FTC Sues Six in Spam E-Mail Round-Up 304
TamMan2000 writes "This story over at Yahoo makes it look like the federal government is going after some spammers with gusto... Although they seem to be busting them for fraud via spam rather than just the fact that they spam, it is still good to see them going after them. Also interesting, it looks like one of the things they are nailing them for is the fraudulent 'remove me from your mailing list' that actually brings more spam."
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
I live in Scottdale, AZ. There is a city ordinance preventing billboards within city limits. It's nice, actually. However, once you stray into Phoenix or Tempe, they are all over.
I imagine the original poster lives in an area where they've been legislated away.
Re:Good (Score:3, Funny)
And that's just not much of a point. Billboards are unsightly, but they're passive. You don't have to take specific action to avoid dealing with them. You don't have to delete them, and they don't take up any of your resources (unless they start making roads windier to allow for more billboard space.)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't see your point. As a matter of fact, I think your metaphor is heavily flawed. As posted elsewhere in this thread, "billboards are passive and don't cost you resources to see."
As a matter of fact, Fax machine ads are more akin to e-mail SPAM than billboards. They've been outlawed too. Why? It costs people ink.
Unfortunately, it's a lot harder to make laws against unsolicited mail as they did for fax machines. The main reason being that it's a lot harder to prove that any significant amount of computer resources were used. It's easy to prove that somebody cost you a sheet of paper, you can even provide a mathematically sound cost for that resource. But that's a lot harder to do with digital bits. You don't pay for bandwidth, the electricity cost is negligable, and your e-mail address could have been acquired anywhere.
Worse yet, when somebody faxes you, you have an item on your phone bill that indicates where it came from. It's a lot harder to spoof a phone number than it is an e-mail address. (Isn't it irritating how fundamentally flawed the current e-mail system is today?)
What's my point? It's simple: The reason that law hasn't been passed is that nobody has a clear idea how it can be fairly enforced. It's too easy to send e-mail that's virtually untrackable. Even if they're tracked down, it's hard to enforce, especially if it's done overseas. And, it's relatively easy to block. The ones that don't get blocked... well pooey, it cost you a few seconds to delete.
I don't think the Gov't is going to get kicked into gear to deal with the SPAM until a corporate entity with thousands of comptuters claims it lost millions of dollars dealing with SPAM.
Billboards (Score:2)
Ever visit Hawaii? They have a state law that limits visible signs. On the highway this means the only large signs you see are directional signs erected by the Department of Highways. Advertising on the highways is essentially limited to iconic symbols on official tourism signs.
Off-highway limits are less strict but still significant. Corporate identity signs are limited in size and location to prevent "Times Square Syndrome". It's really quite refreshing to drive through a city or town and not see "golden arches" towering above the fast-food district. It can be pretty difficult to tell a high-rise apartment building from a hotel unless you know the address or look for a very small corporate sign over the lobby entrance.
You cannot be more wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Believe me, I won a $1500 judgement (plus court costs) against a company that made one single, prerecorded call to my home last may. I settled for a $1000 check cut by the company's insurance. Unsolicited commercial faxes sent to any fax machine, business or residential, are prohibited unless you have a prior business relationship with the company. Live (operator) solicitation calls are not prohibited outright (exception: you are on an official state DNC list) on the first occurrence. Upon your request, they must add you on their list and maintain that request for 10 years. They must also send you, again on your request, a written copy of their policy regarding the maintenance of their company's DNC list. This is a matter of federal law. If you get 2 or more calls in violation of this request in 12 months, (I know, it *is* absurd that you have to get 2 violations in 12 months [which means they can call you every 53 weeks with no repercussions], but that is the way the law is written.), then you may sue in courts for statutory damages of $500 for [b]each[/b] violation and demand treble damage of triple the amount. My suit was for the $500 violation and then the treble damages.
