Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, the digital devide of the future is going to include many folks who opt out of the degital device market simply due to any lack of control as to the use of those devices. Frankly, if all this competition (of which lobbying the government is supposedly a part of) and shit is supposed to encourage people to work harder and be innovative, screw that. I had a friend who stopped working on flight sims after he found out they were selling to governments to help them train pilots to bomb their own people. It's an unfair comparison, but its still the same forces at work that would make me question my involvement as an engineer in the development of technologies that are designed to remove the accountability and responsibility of obeying the law from an individual citizen. All this to appease a demonstratibly corrupt industry?

I will not contribute towards technology that does nothing to even the playing field in this plutocracy.

Perhaps it is about time to file a complaint with the FTC and see what they think of Palm and this misleading advertising.

Are you saying that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission did not cite Microsoft for lying to customers about Passport? (See FTC Case Against Microsoft.

I'm not a regular /. user but this time I've read some posts, and would like to answer some together.

I can understand organizations not wanting employees talking to the press, and I can undand anger at this form of censorship. I'm upset the interview couldn't be answered even though the questions weren't so absolutely great.

I believe the EPO is up to worse things than that, though. There is no democratic control on it . Please read

English/German European Patent Office: High Above Legality

Catalan A can Ribot malcrien el porc

There was a nice statement from the workers union, but it's no longer online (sounds familiar?)
It was at

http://www.usoeb.org/Suepo/kontrol.htm

Does anybody have a cached copy?

Anyway. There are more productive things to do than complaining in Slashdot or email bombing the EPO.

There are a lot of organisations fighting to stop the patent system from running even more insane than it is, and there's lot of info around.

Please think of spending some time helping these people before it's too late, instead of using slashdot, watching TV or hacking. Every bit of help is useful. You can inform yourself and talk to politicians or have your company press your government (but please do your homework first and make an informed opinion before facing people whose income and career depends on making it seem there is no problem). If you don't want to do that, you can translate text, offer technical help, gather data, produce art work, research or summarize facts, publish articles, place links in your website, etc. (even contribute money).

No fight is lost until it ends, there is a lot of work to be done, but we are many and they are few.
If everybody learns and teaches a little, and spends time on useful tasks, we'll have the patent system reformed.

This winter will be decisive in Europe, as the
software patentability directive will be in the European Parliament and Council. Please read

CEC & BSA 2002-02-20: proposal to make all useful ideas patentable


For those in the US, beside altruistically helping
Europeans, you can also try to be heard by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Comission, who are holding a debate on competition law and intellectual property. Please take your time to learn and think about the issues, so that your contribution is both solid and useful. See:


Competition and IP law and policy in the knowledge
based economy

For those in Japan, I don't know, but I believe the patent system has also recently lost bearings and political pressure would be needed. For those elsewhere I don't know, check for yourselves or help us so that this disease does not expand to where you are.

You'll find more links to information sources (a bit Europe centric) at
this slide

Ah!. And for those thinking the EPO is better than the USPTO, see
European Software Patent Horror Gallery

The FTC is acting against spam, at least scamming spammers, though not as much as you or I might like. I used to post in newsgroups with .gov addresses, but really -- what benefit is there in further bogging down the agencies that we'd like to help us?

5. JURISDICTION. Transmitting or causing the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail to or through an interactive computer service's computer network located in this state shall constitute an act in this state.

That legalese, I think, is sufficiently clear to stand by itself. That said, of course, IANAL.

On another note, Utah and Ohio are somewhat known for tighter legal control.
After all, they are among the states that get special mention on those satellite channels that give titillating promos for the porn channels.
And they're the states that were the reason for the "you may have other rights, which vary from state to state" you find in most license agreements; these states are the ones that have laws that specify that even a license that completely disclaims all liability can't be held up in court.
In short, if I agreed a little more with some of their more unconventional laws, I'd move to Utah in a heartbeat.

But FWIW, I have begun documenting my spams. Occasionally I do unsubscribe, but most I just send to the Federal Trade Commission. I figure that someday there might be a precedent, and I wouldn't mind making $500 per unsolicited email. :)
Anyway, I got the idea for spamming the FTC from here.

