Slashdot Mirror

What Can I Do With the Spam in my In-Box?

Report it to the Federal Trade Commission. Send a copy of unwanted or deceptive messages to uce@ftc.gov. The FTC uses the unsolicited emails stored in this database to pursue law enforcement actions against people who send deceptive spam email.

Let the FTC know if a "remove me" request is not honored. If you want to complain about a removal link that doesn't work or not being able to unsubcribe from a list, you can fill out the FTC's online complaint form at www.ftc.gov. Your complaint will be added to the FTC's Consumer Sentinel database and made available to hundreds of law enforcement and consumer protection agencies.

Whenever you complain about spam, it's important to include the full email header. The information in the header makes it possible for consumer protection agencies to follow up on your complaint.

Send a copy of the spam to your ISP's abuse desk. Often the email address is abuse@yourispname.com or postmaster@yourispname.com. By doing this, you can let the ISP know about the spam problem on their system and help them to stop it in the future. Make sure to include a copy of the spam, along with the full email header. At the top of the message, state that you're complaining about being spammed.

Complain to the sender's ISP. Most ISPs want to cut off spammers who abuse their system. Again, make sure to include a copy of the message and header information and state that you're complaining about spam.

that this begain, press release from the FTC.

Go FTC I say - and you all are forwarding your spam to "uce@ftc.gov" and 419s to "419.fcd@usss.treas.gov", yes?

The problem is that these software packages that we intentionally disable keep mysteriously reenabling themselves. Oddly enough this seems to happen after I install a product created by MS or an update created by MS or

DRM would die on it's own in a free market, but as it is now it is an inactive part of WinXP and an active part of subsequent versions. Sure some individuals can keep trying to turn it off, but Windows XP SP1 gives Redmond root privileges on your computer and they can keep turning back on. A perfect method for locking out competitors and locking customers in.

There are just too many good, cost-effective, secure, time saving alternatives, even on the desktop, to spend time/money on MS-Windows. Even government agencies, traditionally slow-moving beasts, are starting to see that this just another dot-com -- full of false claims. Even the management can see it's a dead company and have been bailing under the smoke screen of a multi-hundred million dollar marketing campaign.

It's very hard (if not impossible) to press a false advertising claim for an intangible like "secure", "cheap", or "reliable

Either it works now or it doesn't. Either it does what it says it does in the brochure or it doesn't. If it does, great, more power to them. If it doesn't, then they should lose their shirt.

Well, your best option is to RTFM , but the short answer is that DoNotCall only applies to "consumers", aka residential phones. B2B calls should be open game.

"You will be able to register for free online or by calling a toll-free number."

Next time, dig a little deeper.

I received a call at 7:04 this morning from a guy asking me if I wanted to refinance my house.

After shaking the cobwebs out and clearing a pack and a half of yesterday's cigarette smoke from my throat, thanked him for waking me and asked to be placed on his company's DNC list.

He (or someone from the same company) called back three times throughout the day...

The national DNC list is a good idea in theory, but in practice, there are too many exceptions to the rule to make it worthwhile for any one.

Now, I did a little research and this is what I found...

Stopping Telemarketers

FTC Laws

More FTC info

I received a call at 7:04 this morning from a guy asking me if I wanted to refinance my house.

After shaking the cobwebs out and clearing a pack and a half of yesterday's cigarette smoke from my throat, thanked him for waking me and asked to be placed on his company's DNC list.

He (or someone from the same company) called back three times throughout the day...

The national DNC list is a good idea in theory, but in practice, there are too many exceptions to the rule to make it worthwhile for any one.

Now, I did a little research and this is what I found...

Stopping Telemarketers

FTC Laws

More FTC info

how do I get access to the DO NOT CALL LIST? Is it an internet resource that I have to check on

Yes. Check the FTC site about the revised marketer's rules.

This makes it difficult to see just who the responsibility falls on.

Not really. If you are making the calls, then it is your job to make sure the DNC numbers are filtered off the list, before you call.

For these myriad reasons, I think that prosecution for calling people that are on the DNC list will be next to impossible.

The FTC seems to be taking the role of investigating and fining companies that violate the new rules. Consumers don't look they will be able to chase the issue themselves. You can only log a violation complaint with the FTC.

I can only assume that this means there needs to be a significant number of complaints against a particularly bad telemarketer before the FTC will be prompted to do something.