The law was created to prevent the abuse of privacy and the inalienable right to b simple left alone. This law has ultimately been upheld in every major case to date (exception: the cousin of Rush Limbaugh [a federal judge] prevents its use in his district, but it is currently on appeal). The best part of this law is the private right of action that this law creates. Any spam bill passed must contain this portion or it will ultimately be a dead hand law. The government does not have the resources to attack this problem, so the rights of collecting damages has been given to the people.
To date I have received $1800 in settlement due to a single prerecord from 3 different companies. I have a case in December against a local junk faxer and fully expect a $1500 judgement (plus court costs). Do a google search for just the term 'junk fax' and get your eyes opened.
Some try to (erroneously) argue that the government has better things to do than make laws like this. The government does not have to make progress on every front just to make progress on any front. It is not the mere unwanted advertising, it is the fraudulent method and often illegal or illicit methods used to push it. I for one would not have a big problem with the law legitimize commercial email if it set the requirements regarding it such as a simple field that would thus allow people to choose on their own if they wish to receive it. If something as simple as '[ADV]' were required to be added to the subject line and headers could not be forged, then the problem as it is known would die. People can set a single, simple filter to block it if they do not wish,a nd that would be the end of it. Those that wish to get it will retain that right.
You thinking billboards equals spam misses the point [b]entirely[/b]. It does detract from the natural view, however those billboards are on private property using private resources that does not directly cost the consumer anything. What about people placing ads on your windshield or through your open window? One isn't bad, but would you mind of I stuffed several hundred into your car window? That is my 'right' is it not? Obviously you have not been shafted by a 'joe job' where a spammer uses your address as their 'reply-to' or 'remove' address causing you to get hundreds or thousands of bounce messages or angry threats each hour for several days. Try actually doing some research next time.
To really provide teeth to the bill, the consumer must be allowed to enforce it by collecting damages on their own.
Re:Good (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:3, Funny)
It's only a matter of time before Venezuala joins the Axis of Evil if it keeps seeing off US backed coup attempts...
Re:Good (Score:2)
Here's an Idea (Score:2, Funny)
Go FTC (Score:5, Informative)
You have to see this quote from the FTC. LOL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Priceless.
Finally. (Score:2, Funny)
"FREE VIAGRA SHIPPED FROM MEXICO"
or
"Re: You want to have HOT ANAL sex!!!!"
email I may drop kick my computer across the room.
What scares me is the people who don't mind this.
Re:Finally. (Score:4, Insightful)
We find ourselves able to zone out and ignore almost anything after awhile. I'm sure that every
It's what we trade to have freedom. Of course, the Spammers have freedom too.
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
I think a better strategy here is to manage your e-mail addresses properly from the beginning. I get 2-3 spams per YEAR at my main, real e-mail address. (And it's always the same spam too... something about skin blemish removal.)
When you properly use sneakemail, spamcop, an auxiluary spam e-mail account (the one you see attached to this post), proper spamproofing, and aliasing on your own domain name, and you do this all from the very beginning, you can prevent nearly 100% of spam, so no filters are needed.
The Tune-Out Plague bites back (Score:5, Funny)
He says "That looks interesting" and points to a shelf.
I say "What? this?" picking up rather lame DVD.
"Not that... that!" he says, still pointing but stepping closer.
I pick up the cruddy DVD that was next to the first.
"No! This!" he says...
After several dense itterations I realize that he is talking about the rectanngular advertisement that is clipped to the shelf between two rows of DVDs. He is actually touching the sign by this point, and getting kind of upset.
It seems that I have cultured a blind spot for full-color rectangular advertisements immediately above or below anthing I feel is "content". It is so pervasive in my mental state that meat-world advertisements have begun getting the same treatment.
The comercialization of the internet has actually rendered me blind.
Square insets are next, and soon I wont even be able to read a text book any more.
Someone should do a study.
Re:Finally. (Score:2)
Get them any way you can. (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, Capone was busted for tax evasion -- not for his worst crimes. Get 'em any way you can.