HTH. HAND.

5. JURISDICTION. Transmitting or causing the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail to or through an interactive computer service's computer network located in this state shall constitute an act in this state.

That legalese, I think, is sufficiently clear to stand by itself. That said, of course, IANAL.

On another note, Utah and Ohio are somewhat known for tighter legal control.
After all, they are among the states that get special mention on those satellite channels that give titillating promos for the porn channels.
And they're the states that were the reason for the "you may have other rights, which vary from state to state" you find in most license agreements; these states are the ones that have laws that specify that even a license that completely disclaims all liability can't be held up in court.
In short, if I agreed a little more with some of their more unconventional laws, I'd move to Utah in a heartbeat.

But FWIW, I have begun documenting my spams. Occasionally I do unsubscribe, but most I just send to the Federal Trade Commission. I figure that someday there might be a precedent, and I wouldn't mind making $500 per unsolicited email. :)
Anyway, I got the idea for spamming the FTC from here.

HTH. HAND.

And to be completely honest about it, here in the U.S. we DO NOT have the right to return anything for a full refund just because we "got the wrong one." The FTC only specifies that you have the right to return something (within 3 days) if it was sold to you outside of the company's permanent place of business (i.e. in someones home--like at a Tupperware party, etc.). Here's the link to the FTC Cooling Off Rule.

For safety and reliability information, you would be better off consulting the FTC, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, and the Consumers' Union. These organizations are above the bias that plagues UL, TrustE, and various other "public interest money grubbing corporations."

A few resouces on the web to look at for the laws are:

Your local Attorney General's Office. The New Hampshire AG's office has some info about telemarketers here.


The FTC has a bunch of links here.
More here.


I can't put my finger on it right now, but it is illegal for a telemarketer to call a cell phone. The problem lies in tracking down who it is to sue if you want to pursue that route.


Hope this helps.

It's just like Micro$oft; get caught, even loose a trial, and as your "punishment" you promise not to do it again. Then, of course, it's business as usual. I've lost track of how many times M$ has done this. Pretty much the entire record industry, as their punishment two years ago when they were caught in predatory practices, agreed to stop doing what they were doing, which was going to lead to lower prices. See how much they have come down?

well maybe if you morons would quit electing "less government, more freedom for large companies to screw you over" type politicians, then the ftc could look out for such issues you describe.

oh, and if you have direct issues, you can complain to them directly. or you can just whine pointlessly online or on talk radio with unfounded accusations towards motives as most americans do.

Credit-card charge disputing is generally limited to charges over $50. FTC docs.

You can find the actual FTC Administrative Complaint here.

Sadly, yes. These people are refered to as "toner pirates" in the office supply industry.

I'm the office manager of a small law firm. During the first few months of my time here, someone called who claimed to be from our photocopier company and wanted to verify the model of our photocopier. Not knowing any better, I told them.

Then, a few weeks/months later, someone calls saying they are from our photocopier company and they are having a great deal on our toner. I saw "Great! Send us some!"

When the invoice arrives, the price on the invoice seems high, so I doublecheck what supply companies charge for our type of toner. The price we've been charged is much much higher (2x-3x, I forget exactly).

I sent the toner back by slow-boat FedEx (at our own expense) along with a letter saying "Here is your toner back, please don't ever contact us again." They kept calling, of course, but I'd learned my lesson.

The FTC has a great page regarding these kinds of scams that includes variations on the scam, your rights, and possible remedies.

We don't need laws that give the government any control over the internet, but we need them to be able to prosecute spammers like they prosecute child pornographers, scam artists, or whatever. They don't need to own more of the internet, all they need is our UCE. And a huge pat on the back when they do right by us.

i have a yahoo account, get about 5 spam emails a day, and forward most of them right on to the FTC. not sure if they're actually doing anything, but it makes me feel good :)

and my inbox remains relatively free of spam.

I'd really like to see Miss Cleo, fake human growth hormone pseudoscience, etc.... all put out of business.

Check it out.

