Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Government The Courts United States News

FTC Tries to Can Sex Spam 168

Posted by michael from the closing-the-barn-door dept.
F_SMASH writes "The United States' Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has charged a group of companies and individuals with failing to include required warnings on 'sex' related spam e-mail."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTC Tries to Can Sex Spam More

FTC Tries to Can Sex Spam

Comments Filter:

  • Offshore? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:32PM (#11326443) Homepage Journal

    One of the companies, Global Net Ventures, is based in the UK. How is the US FTC going to charge them?

    • Re:Offshore? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AceCaseOR ( 594637 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:39PM (#11326550) Homepage Journal
      I figure that, as they were spamming US Citizens, the FTC's argument is that they were doing business inside the United States, and thus are bound to follow US laws when doing so.

      I'm seriously hoping the FTC wins this suit.

      • haha. .guatanamo base next for the ceos? I for one certainly hope usa will TRY that one.. haha

      • Re:Offshore? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LucidBeast ( 601749 )
        Unlikely. Despite US citizens being spammed US laws do not apply in UK or other way around. Of course these guys might run into trouble if they enter US, but UK wouldn't extradite them for sending spam. There might be laws in UK to do that though.

        • Likely. (Score:5, Informative)

          by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @05:19PM (#11327144) Homepage
          The FTC has gone after Global Web Promotions [barbieslapp.com] in Australia. The FTC froze the funds that they had in Canda, along with other locations. Even if they are not in the USA, if they take credit cards, their money flows through the USA.

          Many countries have signed the Hague Convention which include the rules on cross border enforcement of civil judgments.


          • The FTC froze the funds that they had in Canada, along with other locations. Even if they are not in the USA, if they take credit cards, their money flows through the USA.

            Wait a second, did Canada get annexed by the USA while I was on holidays?

    • Re:Offshore? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Average_Joe_Sixpack ( 534373 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:40PM (#11326565)
      One of the companies, Global Net Ventures, is based in the UK. How is the US FTC going to charge them?

      Little things like borders have never stopped US authorities before [indymedia.org.uk]
    • US absolutely can't do a thing. It's the same old issue of a spammer in Antartica 1000 miles away across the world, pressing "send, send, send".

      I love how a million American parents are writing a million complaint letters to Clearchannel etc for flashing 1 second of Janet Jackson's breast. Here they are at the mercy of the porn spammers, and can't do a thing.

      • Re:Offshore? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AviLazar ( 741826 )
        I don't really think "nothing" is very valid. Some countries give the US (and other jurisdiction) - they just have to get permission first (sort of like when police from one state want to go to another state). They do this because it helps improve political relations (Trade relations, treaties, etc). They do this because turn-about is fair play "Yes Mr. President we let you come in and get our spammers, now we want to go in and get that guy who sold our people fake stocks".

        The UK is fairly friendly with
      • US absolutely can't do a thing.

        They don't need to, the U.K. government will do it for them. No country with any sense wants to risk trade with the US for the sake of an internet porn spammer.

        It's the same old issue of a spammer in Antartica 1000 miles away across the world, pressing "send, send, send".

        Block naval or air shipments of fuel "shiver,shiver,shiver can't seem to make hand work!".

        • Counter argument is of course that US propably doesn't want to harm relations with UK too much for couple of porn spammers either. On second thought I might be wrong since it's porn and politicians in US are nowdays bit too inclined to listen to their fundamentalist base.

          • Re:Offshore? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Perl-Pusher ( 555592 )
            It's not really about a fundamentalist base. Many people especially the 1/2 of the population that are women are disgusted with all the crap clogging their inbox. Until recently my company was getting very graphical images. The women in our employ made it clear they wanted it stopped. The answer was a combination of blacklists, spamassassin, blocking entire countries (Thailand, china etc.) ip blocks. We do local and national business. Anything from asia went to the postmaster account for review. After about

          • I find it hard to believe the any country would be particularly interested in protecting spammers. Seems to me more like a case of the UK being helpful because they know their citizens are sick of spam and this will help rid the world of it.

            I don't know if the UK is as strict about porn as the US, but I don't think it matters too much. I don't think they would consider this a porn issue.

      • Re:Offshore? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mhollis ( 727905 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @05:08PM (#11326988) Journal

        Um, CBS broadcast Janet's "wardrobe malfunction." Clear Channel decided to quit airing Howard Stern in many areas. And it's not necessarily American parents who are doing the writing, it's right-wing organizations [parentstv.org] who take credit for most of the organizing.