Re:Get them any way you can. (Score:4, Funny)
All that will happen is... (Score:5, Insightful)
How much would it cost to extradite Koreans and Chinese for spamming - thousands of them a year??
Re:All that will happen is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what possible benefit China would get from this; perhaps they hope to use spam as an excuse to regulate the Internet even more. "Spam here is terrible, we have to scan all emails to stop it."
Wake up! (Score:2)
Remember. I never visit Korean or Chinese websites, so its not them stealing my email address...
Re:Wake up! (Score:4, Informative)
Korean or Chinese spambots could visit your websites and get your email address that way.
Re:Wake up! (Score:2)
Re:Wake up! (Score:2)
Re:All that will happen is... (Score:2)
You crapflood my networks, and I'll ask you nicely to disable the crapflooders. You refuse, and I'll just take care of it myself.
Re:All that will happen is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me a break... are you saying that it's absolutely worthless to pursue these people and have them shut down? Are you kidding? This is great news. If you were an American citizen that got a cease-and-desist order from the FTC, would you say to your wife/kids/boss/dentist/dog "Well, that's it, I'm gonna move to China. Life is better there."
I doubt it. Some of the operations might have resources to re-locate there, but most spamming operations are small, run out of Joe Six-pack's house. Moving servers to foreign countries might work in the short term, but it's still a huge hassle and no guarantee, since you still operate out of the States/Canada/wherever.
Go FTC!
Re:All that will happen is... (Score:2)
This seems to suggest that you think the people who actually send most of the spam are from the US.
"How much would it cost to extradite Koreans and Chinese for spamming - thousands of them a year??"
So why are you now blaming non-US-ians ?
Isn't one of the main problems with spam that it uses up everyone's time and resources. So if much of the spam is sent from the US, via Korean/Chinese/whatever open relays, don't the Koreans/Chinese/whatever sys admins have a valid point that their time and resources are being used up by US-ians, too ?
Yeah, they should do more to fix the problem. But if they write/e-mailed you in Korean/Chinese/whatever, how would you respond ? But many people expect them to respond to e-mails written in English.
You're just lumping Koreans/Chinese/whatever all together as one big lump of people. Why shouldn't the Koreans/Chinese/whatever do the same with US-ians, and figure that if US-ians are abusing their computer systems, let US-ians suffer because of it, in the hope that eventually the US will do something to stop the problem AT ITS SOURCE.
Re:All that will happen is... (Score:2)
Re:All that will happen is... (Score:2)
spam (Score:2, Funny)
spam not dead?? (Score:2)
spam dead by writing haiku [slashdot.org]
I guess I was wrong.
It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
I especially like them going after people who have the fake "click here to be removed" which really means "click here to get a thousand times more spam". It's nice to see that one of the better laws is finally getting enforced. I always laugh when I hear about some of the crazy laws we have and how many we have that never get enforced.
For example, in South Dakota it is legal to shoot Native Americans under certain conditions. There are a couple laws regarding this. One law states that if there are 5 Native Americans (the law uses the term Indian but I will refrain from that), on your property, you may shoot them. Another one that may be only applicable to the town of Spearfish is that if there are three Native Americans walking together, you may declare them a war party and shoot them. Another law says they have to be crossing a bridge to be a war party and shootable.
So many crazy laws in this country. But back to the point, the anti-spam is a good law, in my opinion and it's nice they are finally going to enforce it.
Re:It's about time. (Score:2)
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)
My favourite is one from Aus (Newcastle) where beating a rug on the front lawn of your house is punishable by public flogging. I find the fact it's still [technically] law amusing but the thing that gets me chuckling is that there was a time when people beating rugs on their front lawns was such a problem they had to pass that law to make them stop... funny world.
Now if you gave a spammer 1 lash for every spam you'd soon have, well, less spammers I guess...
(Mr Spammer sir, I'd like you to meet my good friend here - the Lash'o'matic, which will be administering the first million of your 250 million lashes...)
