The smarter guys are still from abroad, but remail.
  • If the governement taxed email at one cent a message, it would hardly dent legitimate users. However, that would be fatal to spam/scammers.

  • Good, but not good enough (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @12:40PM (#3277885) Homepage Journal
    This is a start. But it doesn't go far enough. The real problem with SPAM isn't that alot of it is scams or cheap porno get-your-dick-sucked come ons. The real problem with SPAM is that it STEALS OUR BANDWIDTH. By being responsible for 30% of the traffic on the internet, SPAM steals the true potential of the internet from us all. OUR Internet is slowed down 30% because of SPAM.

    I am a moderate Libertarian, but this is something where the market can't regulate itself. There are many such situations, where the market doesn't regulate itself on par with the ideal. M$ is one such example.

    In this particular case, SPAM, it doesn't matter if everyone blocks it out using filtering that won't even d/l SPAM from the server. REGARDLESS of whether or not YOU block out SPAM, its still stealing from YOU. Because your ISP's have to devote huge amounts of their resources to sending SPAM around, they put the tab on your bill. Furthermore, its still slowing down the Net at large, and ultimately you, whether or not you download it. This is my proposal:

    PREAMBLE: Any violations of these statutes can result in jail time and severe fines paid to the state, the individual harmed, and the individual's ISP. The following proposal applies, unless otherwise stated, to E-MAIL, FAX, and the TELEPHONE. SPAM in all of these areas SHIFTS almost ALL of the cost of advertising from the ADVERTISER, to US and OUR ISP.

    (1) What's needed is an OPT IN ONLY system. ONLY people who OPT IN get sent stuff from organizations.

    (2) Furthermore, the OPT IN should have to be exclusive; opting in to receive e-mail from IBM NEVER gives them the right to let their "partners" send you crap. If they want to let their partners send you crap, they should have to contact you, explaning which partners they want you to let send you stuff, and what those partners do. Misrepresentation of this information should be considered a violation.

    (3) Unsolicited solicitations encouraging people to OPT IN are SPAM themselves. That is, if some organization (i.e., bigdicks.com) sends you an unsolicited "one time" request to "opt in" -- irrelevant whether that request is text-only or not -- its SPAM and a violation.

    (4) That said, the only legal way to propose to someone that they opt-in would be if they went to your website (and you had an opt-in option on your site) or requested information from you on opting in and you sent it to them. BUT, such opt-in options MUST state how large the OPT-IN proposal is in KB or MB accurate to 99%.

    (5) Any Opt-in proposals (either on the website or ones send by e-mail/fax/phone) must state the following about the commercial communication that consumers are opting into. (1) How frequently they send their communications, or on what bases [i.e., is it once every month? Or does it go by "whenver there's news"?] (2) How large is the average communication that is sent, plus or minus standard deviation? (3) Opt-in proposals must also state accurately what the communication sent is about. Intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of ANY of these pieces of information is a violation.

    (6) Said information in (5) must be updated at every new communication, correcting for that communication.

    (7) All such solicited communications are to include clear removal instructions. In ALL cases, the option to remove MUST be presented such that the individual need only respond with REMOVE in the subject field. The removal must be immediate, or quick enough such that the individual gets no more communications from that entity.

    (8) All such communications are to include an appropriate 3 letter header: Adv, Upd, or Nws. Adv applies for any commercial entity trying to sell you something. Upd applies for an update on a situation or software (i.e., an available upgrade). Nws applies for news (i.e., the stuff slashdot sends my e-mail).

    (9) This law is not intented to cover the communications of private INDIVIDUALS, but ONLY of organizations.
    • The real problem with SPAM is that it STEALS OUR BANDWIDTH. By being responsible for 30% of the traffic on the internet, SPAM steals the true potential of the internet from us all. OUR Internet is slowed down 30% because of SPAM


      Man pretty long winded, I'd have read the whole thing if you weren't wrong in the first couple of sentences. Even if Spam is responsible for 30% of internet traffic, and I don't know where you got that number or if it's verifiable but the number is unimportant. The internet is not 30% slower because of it. Number one, volume does not relate directly to speed, two your assumming that there is more potential volume than can be currently handled by the internet, since no one knows 1) the volume potential of the net as a whole, or 2) the potential traffic that is held up waiting for a chance to transmit you can't make that claim.

    • 30%? Spam doesn't even consume 1% of "our" bandwidth. The average person receives less than 50K bytes of spam a day. Even with a 33K baud dialup line, it takes less 15 seconds to download. Assuming that ISP oversells it's bandwidth 50 to 1, that's still only 0.02%
      The major cost of dealing with spam for an ISP isn't bandwidth, it's dealing with people who complain about it. Even so, it probably adds less than a nickel a month to your bill.

      The bandwidth killers for email are viruses, then mailing lists. Spam actually comes after normal email in terms of bandwidth usage.

      While I'm not opposed to legislation in principle, I'm opposed to your proposal for the following reasons;
      • It does not specify what the penalties for violating the law would be.
      • It does not mention who would be responsible for making the determination that the policy had been violated.
      • It's not possible to determine the size of an email with 99% accuracy unless you don't count the headers.
      • It's a lot more complex than it needs to be.
      • It doesn't prevent spam from individuals. Companies could therefore hire individuals to spam you.


      I could list more reasons, but I'm only willing to feed trolls so much in one sitting.

      Spam Wolf, the best spam blocking vaporware yet! [spamwolf.com]
      • Doesn't matter how much of our bandwidth SPAM is stealing. Its stealing our bandwidth and what we pay for. Even if its only a nickel.