Ultimately, I think that this will spell the end of telemarketing

As much as I would hope for the dying day of telemarketers, I think once the initial bruhaha has settled down that business will return pretty much back to normal. Especially since some of the biggest annoyers (the phone companies, banks, airlines) are exempt from these new rules.

{Too lazy to create a /. account}

The system is very simple. Joe Schmoe signs up and gets his name on the DNC list. If you are a telemarketer you buy the list from the FTC. You run that list against your database and where there is a match you delete the person. If you don't then you are liable.

The end. I don't know why you are making it seem so complicated. The FTC won't care where you got your list from. It is the calling company's responsibility to check the list against the DNC list. I would start here for more info - The National "Do Not Call" Registry

BTW, here is the FTC's current attempts at curtailing E-mail SPAM .

It really is amazing the amount of trouble and money we all have to go through to rid ourselve of this plague of unwanted advertsing. Seems like it should be illegal, don't it?

I realize this is probably a little redundant, but couldn't this qualify as predatory pricing? (Assuming someone could come up with evidence that Microsoft really is doing this to compete with open source?)

Maybe Redhat could step into the fray here...Or someone else with an army of lawyers..

(source - FTC) "....Price discrimination also might be used as a predatory pricing tactic -- setting prices below cost to certain customers -- to harm competition at the supplier's level. Antitrust authorities use the same standards applied to predatory pricing claims under the Sherman Act and the FTC Act to evaluate allegations of price discrimination used for this purpose"

Why not uce@ftc.gov?

This is just more of the same problem we seem to have in this country. Our lawmakers can't even keep track of the laws they have passed so they just keep making more laws covering the same crap. Then they fail to enforce them. assholes!

FTC hits claims for mosquito repellent device. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has charged Lentek International, Inc, and its principals, Joseph Durek and Lou Lentine, with making false and unsubstantiated claims that (a) their MosquitoContro devices repel mosquitoes from the user and provide an effective alternative to using chemical pesticides in the prevention of the West Nile Virus; (b) their pest-control products drive away mice, rats, bats, cockroaches, and other household pests by means of ultrasound and electromagnetic technology; and (c) their air-cleaning products remove various pollutants from indoor air through ozone and ionization. The company, located in Orlando, Florida, markets air cleaners, pest-control devices, housewares, pet products, personal care products, and flashlights through the Internet, retail stores, catalogs, and individual home distributors. [FTC alleges electronic mosquito repellent claims are false; sellers also lack evidence for ultrasonic pest-control and air cleaning product claims. FTC news release, Aug 28, 2002]

What's that? Oh, have you tried uce@ftc.gov? Of course, if you get spam that doesn't try to sell you something, they won't take it.

There really does seem to be no difference between someone who cannot read and someone who does not. Those that can read wouldn't be caught using MS-Passport. Sadly, signal can be drowned out by noise coming from a colossal marketing blitz to last through september.

We'll see if they last that long. Windows2003 seems to be more of a push to get users over to OS X or Linux. Their other (2nd of 2) cash cow, the new MS-Office has already been postponed and seems to be more of an incentive to move to OpenOffice than to upgrade.

Absolutely, positively, answer these calls! Talk nicely to the poor dweeb on the other end of the line, and find out the name of the company. Politely refuse the offer. Then report them to the Federal Trade Commision (assuming you're in the states.) It is illegal. This will not necesarily produce an actionable case, but if you and your fellow pissed-off citizens do it enough, then they will get swatted.

But anyway, I'd be pissed : HP doesn't have the right to obsolete something I am willing to use until it's dead.

The CNET article links to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 on the FTC site.

Right. What it does do is hold companies responsible for the actions of their "affiliates". The law the FTC cites is aimed at companies that run scams through "independent distributors", claiming to avoid responsibility. This says the FTC now classifies spamming as a new variation on that old scam.

The FTC writes this on how they define "unfairness",

• The present understanding of the unfairness standard is the result of an evolutionary process. The statute was deliberately framed in general terms since Congress recognized the impossibility of drafting a complete list of unfair trade practices that would not quickly become outdated or leave loopholes for easy evasion. The task of identifying unfair trade practices was therefore assigned to the Commission, subject to judicial review, in the expectation that the underlying criteria would evolve and develop over time. As the Supreme Court observed as early as 1931, the ban on unfairness "belongs to that class of phrases which do not admit of precise definition, but the meaning and application of which must be arrived at by what this court elsewhere has called 'the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion.'"