        Howard is (and I am) still waiting for the FCC to treat Oprah Winfrey the same way his show has been treated by Michael Powell (the chairman of the FCC). I regularly do not tune in Mr. Stern's broadcasts but I know that many do and I believe the increased attempts at "regulation" (read doling out fines) have nothing to do with decency on the airwaves -- something the FCC got out of the business of being concerned with during the Reagan Administration.

        After all, according to Republican rhetoric, the market ought to decide what should be aired. It was the Reagan FCC that decided that market pressures should decide what the vertical and horizontal blanking intervals should be like (if you do not work in television, you probably don't know what these are for -- but you are the market making these decisions).

        I had thought that the FTC ought to regulate spammers.

    • Re:Offshore? (Score:5, Informative)

      by pjrc ( 134994 ) <paul@pjrc.com> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:48PM (#11326678) Homepage Journal
      How is the US FTC going to charge them?

      Well, from the MSNBC article:

      But Harrington said the CAN-SPAM Act, which took force last January, makes
      all firms that engage in affiliate marketing liable for the actions of their sub-contractors.

      "There's a message here for anybody running an affiliate program; you need to monitor what the third parties are doing," she said. "If you are using a business model that recruits others, you are strictly liable for the practices of those third parties. It's not just the people who push the button. It's the business that provides the financial incentive. The law is clear and strict."

      And quoting from the CNN Money article:

      A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants that prohibits them from sending similar e-mails and
      freezes their assets, pending a preliminary hearing.

      Now if all the companies and people involved are outside the US, or they keep all their money stuffed in their mattresses and pay cash for everything, maybe they can just run away.

      But if they've done any banking within the US, they probably stand to lose all their money if they don't show up in court. (now if only groklaw would cover these cases....)

    • The same way they dealt with a P2P site in the UK. They ask the British Government permission to bulldoze their way in and wreck havoc, in exchange for making the Canadians buy some more subs.
    • One of the companies, Global Net Ventures, is based in the UK. How is the US FTC going to charge them?

      My guess is send them a bill with a link to PayPal.

    • MLATs (Score:4, Informative)

      by taxman_10m ( 41083 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @05:17PM (#11327121)
      http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial _690.html [state.gov]

      Criminal Cases Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties: Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs) are relatively recent development. They seek to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regularize and facilitate its procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally the two Justice Departments, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants, and to serve process. Generally, the remedies offered by the treaties are only available to the prosecutors. The defense must usually proceed with the methods of obtaining evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country which usually involve letters rogatory. See "Questions" below.

      MLAT Treaties in Force:

      I. The United States has bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) currently in force with: Anguilla*, Antigua/Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands*, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominica, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, Grenada, Hong Kong, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Korea (South), Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Montserrat*, Morocco, Netherlands, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Romania, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad, Turkey, Turks and Caicos Islands*, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.
  • It is good that the government is doing something about spammers, even if it is just one segment of them.

    • Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers (Score:4, Funny)

      by JohnnyKlunk ( 568221 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:35PM (#11326487)
      yeah, but they're trying to can the only spam that I actually like!
      • they're trying to can the only spam that I actually like!

        In other words, you are one of the stupid assholes that responds to porn spam, thus encouraging the bastards to send more of it. Fuck you very much.

      • yeah, but they're trying to can the only spam that I actually like!

        I agree. I have such a hard time finding pr0n sites when I am surfing. These guys provide a real service to society.

      • I know you're joking when you say you like porn spam, but let's face a fact:

        MANY CHILDREN TODAY HAVE E-MAIL.

        And that makes them easy targets for porn spam. What would the parents think about it? Sure they can install filters and such, but then we have two choices:

        b) Children exposed to porn
        a) Hyper-protected children with stupid AOL accounts

        Neither of these is a good choice.

        Obviously SPAM needs to be regulated (and of course, disappear, but the world's not perfect).

  • it's about time (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fienna ( 827107 )
    it's about time someone took care of these bastards - i like the occasional titty but getting surprises at work is a bit extreme...

  • Eh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by maskedbishounen ( 772174 )
    Sex in a can? I think I've seen something like this before.. err--

    Never mind.

  • Hmm... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why haven't they gone out all the way and make this spam illegal instead of only capping a small part of it? It'll still end up in my mailbox...

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JuggleGeek ( 665620 )
      Why haven't they gone out all the way and make this spam illegal instead of only capping a small part of it?