Re:It's about time. (Score:2)
(If you don't get it, watch some Monty Python).
Not so funny laws (Score:2)
To give a contemporary example with extremely offensive (and inaccurate) stereotypes, consider a hypothetical 1950s law prohibiting the eating of fried chicken and watermelon on the front porch.
Do you think the authors were really dealing with a problem of greasy chicken bones and slippery watermelon rinds on the nearby sidewalks?
Or do you think the law might be a not-so-subtle way of keeping certain people out of sight?
I have no idea which group beat their rugs on the front lawn, and which group found it a convenient way to "put them in their place," but I would lay long odds against the law actually dealing with an excess of public carpet floggings.
Re:Not so funny laws (Score:3, Interesting)
This happened as large numbers of Irish came to the country, and was a result of anti-Catholic bigotry. The purpose was to undercut the Catholic school system. The result was the pathetic school system we now have.
Re:Not so funny laws (Score:3, Insightful)
The current system didn't give us Lincoln or Edison. That was the past system, before the teachers unions became entrenched, the "Schools of Education" became the authority on how to teach, and the school districts too big to be responsive.
Oh, and the countries that were kicking our butt also have strong private school systems and provide government funding to private schools.
The universal publically funded education system really did result in our pathetic system. It took quite a while for it to degenerate to the level it did, but the near monopoly on education by publc systems led to the natural result of a government monopoly - disaster.
As to your supposition. I was educated in public schools and my mother was a public school teacher. When my daughter was born, my mother said that she only had one firm request of us - that her first grandchild not attend public school! The request was honored.
Re:It's about time. (Score:2)
I hear there's an old law in Hereford making it legal to shoot a Welshman provided he's inside the city walls on a Sunday. Am I the only one that thinks the SAS could take advantage of this for training purposes?
Re:It's about time. (Score:2)
Great. So if you're a native in The Dakotas, don't start a spam company, or someone is likely to take advantage of wierd statutes. For the rest of us, however, I don't think that this is much of an issue. (and I'm not willing to shoot someone just for sending me some spam)
______
In the meantime, I think that it's probably about time to start UDP'ing large chunks of the Asia Pacific netblocks. Those guys have shitloads of Spamvertized sites, and they're not going to do anything about it until it starts costing them traffic.
Sending these spam-friendly ISPs complaints doesn't do any good. They just let the email pile up until their mailboxes fill up and start bouncing.
It's not going to do us any good to wait for our local governments to come to an agreement with China about proescuting something that isn't even a crime over here. It's time for us the users of the internet to use our own marketing clout and technical expertise to lock down people who put hundreds of spams into our mailboxes and force us to spend time and cycles wading through this garbage.
When these foreign ISPs start to realize that letting spammers onto their net makes their IPs useless, then they'll start getting pro-active about the problem.
Re:It's about time. (Score:2)
Also, in Chester (county Chechire) England, it is still legal to shoot, with a crossbow, any Welsh person, as long as you do it inside the city walls and after 11 PM.
FTC E-Mail To Spammers (Score:5, Funny)
To: evilspammer@somewhere.kr
Subject: !!!!NEW!!! SPAM BUST!!
Yes, YOU! We are busting you up big time for crimes against humanity. This is a free service to you from the FTC! A unique one time offer!
To be acquitted and removed from our list, please go to this web site [ftc.gov] and leave your home address.
Earn cash with your computer... (Score:2, Informative)
Eight minutes?! Damn, that's what those ads for 'make money fast over the internet' are all about. All you have to do is hang around chat rooms and sell email addresses to spammers.
Seriously, though, eight minutes? If it's a bot, I'm really impressed...