That's exactly the process this case starts. The FTC has now said that some spam-related acts are illegally unfair. Unless a court disagrees, that effectively becomes law. A higher court or Congress can overrule them, of course, but unless and until that happens, the FTC has effectively defined the new rules.

Except of course for the new do not call list and the existing unsolicited fax law. Give it time. Some states already have anti-spam laws and eventually I think you will see a nationwide one. Now enforcement is a whole other issue.

• Because the "Married But Lonely" spam forges the identity of the sender, it is unclear whether Westby sends the spam himself or whether he employs someone else to send it. Even if he does hire someone to send the spam, he is still liable for these practices. Westby is liable for deceptive or unfair practices he engages in himself or for those of his employees or agents who are acting on his behalf. Under the FTC Act, a principal is liable for misrepresentations made by agents with actual or apparent authority to make such representations, regardless of any unsuccessful efforts by the principal to prevent such misrepresentations.
• See Southwest Sunsites, Inc. v. FTC, 785 F.2d 1431, 1438-39 (9th Cir. 1986); FTC v. Skybiz.com, Inc., 2001 WL 1673645, at *9 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 31, 2001); FTC v. Five-Star Auto Club, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d 502, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). It is inappropriate for a principal to "`reap the fruits from their [agents'] acts and doings without incurring such liabilities as attach thereto."' Skybiz.com, 2001 WL 1673645, at *9 (quoting Goodman v. FTC, 244 F.2d 584, 591-92 (9th Cir. 1957)).

If a court agrees, as is likely, you don't sue spammers any more. You go after the deep pocket - the business being advertised. This is going to bring spamming on behalf of legitimate businesses to a screeching halt.

Here's the actual FTC announcement...

In addition to lying about wireless, there was also the issue of lying about MS-Passport.

The info page includes info about advertising claims (what to be skeptical about), info about how to drive more efficiently (like following speed limits, combining short trips together, not idling, etc.), and also has a list of various "gas-saving" devices and products on the market that the EPA has tested (most of which don't work).

The FTC already filed a complaint and had a preliminary injunction against Childs back in April. See the press release for more information. The article mentions he lives by Riverside drive in an apartment, could be with Linda Lightfoot, the woman mentioned in the complaints with him?

The FTC already filed a complaint and had a preliminary injunction against Childs back in April. See the press release for more information. The article mentions he lives by Riverside drive in an apartment, could be with Linda Lightfoot, the woman mentioned in the complaints with him?

The FTC already filed a complaint and had a preliminary injunction against Childs back in April. See the press release for more information. The article mentions he lives by Riverside drive in an apartment, could be with Linda Lightfoot, the woman mentioned in the complaints with him?

One question is, how binding is this? If a member of the W3C patents a process then starts telling people to pay up (a few years down the line, maybe), is this really any protection?

Yes it is. If you are part of a standard's committee, and part of the committee's rules of participation state that you must disclose (and/or license at little or no cost) any intellectual property rights that are relevant to a standard you're involved in, then you can't submarine IP and expect to collect on it. It's been ruled illegal several times - the clearest case being Dell attempting to claim patent rights on the "VL-bus" VESA standard. See this for more details.

Rambus is in pretty much the same situation now - they're trying to claim patent rights on DDRAM, SDRAM, and pretty much every other kind of memory process... even though they were part of JEDEC at the time the standards were being decided on. And it's looking highly unlikely that they'll win at this point. Darn.

And just how, pray tell, am I supposed to tell who's "good" and who's "not good"?

> I just think that people with legit businesses can be hurt by a simple accusation in this world of "anything I don't like is spam" or "anything commercial is spam". Would you say the same if you had actually given them your email address at the store and they sent you an email?

If I gave them the email address with the understanding that it be used for solicitations, no, that's not spam.

Problem is, damn near every spam I get has a disclaimer telling me that I opted in (really? when?), and that I can opt out or unsubscribe by (clicking on the link, replying, whatever), and that the company sending it to me isn't a spammer, but is a permission-based marketer, or an high-profile legitimate marketing organization, or that they always respect remove requests.

> So even if they provide a means to get out of this then they are spammers?

YES.