        Furthermore, even if you disconsider the bandwidth, it DOES steal our storage space on servers. My Road Runner e-mail server stores 20MB of e-mail. When people SPAM me 4MB porno e-mails at a time, even if I have mechanisms not to download any of that and delete it from the server, its still using space that I PAID FOR. If I happen to usually leave mail on the server (so I can get it later if an accident happens), that's a major problem, because it could use up MY space.

        Penalties. I'd suggest stricter fines than currently exist. $1,000 to $5,000 to be paid to the spamee's ISP, the spammer's ISP, the spamee, and the government.

        Who's responsible for determining the policy is violated. Since the policy would allow for both lawsuit and legal criminal cases, judges would decide. A claims judge would decide the fine. A judge who deals with criminal matters would decide for the criminal side of the law.

        Size of e-mail. I meant disconsidering the header. Perhaps 99% was too strict. The point is, people should know if they're getting into 1KB, 10KB, 100KB, 1MB, or 10MB SPAM.

        Complexity. If you can find a way to simplify it, I'd be glad to hear it. The goal is to punish real spammers, but not punish someone on alt.abortion who e-mails a poster without solicitation (unless that poster then e-mails back requesting no further e-mails, and the initial e-mailer continues to e-mail).

        Spam from individuals. I'd suggest that the judge also determine if the individual was acting in a private manner or a commercial/interest manner for an organization. The reason I excluded individuals is because I don't want a pro-choice person who e-mails a pro-life person on alt.abortion with an opinion to be hit with violating the SPAM law. You're welcome to make suggestions.

        Finally, I've noticed you completely ignored the fact that I stated that FAX SPAM is also a problem. In fact, FAX SPAM is an even bigger problem than e-mail SPAM. Most people have slow fax machines, and it takes quite a while to process a SPAM fax; in the meanwhile, other useful or important faxes can't get through. Furthermore, even if it can process them and print them quickly, it doesn't matter. the fucks are still using MY INK and MY PAPER to do THEIR ADVERTISING, not to mention MY TIME.

        Maybe it doesn't make you mad that unscrupulous advertisers transfer most of THEIR COST of ADVERTISING to YOU. But it does bother ME. Furthermore, all you people who yack about "private" solutions fail to note that many many FAX machines don't have options to filter out certain faxes.
        • Doesn't matter how much of our bandwidth SPAM is stealing. Its stealing our bandwidth and what we pay for. Even if its only a nickel.


          Try re-reading my post again. Spam isn't what costs,
          the less than a nickel cost is dealing with people who complain about spam.

          Making spam illegal would dramatically raise the price ISPs pay for dealing with spam.
          That price would be passed on to the consumer, and we'd all pay for it in the end.

          Would you vote for a law that stopped spam, but raised your taxes $12 a year?
          What about $35?
          How about $100?
          What if it didn't work very well, but still raised your taxes?

          Spam Wolf, the best spam blocking vaporware yet! [spamwolf.com]

  • "Cracking the whip" means to work harder, as in produce more spam.

  • "The FTC and its law enforcement partners are sending a signal to the scammer: We're out there surfing the Net, reading our spam and working together to stop Internet scams," said J. Howard Beales III, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.

    Howard Beale [imdb.com] was the volatile news anchor in Network [imdb.com] who exhorted his audience to "...go to the window, open it, stick your head out and yell":

    I'm mad as hell, and I'm not not going to take this anymore!

  • I run an email reading service, where I charge $500 for reading spam sent to me after I advertise my business on USENET with a post that includes its unmunged email address. (It usually takes some detective work and litigation to collect the money.) If the government clamps down on this market, I will have to close my spam-reading sweatshop and all my hardworking employees will be out of a job. And this will certainly not have a good outcome for the American "consumer". (I don't know what that means but it sounds good, doesn't it?)
    Why is the government intent on destroying the American businessman? This is nothing less than economic terrorism. Once I start making a comfortable living, the govermnent has the responsibity of making sure that I never have to change my business model. Isn't this in the Constitution or something?
    I guess I have to send one of my $500 checks to Senator Fritz. That might buy me a bill that makes it illegal to have an email account that does not receive at least 200 federally approved unsolicited commercial emails per day. This would be great for my business and would help promote new markets.
  • AFAIK, forging return addresses in email is a federal crime and possibly illegal in one or more states.

    On some level (although I'm sure a SlashLawyer might disagree with me) it's the equivalent of wirefraud and I'd like to see the Feds going after that, number one on their list instead of cancer cures and other pesky things.

    Lots of spam would just drop out of sight if those jerks had to include their real email address.

    • Re:Kill the messenger! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kylus ( 149953 )
      Lots of spam would just drop out of sight if those jerks had to include their real email address.

      Of course it would. The spammers would be dragged out into the street and hung with nooses made of their own email lists :)

      Seriously though, it's nice in some ways to see that the spam sitution on the net has gotten to a point where the Government can't seem to ignore it anymore. On the other hand, I think it behooves people to help themselves when it comes to spam. Effective use of Procmail [procmail.org] can really help a person cut the spam out of their email diets. And with tools like Vipul's Razor [sourceforge.net], you can help OTHERS avoid getting the same spam in the future.
  • Seriously. I would love to work on the "task force" going after spammers. Who do I contact? The FTC? The FBI?
  • Whatever happened to the federal bill to extend the anti-unsolicited-FAX law to spam?

Slashdot Top Deals

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Close