Re: FTC Sues Six in Spam E-Mail Round-Up (Score:2, Interesting)
Hang 'em high (Score:5, Informative)
I worked on a (for a court) regarding those TV ads that promised you could buy a Corvette at government auction for $10 or get a credit card regardless of your credit history. The FTC involvement was important because it took an incredible amout of work to nail the slimeoid who ran the schemes -- he just kept repackaging them. He finally ended up in jail, unusual for this sort of low-grade fraud, but a last resort after he scoffed at every other penalty.
Sound like a spammer?
My reaction? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeeeaaahhh. Get those bastards and make 'em pay. This one in particular has caused an acquantance of mine (in her 90's) problems. She honestly and naively attempted to remove herself from many of these spammers and only ended up getting more and more frustrated before calling me to inform me that due to the porn spam she was getting, she was cancelling her email account unfortunately isolating her from an important communication medium to family members and friends scattered all over the country.
Re:My reaction? (Score:2, Interesting)
Your friend could also probably switch her email account, but that's beside the point.
I will pretty much only ever click one of those things if I honestly remember signing up it, in which case it's rarely spam and usually from a company with a reputation to protect.
On the other hand I have a few messages that I get routinely that I haven't quite figured out how to filter out. The entertaining thing about one... a bunch of crappy boiler plate quasi content and one link... a link that sez 'remove me,' talk about an email harvester if I ever saw one. They're selling something but give you no way to respond (different email every time), they aren't even trying to appear legit.
This behavior makes it impossible for people like that spam-queen they had on WSJ the other day (yesterday?) to claim legitimacy. The 'Remove me' links don't work as a rule so claiming people can always opt out of their list is like saying you can avoid getting mugged by putting a big sign on your back, "please don't rob me, I'm carrying a lot of cash and now would be a bad time to lose it". If you're genuinely dealing with a well intentioned mugger it might help, but usually it only makes things worse.
uce@ftc.gov reminder... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:uce@ftc.gov reminder... (Score:2)
Re:uce@ftc.gov reminder... (Score:2)
Re:uce@ftc.gov reminder... (Score:2)
This usually means that once a day I eyeball the contents of my "spam" folder to make sure there are no false positives, then move everything over to the other folder. Plus about a half-dozen messages that make it into my main mailbox.
But something I have not yet gotten a good answer for is what format to use when sending the spam to the FTC. I want to preserve the original headers (to help determine when open relays are being abused, headers forged, etc.), but that's surprisingly hard to do right. And do I strip out the spamassassin headers, or leave them in?
My current approach is to mime-encode the entire message (content-type: message/rfc822) and send it in a new envelope. I hope they know how to decode it, but Mozilla (annoyingly) doesn't. That makes it hard to verify your scripts before making them live.
A heartfelt thank you! (Score:5, Funny)
I've been trying to find that Yahoo site or whatever for like two weeks now. Everybody's been talking about it, but I had no idea where it was at until you linked to their Web server in your story submission.
Please accept my heartfelt thank you!
Asking for it (Score:3, Insightful)
"Internet users can forward spam for FTC investigation to uce@ftc.gov."
Oh, their really asking for it now. I can see it now...
"FTC mail server gets
Re:Asking for it (Score:2)
Official FTC Release (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/11/netforce.htm
conditions met (Score:2)
"The FTC can only legally pursue cases where there are clear instances of spam being used to perpetuate a scam or conduct fraudulent business activities.
"The test is: Does the spam make a representation, an offer of some sort of product or service? Is that representation false? And would an average consumer believe that the representation was true?" Huseman explained. "If those conditions are met, the FTC can act."
Just think, millions of spam messages get sent to uce@ ftc.gov (not easy to remember), yet only six people are on the job.
Re:conditions met (Score:2)
I think, then, that what we have to do is reply to and purchse each and every one of them. When they don't work, we can get 'em busted. A deformed penis is a small price to pay for a spam-free mailbox. Especially for
Re:conditions met (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, no shit. I tried it. It works, but not like they say. I'm now a foot in diameter but still only 3" long.