      Because the lawmakers in the US don't care about right and wrong, and they don't care about the general public, they care about the companies that give them lots of money. The DMA wrote the Can-Spam act to ensure that they could continue to spam, and congress passed to to ensure that the DMA members would continue to bribe them.

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AceCaseOR ( 594637 )
        Ehhh... No. More likely there'd be serious free speech issues involved with banning spam entirely. I sincerely doubt that the companies that employ spammmers, especially porn spammers, make enough money to make it worth their while to buy a congressman. If they did, there'd have been a lot more resistance in congress to the FCC's crackdown on offencive conduct after the "Wardrobe Malfunction".

        You might want to loosen your tinfoil hat some.

        • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Informative)

          by JuggleGeek ( 665620 )
          Ehhh... No. More likely there'd be serious free speech issues involved with banning spam entirely

          Nope. Courts have sided against the "Free Speach Means I Get To Do Whatever I Want" argument in the past, with no sign of it changing. The fact that you are unfamiliar with the issues doesn't change this fact.

          Faxes have had laws against fax spam for awhile. Those have been challeneged in court, and the laws stand. Telemarketing used to be a minor annoyance, and it grew and grew until we ended up with th

          • Those have been challeneged in court, and the laws stand. Telemarketing used to be a minor annoyance, and it grew and grew until we ended up with the Do Not Call list.

            Ahh... but you see, that is not technically "banning" telemarketing. If you're not on the list, you still get calls. It's more of an "opt-out" list. The fax spam band stands because, due to how the fax system works, the people receiving the spam would have to pay for receiving the spam. It doesn't work that way for E-Mail Spam (you don't end

            • Nope. You must have missed GP's quote from Chief Justice Warren Burger, Rowan v. US Post Office.

              "We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by forgetmenot ( 467513 )
        There's some expression about not assuming malice that I think is pertinent here....

        Congress is made up of many individuals, not all of whom are taking bribes from the DMA. To suggest otherwise would involve a conspiracy that is simply too large to be feasible.

        CAN-SPAM is, over all, a decent law. It places restrictions on marketers that allow end-users to filter out what they don't want to see without completely making it illegal and thus denying either some unforseen but legitimate use for unsolicited em
        • Yes, some people want spam. But do you honestly think that they can't find viagra, porn, fake rolexes, etc without spam? Do you honestly think that because a small percentage want it, the rest of us should have to put up with tons of neverending crap?

          Some people want drugs. Some people want gay sex. Do you propose that the rest of us should be forced to take drugs and have gay sex because of those few that want them? Your argume falls apart because you are saying "A few want it, so everyone else shou

    • This doesn't actually speak to your question, but...

      Do you really want the government regulating speech? What they have done is what is proper. They have required honest labeling. If we could depend on honest labeling, then automatic filters could handle spam without much effort. And this would mean that the AMOUNT of spam would decrease (if nobody's looking at it, even idiots wouldn't click on the links).

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JuggleGeek ( 665620 )
        Do you really want the government regulating speech?

        Speech like the illegal junk faxes they already regulate? Speech like that of Telemarketers, who have to respct the DNC list? Speech like yelling "FIRE!" in a theatre?

        The government already regulates speech. If they were to try to stop anyone from talking about X, there are few instances where they can justify it. (The "Fire" example would be one example where they can.) However, saying "You can not force anyone to listen to what you want to say"

  • Easy filtering from here! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MikTheUser ( 761482 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:35PM (#11326488)
    'Cause now we can just set our spam filters to look out for something like "WARNING: This message's content might not be suited for..." right in the subject!
    • Well, that's the idea. There are free-speech issues associated with saying, "No, you may not send this email" but forcing somebody to add an easily-filterable tag accomplishes much of the same goals with less burden, at least from the constitutional standpoint.

      There are still plenty of difficulties, but the internet isn't quite frictionless. A lot of spam originates in America in one form or another, and I doubt many spammers are actually willing to physically move to another country to continue their wa
    • Cause now we can just set our spam filters to look out for something like "WARNING: This message's content might not be suited for...

      WARN1N6: Thi5 M355^ge's con7en7 m1gh7 no7 b3 sui.ted for...

  • Images in the subject line? (Score:5, Funny)

    by bobbyjack ( 444724 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:35PM (#11326490) Homepage
    the FTC claims many of the e-mails revealed sexually explicit words or
    images in the subject line


    (my emphasis)

    Seriously, are their email clients that display images in the subject line?!
  • down with p0rn...down with p0rn...errr...oops...down with spam but not p0rn.