Here you state that they provide a mechanism to get out of the list because obviously they made a mistake

Oh yeah, you reminded me of the one I forgot. "If we've added your address to our list by mistake..."

If you're not a spammer, you don't need these excuses, because you use a closed-loop confirmed opt-in list management process.

Incidentally, if that phrase sounds convoluted, it's because what you're describing was called opt-out, and the URL above described "opt-in".

After a few months, all the spam disclaimers started saying "this is an opt-in mailing", or "you opted in". So the phrase became "confirmed opt-in", implying that a confirmation phase was necessary.

(The PHB in Marketing knew that "opt-in" was the "good" buzzword, so Joe Spammer says he doesn't do opt-out, but opt-in, and the naive PHB signs the contract.)

A year or so after that, spam disclaimers started using language like "This is a confirmed opt-in list. To confirm your subscription, you need do nothing", so the term "closed-loop" had to be added to describe what was meant by "confirmation".

(The same thing had happened - the PHB had learned that "opt-in" was also spam, but that confirmation was good... so the spammers rebranded themselves and started selling "confirmed addresses" -- meaning "well, we've confirmed the address doesn't bounce when we spam it!", not "the owner of the address has affirmatively replied to a confirmation request containing an unguessable token".)

I'm sure that within a year or two, spammers will attempt to redefine the terms of the debate again.

> but yet they should be flogged? Stoned to death? I mean what sentence would you recommend?

For the record, when /. had this as a poll, I clicked "Go all Vlad The Impaler On Them In Front of Level3's offices To Set An Example" :-)

> SHOW ME where someone tried to contact digital impact to get removed from a list

Too late. Too many spammers have used "remove links" or "global remove lists" (this goes back to 1997) as sources of harvesting and/or verifying the existence of email addresses.

Even the FTC is aware that asking to be removed is ineffective.

> $100 says I get modded down because spam is bad and I am "defending it" ergo I am bad or a troll. I have my own opinion and it does not coincide with the group so I must be punished! But i dont care I got karma to burn

The reason I accused (and still suspect) you of trolling is because these arguments have been hashed out over five years ago.

The system you describe - the sending of commercial email on an opt-out basis - is spam.

It doesn't matter if the company doing it honors remove links. It doesn't matter if the product is goat pr0n or E10000 servers with a terabyte of RAID-5. Spam is about consent, not content.

Per the FTC web site

In July, consumers will begin registering for free online or by calling a toll-free number. To avoid an unmanageable flood of registrations, initial sign-up by phone for the national "do not call" registry will be phased in, region-by-region, over an eight- week period. Online registration will be available nation-wide in July.

In September, telemarketers and other sellers will have access to the registry. They will be required to scrub their call lists against the national "do not call" registry at least once every 90 days.

In October, the FTC and the States will start to enforce the national "do not call" registry provisions of the Amended Telemarketing Sales Rule. Violators are subject to a fine of up to $11,000 per violation. At this point, consumers on the registry should start to get fewer telemarketing calls.

The Implementation Calendar is reasonably agressive, which is suprising. By October we should be getting getting significantly fewer calls. Frankly, I'm suprised that the legislation was signed at all, but having been signed, It's admirable that any republican administration would allow such an agressive track to implementation. I guess the Direct Marketing Association didn't contribute enough to the Bush campeign, or, perhaps direct marketers have pissed off enough people on both sides of the isle, that no level of lobbying would have altered the outcome.

--CTH

The FTC has a great FAQ on their web page which explains the nitty-gritty... seems to me that this rule is pretty bulletproof:

- Companies which purport to be conducting a survey, but then ask you to buy stuff are still covered (ie. they can't call you if you are on the list).
- Charities and established business relationships can call, but once you ask not to be called (just once), they are prohibited from calling again.
- Telemarketing companies calling on behalf of exempted businesses (airlines, phone companies, etc) are prohibited from calling (the exempt companies/groups must make the calls themselves - they can't farm it out to a telemarketer).
- Even calls originating overseas are covered and will be enforced (or so they say).
- and much more...

Not bad.

Sorry to say this folks, but the phone marketing people may be right about this one, all it will do is stop legitimate phone sales calls coming in...but the stuff that is really bad ($40 billion a year bad) will simply ignore the dumb list, or worse yet, abuse it, as so many people have pointed out... ugh.

-v

can be found here http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/in dex.html.