A good thing? (Score:2)
The bad thing about all this is that the government is making the rules up as it goes along. Anybody who believes this is A Good Thing is deluding themselves. Every time cases like these are prosecuted successfully, a little freedom is taken away from the governed, and a little more power is granted to the governors.
Re:A good thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A good thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem a little paranoid.
Re:A good thing? (Score:2)
They are busting them with old rules, not new ones.
Re:A good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
But even setting that aside, I dare you to show me ANY precedence for your right to come into my house, raid my refrigerator, cook a meal on my stove, eat it on my plates, then leave the mess in the middle of my living room to poison my dog.
Yet that's exactly what spammers are doing (in a rhetorical sense) when they use my domain name to send out their crap, or abuse an open mail relay, or use poorly designed forms on some web site to send their messages to others. They're deliberately and willfully using my resources and good reputation to their own benefit, without my consent and without any renumeration to me.
Like you, I have very mixed feelings about government regulation of spam where the company has the balls to stand behind its own message. Let me blackball them myself. But I have no more qualms about the government cracking down on spammers who "borrow" my good name or resources than I do about the government cracking down on criminals who "borrow" my car, or "borrow" my credit card, etc.
Firewall em (Score:5, Interesting)
http://enthalpy.homelinux.org/spammers.txt [homelinux.org]
Then dump it in
for I in `cat
do
echo Blacklisting Spammer: $I/23
iptables -A INPUT -s $I/23 -j REJECT
done
It puts a drag on the spammer's system as they try to send mail to you for 5 days or so before their mail server finally gives up and decides your domain is not reachable.
Of course you need to have your own domain to do this, but with Linux and free Dyn-DNS services, this is not a problem. And it WORKS!
Re:Firewall em (Score:4, Insightful)
One list that was posted here on Slashdot about a year ago blacklisted several sites that I have noticed so far, including digitalblasphemy.com and avery.com (the people that make labels). A lot of these were
Since vandan is using only
I still use the list, so it wasn't too bad, but I'm considering pulling it back out of my ruleset now, or at least the larger blocks.
Re:Firewall em (Score:2)
We use the IP list here at work, and if an IP range causes us problems, I find about about it pretty fast and remove it from the list.
As for whether you can trust that I'm telling the truth - I'll leave that up to each person.
At least people can build their own list and use the above script anyway...
Re:Firewall em (Score:2)
Forgive my iptables/smtp interaction ignorance, but wouldn't we want to deny the packet instead of reject it? Better yet might be a rule or patch that allows the connection to come partially up before it disconnects, forcing the sending system into a timeout situation. Might not have a nice effect on those whose systems were compromised to send spam, but could cut down the success rate of the spammer.
Imagine a distributed set of these systems, with spam poison sites feeding those addresses to spammers.
Some good out of my forwards (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Some good out of my forwards (Score:5, Interesting)
of my domains to use as a return address. I was suddenly getting hundreds of bounced spam per hour
I had the same thing happen to me.
First of all I asked the site being promoted in the spam [one of the erotica.com group] to please stop forging addresses at my domain.
Nothing changed -- not even an acknowledgement.
So I started forwarding all the bounces to support@erotica.com and their domain contact address domadmin@aeroweb.com
Nothing changed.
Then I started also started forwarding the bounces to affiliates of erotica.com.
Nothing changed
Then I contacted the upstream provider and asked them to shut down the intermediary site (one of their clients) that was being directly referenced in the spam.
Nothing changed, not even an acknowledgement.
So their abuse address was added to the list of those receiving the bounces.
Over a period of three days, nearly 9,000 bounce messages were received and forwarded to the parties involved.
No doubt they were filtering these bounces -- but what else can you do in such a situation?
The spammers don't care that they're screwing up someone's email system by forging return addresses and the upstream provider (pnap.net) is obviously also a blackhat in league with the devil.
If people think it's annoying getting 30-60 spams a day, imagine what it's like getting 3,000 unwanted email bounces per day due to the sleazy activites of spammers!