    Good to see the FTC actually doing something about something that's really an issue. But about about the vioxx spam? Wasn't it just recently slashdotted that Vioxx spam took the crown from sex-related spam?

    O well, at least my spam filters can finally get some rest.

  • The FTC going after spamers is like someone (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thesonicboom ( 847512 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:37PM (#11326533)
    putting their finger in the leak in the dike. The Internet is much bigger than one nation. The solution is going to have to be technological, not regulatory.
    • Dutch folklore does describe an incident where a person managed to prevent such sea defences from collapsing, by plugging the hole.

    • The solution is going to have to be technological, not regulatory.

      I disagree. That's like saying, "we should not use the law against bug-exploiting black hat hackers, but instead we should build bug free programs."

      Bug free programs will never exist. Likewise, there is always going to be some way to sneak spam past all the technological filters we create. If there is not some legal consequence, people will just keep doing it.

      Just MHO. What do you think?

    • Any company that makes money off of unsolicited sex spam in the US is going to have to answer to the FTC. Sure, companies can still do this from offshore but hopefully those governments care enough to stop it. The point is, if the companies have to choose between conforming to the law or getting charged then they'll start putting the warnings in.
  • Please tell me that crucifixion will be a possible penalty should/when/if they are convicted.
    • Depends on the spammer. From some of the stuff being sent, I suspect a few might enjoy being nailed to a tree. For those, America might have to resort to the unthinkable - making them spectators to a Ken Jennings Trivia Marathon.
    • Obligitory Monty Python joke.
      • If we are going to quote Monty Python in true geek style... we must add code! In this case, C#...

        foreach( object foo in this.Line )
        {
        Console.WriteLine( "Next" );
        System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000);
        Console.WriteLine( "Crucifixion?" );
        if( Console.ReadLine() == "Yes" )
        {
        Console.WriteLine("Good, out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.");
        }
        else
        {
        //Be made a fool of
        }
        }

    • draw and quartering
      beheading
      keel hauling
      disembowlement with bowls being set on fire
      put rat(s) in cauldron, put caludron mouth up against stomach, heat base of cauldron

      The english used to have some great death penalties. Too bad they (and we) are all wimps now. We need to bring back some of these and the ones like it.
  • Great, the FTC is stopping the only spam I looked forward to. Now the only thing I have to live for are those v14.gr4 emails. I'm glad their m4d l33t sp34k sk1llz c4n 5t1ll d3f34t my 5p4m f1lt3r.

  • Sex? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Smallpond ( 221300 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:42PM (#11326602) Homepage Journal
    What is it with this administration and sex? Janet Jackson -- huge fine for small tits. Sex spam -- have to stop that right now.

    Why not go after the 419 spammers who are stealing people's life savings? Or how about the fake pills and illegal drugs? Just business, I guess.
    • Gee, I don't know, maybe because the porn spammers have more volume?
    • Why not go after them both?
    • Why not go after the 419 spammers who are stealing people's life savings? Or how about the fake pills and illegal drugs?

      In this case it makes lots of sense. It's really hard for the FTC to go after a bunch of asshats like 419 spammers and phishers who operate completely illicitely and launder thier money. It's relatively easy for them to go after companies (e.g. porn sites) that do things like take credit cards and operate like real buisnesses.

      Jeff

  • Of course they are! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rackhamh ( 217889 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:43PM (#11326616)
    Of course the government is cracking down on sex spam. Just imagine...

    You're a middle-aged guy stuck in a bureacratic position. You spend your days debating horribly dreary points of order and generally struggling to effect any meaningful change...

    Then somebody comes up to you and says, "Hey [your name], wanna drop what you're doing and spend a few weeks/months looking at porn?"

    Yeah, tough decision there.
    • I dunno, I suppose it depends on the bureacratic position we are talking about. Is there a manual like the Kama Sutra for this position, and can you tell me which one it is?

  • Damnitt! (Score:2, Funny)

    by JossiRossi ( 840900 )
    Now how am I supposed to meet Christine, Joy, or all the other girls who desperatly seek my company?!

  • What I want to know is... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by confusion ( 14388 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:50PM (#11326710) Homepage
    How are people deciphering what the hell spam is tying to sell these days? What am I supposed to do with an email like this:
    Subject: PharmaBGHZ8
    Message:
    Hurtnig?

    At least with porn spam, you have something to look at.