[/end whore]

• fails to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect privacy and confidentiality
• fails to provide better security than your run-of-the-mill online transaction
• collected personally identifiable sign-on history, contrary to claims in its privacy policy

In regards to single-signon there is probably a lot that can be done with certificates and or keys to estabilish a consistent online identity, but with a minimum of personal data. The personal data, if needed at all, has no need to be kept together with the keys.

Corporations have now gotten to the point where they must be obliged to respect the Bill of Rights and other legislation just as governments. They [proven] risk and damage from abuse is just to harmful otherwise.

How To Comply with the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act A Guide for Small Business from the Federal Trade Commission

and have never heard of this. here is a link to some info on it.

It's funny, these new laws technically shouldn't be necessary to the degree they address fraud and unfair/deceptive trade practices -- that stuff is already illegal. They do set out a framework for enforcement, and clear schedule of penalties, that may make them practical. I would like to see whether penalties are proportional to similar garden-variety fraud such as by telephone or mail.

There are a lot of naysayers here who say laws won't work, but it's quite early to declare failure. The FTC does a TON of consumer protection litigation the public rarely hears about -- and that case list is just the stubborn minority of targets that refused to stop after getting the letter, or to settle. I've seen several of their actions in detail; in one the huckster was so stubborn he ended up in jail for contempt of court. That's unusual -- remedies are typically fines and injunctions. And this guy did not go to jail for deceptive trade practices exactly, rather for defiance of a generic court order.

I would focus not on saying laws won't work, but on influencing the laws to be just and effective. The Ohio law COULD be disproportionate, especially if prosecutors fist leapt for the jugular rather than sensibly working out a settlement with the target. The latter is the just and cost-effective way of doing business -- litigation is very expensive. The federal law that is doubtlessly coming will be our only chance, as Congress may not return to improve the law for years.

contact the credit bureaus - there's 3 major ones - Equifax, Trans Union and Experian. tell them what happened, they can flag your acct so you have to contacted at your home phone before any acct is opened in your name. Here's more info...

So, are retailers engaged in illegal price fixing, or have none of them spotted the obvious way to increase sales by cutting prices on ink cartridges a bit?

I think you mean uce@ftc.gov.

While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market.

One way to fight spam is to contact the Federal Trade Commision and report it. This Site talks about how to "opt-out" of getting pre-approved credit offers and direct marked offers. It should reduce spam a little bit. Or this site gives more advice on how to reduce the amount of spam (and even better) how to report it to the federal trade commision. Also you look here for more stuff about consumer protection on the internet.

One way to fight spam is to contact the Federal Trade Commision and report it. This Site talks about how to "opt-out" of getting pre-approved credit offers and direct marked offers. It should reduce spam a little bit. Or this site gives more advice on how to reduce the amount of spam (and even better) how to report it to the federal trade commision. Also you look here for more stuff about consumer protection on the internet.

One way to fight spam is to contact the Federal Trade Commision and report it. This Site talks about how to "opt-out" of getting pre-approved credit offers and direct marked offers. It should reduce spam a little bit. Or this site gives more advice on how to reduce the amount of spam (and even better) how to report it to the federal trade commision. Also you look here for more stuff about consumer protection on the internet.

I believe that a bigger hammer is all that's needed to win the spam wars.

Who's with me?

Got a product/service for me to try? Send me a message.

SD

Thats nice, except the AOL-TW merger was approved during Clintons term in December 2000, while Bush entered office in January 2001.

The bill cites the "Telemarketing Sales Rule" from which I obtained the following definitions:

(t) Telemarketer means any person who, in connection with telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer.

(u) Telemarketing means a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call. The term does not include the solicitation of sales through the mailing of a catalog which: contains a written description or illustration of the goods or services offered for sale; includes the business address of the seller; includes multiple pages of written material or illustrations; and has been issued not less frequently than once a year, when the person making the solicitation does not solicit customers by telephone but only receives calls initiated by customers in response to the catalog and during those calls takes orders only without further solicitation. For purposes of the previous sentence, the term "further solicitation" does not include providing the customer with information about, or attempting to sell, any other item included in the same catalog which prompted the customer's call or in a substantially similar catalog.

It doesn't look like someone conducting a survery falls under the definition of "telemarketer" because they aren't solicitng a purchase.

I'm a teacher, though, and NAL.

Ravi