Re:Some good out of my forwards (Score:4, Insightful)
That kind of forgery was very illegal. If you can connect it with the web site, you can probably sue them for a lot of money. Given that you had to handle the bounces manually, you can probably claim damages of a buck or two for each message and sue as well.
Hanging themselves... (Score:4, Insightful)
Internet users can forward spam for FTC investigation to uce@ftc.gov
How many spambots will harvest that address?
How excellent a way is that for spammers to hang themselves?
Alternative legislation (Score:5, Funny)
How about a law against ALL CAPS in e-mail? At the very least, we'd get rid of the more annoying stuff. Plus, what member of the registered voting population would vote against this? It could even weed out the unsavory elements of IRC.
RedBetty: Hi, everyone!zerokool772: WHTA R U WEARNG??/?
FTCBot: zerokool772, your use of the capslock key is unwarranted and without license. Cease and desist, or pay the consequences.
zerokool772: WTF DO U THNK U R?
*FTCBot has banned zerokool772 and has contacted the appropriate authorities.
The problem is... (Score:3, Interesting)
At least they are one division of government that doesn't try to overstep its bounds
josh
On a related note, (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm reported at yahoo (Score:2, Interesting)
Just seems a little strange considering Yahoo sells it's subscribers off to spammers after promising "Yahoo for life!" and offering a spam filter (ya right) :) Also for 2 years every email I sent to my friends had a little advertisement for Yahoo which could be considered spam then they decided to charge for the service they promised free.
Yahoo? My ass!!!!
shoulda been (Score:2)
Why not a political issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Issues like this, which a few people (the spammers) act against almost everyone else's intrests are ripe for conventional political action... why hasn't it happened yet? Granted, there are examples at the state level, and they have run into legal hurdles, but I'm really suprised we havn't seen federal legislation yet - it seems like an easy way to pick up votes.
Re:Why not a political issue? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's sort of like romantic comedies. They should be banned, but there just isn't the legal grounds.
I'm glad it isn't (Score:3, Insightful)
While I frequently take issue with the libertarian knee-jerk reaction against government involvement in just about any area, no matter how constructive it might be, in this particular case, much as I hate and loathe SPAM, I come down firmly on the libertarian side.
With Spam Assassin and other filtering packages we have the technology to take care of SPAM ourselves. We do not need the government passing new laws regulating how people communicate (even sleazeballs like Spammers), we can and should dump those people in the bit bucket ourselves, with our own software.
The anti-fraud laws are generally sufficient
We have the means, and the tools, to deal with these lowlifes ourselves. Let the FTC chase down those committing fraud, and let us filter out the rest ourselves.
We all need to adopt... (Score:2)
Long time friend just got scammed (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice enough guy, when we were teens he let us put a bunch of carp in his nasty green algea swimming pool. We spent the summer getting high, learning guitar rifts, and fishing for carp in our backyard fishing hole.
Well, eventually, his dad, the glue that was holding it all together died so his brothers and sisters wanted to sell the house and divide up the inheretance. Kim took his 150k share, bought a van, and spent the next 2 years living in his van, driving around playing music and doing odd jobs. It's not like he couldn't have gone and gotten a place, but at 40 this was what he decided to do with his life..
One day he got an e-mail "NIGERIAN OFFICIAL NEEDS HELP IN FUNDS TRANSFERS" or some shit like that. I saw him in person one day and he asked me if it was a scam. From all the stuff on slash I had read I knew it was.. But the promises in the e-mails were just too good for him to pass up.
The scammers had him convert everything to a cashiers check, then had him fly to amsterdam in person to deliver the check. He flew halfway across the world thinking there was going to be some big payoff for helping these people..
3 months later he hasn't seen a dime or heard from the people. He got screwed out of 150k in just one moment of handing over a check..
I know most smart people wouldn't fall for this, their "SCAM ALERT" alarm would go off in their heads. The sad thing is these people prey on people not of sound mind, the elderly, the lonely. To say, "Oh they should have known better" just doesn't fit because the MO of these scammers takes them directly to these types of people.