    Jerry
    http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]

  • Go Feds! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris&beau,org> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @04:56PM (#11326785)
    I know it is standard procedure to ridicule anything the present administration does, but going after ANY spammers is OK in my book. And going after the worst of the porn spammers is even better. Hell, I'l a geek and have been known to look at that stuff but these days I feel like I need a bath after I work through my inbox.... and that is after spamassassin has had first crack at it.
    • I'll agree with you, but I think it might be an example of the Feds "doing something" just to hit tick boxes on the Administration's agenda. "Spam, check. Christian values, check."

      If they were REALLY serious about doing this we'd have a serious FBI/FTC RICO sting operation that would take down some ISPs, some credit card merchant processors, and a whole bunch of other "legitimate" people in addition to the spammers.

      This would have the net effect of cutting off the "air supply" of the spam industry by sc
  • If the government would work on getting rid of all that PORK in the budget instead of wasting time on fruitless efforts like getting rid of SPAM we'd be a lot better off.
    • The campaign donations are just loans. If the Government didn't repay them immediately, can you imagine what the interest rates would do to the economy?
  • Canned sex spam starts to taste like the can, glass is much better. Did you know that the first canned food was stored in champagne bottles?
  • Half the time sex spam uses sex warnings as an allure. The problem here is spam, not sex.

    The only way to allow people to avoid sex-spam completely is to get rid of it, and that's not in the ability of the FTC.

    This is like a speeding ticket, it hurts someone who is hurting safety. This move cannot help any "innocents" (in fact, it helps nobody) who just want a clean inbox.
    • Sure it does. It makes it easier to filter out some of the things you don't want. (And if you do want it, it makes it easier to automatically move it to the correct folder.)

      Not that I think it will work, but I do consider that enforcing honest labeling is a reasonable thing for a government to do.
  • As "FTC Tries Sex in Can."

    I wonder if they would bust themselves for spamming.

  • oh, so *that's* what "CAN-SPAM" meant (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mars Saxman ( 1745 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @05:08PM (#11326981) Homepage
    Oh - wait - "tries to can sex spam"... suddenly the name of that law makes more sense. I had been reading "can spam" as, "you can spam and nobody can sue you as long as you follow these rules"; it never occured to me that they might have intended "can" to be a verb. I was really surprised that Congress was being so straightforward about their intentions with that law, given that cutesy acronyms for law names are usually feel-good propaganda that mean something completely opposite of whatever the law actually does. I guess they outsmarted themselves with that acronym, since it works in both directions...
    • huh. i had always wondered what idiot came up with that name. i still think it's a dumb name, and a pretty useless law, but at least it makes sense now....

      up until now, i had always interpreted can-spam the same as you.
  • Why don't they force all SPAM to have the word "spam" in the title? That would make ot so much easier. Same with viruses. Is sex singled out because 51% of people are against it?
    • Do you honestly think that any spammers would pay attention to a law that says they must put "spam" in the header? Besides, something tells me this is more than 51%. Much more.
      • No of course not. Similarly putting sex in wouldn't deter them. About 51%. That was just an arbitrary number I made up. Unless 75% of states agree then it doesn't matter if it is 100%.
  • sex and spam? in a can? SIGN ME UP!
  • This is a type of spam that they actually have some legit legeal backing to go after. The problem is that this can and does expose minors to pornography. I am not against porn, but this is a good place to start and can help make a real legeal precident, to finally effectivly go after spam.

    Its funny but the US government has failed to see the one way they actually could go after this type of spam. In much the same way that the FCC can "censor" public television and radio. The FCC is allowed to censo
    • Interesting. I'm in favor of this because it's merely enforcing honest labeling. Which I consider a legitimate function of government.

      I don't consider it reasonable for the govt. to decide what minors can and cannot watch. That's their parent's job. But honest labeling makes the parent's job feasible. OTOH, I would be quite opposed to their censoring spam, including sex related spam. But I would be in favor of their regulating the honesty of the sending e-mail address, at least for commercial e-mail,
  • I hope they wear gloves.

    LK
  • to add the following headers to spam?

    X-Unsolicited: Yes
    X-Suitable-for-children: No

    And then yes, make ALL spam that doesn't comply, illegal. Better regulations, gentlemen :)

    Of course, this is the REAL world :'(
  • In addition, the FTC said the advertisements did not include the required "opt-out" link to be removed from the e-mail list. As a result, thousands of people continued to receive the messages without their consent.

    I think they mean they lacked the required "yes, I'm reading your spam"-opt-in link.

    I don't know what's more frustrating, the obstinance of spammers or the ignorance of lawmakers.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anything free is worth what you pay for it.

Close