Kim Bo is doin alright. He had to sell his bass guitar, which he loved dearly and some other music stuff. He's doing odd jobs to keep gas in the van and food in his belly but at his age in his mental condition the outlook isn't going to be so bright in another 10 years.
Before someone suggest he goes to the FBI, well he's done that already, but the FBI told him there's not much they can do. Kinda sucks we got them goin on these wild Osama Bin Laden goose chases because the frequency of these scams seem to be increasing.
I hope the FTC nails these fuckers to the wall. Hopefully they'll be in the same cell as nasty nate and really get what they deserve
All fucking right! (Score:2)
Ya' know with all of the bullshit floating around here about how Microsoft is "killing" the Net, them having a dominant browser is *nothing* compared to the Fed watching over your shoulder. For as bad spam was, at least the Net used to be free...
Remove me (Score:4, Informative)
However, the spammers are cutting their own throat with it. Citing S.1816 (or whatever) as proof that the message "cannot be considered spam" is a lie. There is no, and has never been, any law of the United States passed by the Senate alone.
That's somewhat abstract - although it's still a criminal act in some states to claim something is the law when you know it is not. But the promise to remove the person's email address from future mailings is a very specific claim. This means that the spam is asking for something of indeterminant but real value (a valid email address which can be sold to other spammers) in exchange for a specific promise you have no intention of keeping. That's fraud, and I wouldn't mind seeing every spammer who makes that claim get hit with a warning letter followed by a stiff penalty.
My favorite Spam... (Score:2)
I can almost guarentee such a title does not exist...
I say again... (Score:3, Interesting)
On a side note, why aren't ISPs taking a more proactive approach in stopping spam? I remember here a while ago that people were bitching because Verizon blocked all tcp port 25 except to their servers. This should help dramatically in stopping spam as Verizon can then detect it at their server. People here cried about it. If you want to use your SMTP server at work then use a VPN. It is unfortunate but there has to be tighter controls to stop spam at the ISP it originates from.
what the internet is about (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what the internet is about (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, there is far more oversight over people who advertise with Federal mail. For instance, requesting that you be removed from third-class mailing lists generally works. A company doesn't want to waste money sending advertisments to someone who is so against them that they will take the time to request they not be contacted. Generally a physical address is valid and not a "spam catcher". Note how most bulk mailings are addressed " Or Current Resident", so the physical spammers don't really benifit from discovering an address is "valid".
Internet spammers are always up to all sorts of dirty tricks, such as adding addresses to mailing lists when the receive a request to remove the address.
sued six junk e-mailers? - should be in jail (Score:2)
Excuse me? These are fraud (a felony) cases! They should be arresting the spammers and putting them in jail for at least 24 hours. The spammers should be facing criminal charges, not civil remedies.
The FTC only has jurisdiction under the FTC Act (Score:2)
This is unsurprising, because the FTC Act only governs conduct that constitutes "deceptive and unfair trade practices."
Oh the irony (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ISP Clause to Sue Spammers (Score:2)
Re:i want strong spam laws (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But what about Jack Booted Thugs(tm)? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see...
I'd put up a website where you could send me your most despised spam and a $5 donation.
Once any given spammer accounted for $25K worth of donations, I'd put on my steel-capped boots and go pay them a visit.
A little basic "attitude readjustment" (courtesy of the said boots and the odd length of lead pipe) would provide significant encouragement for them to mend their spamming ways.
Photos of the repentant spammer (or what's left of them) would then be posted on the website as a warning to other spammers who might consider bothering Net users with their crap.
Now is there anyone who'd use such a valuable Net-community service I wonder?
Oops... I forgot to say... it's streaming MP3... (Score:2)
(sorry for the double post... I forgot to switch on cookies...)
Re:Opt out gets more spam (Score:3, Interesting)