"After one FTC staff member closed out of 32 separate windows, leaving just two windows on the task bar, he selected the "back" button, only to watch the same seven windows that initiated the blitz erupt on his screen, and the cybertrap began anew,"

Although the /. post mentions 64 windows, this article only mentions 32. Although another 32 were opened, nobody said the staff member bothered to close them. Perhaps he used his reset button... probably faster that way ;)

I'm afraid you're dead wrong. A victim of credit card fraud in the US is liable for $50 USD per card. Here's a reference for you.

Now if it's a debit / check card, you're SOL. Of course that's if you actually keep a sizable amount of money in your checking account.

I write down the name of the company and the name of the person that called(which they must provide), the time and date and what they were selling. Then ask them to never call you again. AT&T called me twice and I reported them to the ftc via an online form. They got a nasty letter from the government and probably a fine.

Soon wisconsin will have a do not call list. Here are do not call lists for many other states.

See FTC COPPA.

Hotmail is just complying with the law.

www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcra.htm here's an FTC FAQ on credit reports.
Experian , Transunion and Equifax are the big 3 for reports.

1. BBB.org
2. FTC
3. USPS Post Master [usps.com]

If I were you, I'd complain to the Federal Trade Commission, your state's District Attorney, and the company's lawyer state bar association. I know this doesn't fall directly under the juridiction of the FTC, but I found that agency to be unusually clear headed about those things. If all else fells, I would forge a copy of letter, and send it to the ten biggest ecommerce web sites.

Umm, either I am completely mistaken, or this is a bunch of FUD. I did google searches on each of these bills, and this is what I found:

HR 4239 To revise the banking and bankruptcy insolvency
laws with respect to the termination and netting of financial contracts

HR 4551 : To repeal the 1993 increase in tax on Social Security benefits and to develop and apply a Consumer Price Index that accurately reflects the cost-of-living for older Americans who receive Social Security benefits under title II of the Social Security Act.

HR 4608To designate the United States courthouse located at 220 West Depot Street in Greeneville, Tennessee, as the "James H. Quillen United States Courthouse".To designate the United States courthouse located at 220 West Depot Street in Greeneville, Tennessee, as the "James H. Quillen United States Courthouse".

HR 4277: the "Quality Health-care Coalition Act of 1998"

Like I say, I may be mistaken, maybe they don't use unique ID's for the bill numbers, but my skeptic alert went off when I read this post that contained zero links to any reputable site.

COPA = Child Online Protection Act

COPPA = Children's Online Privacy Protection Act

Get it?
Got it?
Good.

Actually it's COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, not COPA.

Best Buy advertised the VisionTek Xtasy GeForce4 Ti4600 for preorder at the price of $129.99 (plus applicable sales tax) on their website (bestbuy.com) on Wednesday, February 6, 2002.

Over 2,000 customers placed orders for the card at this special price.

These customers were greeted with confirmation web pages, confirmation e-mail messages, issued order numbers, and some even received backorder confirmation e-mail messages (some even received multiple backorder confirmations).

Within hours, Best Buy pulled the offer, and "corrected" what they later called a "pricing error."

Cancellation e-mails were sent out, and cited a "systems error" for the mistake.

Best Buy issued a press released (only published at news.com) which blamed "human error" for the mistake.

Customers who called Best Buy to inquire about the order cancellation were told that VisionTek would not allow Best Buy to sell the cards at the originally agreed-upon price (Best Buy was falsely accusing VisionTek of illegal price-fixing tactics).

Best Buy does have a disclaimer on their web site in the form of their Terms of Service Agreement.

At no point during the account-creation or order-placing processes are customers required to read or actively agree to these terms (see Specht vs. Netscape; also see the FTC's Advertising and Marketing on the Internet: Rules of the Road).

Best Buy has actually changed their Terms of Service since this entire fiasco began.

Best Buy's Terms of Service do not supercede federal, state, and local consumer protection laws, which (in many cases) specifically outlaw this type of activity.

Best Buy's Terms of Service exist for the sole purpose of tricking customers into surrendering their consumer rights. The way consumer law is written, customers must exercise their rights; if they surrender them, the company in question is not required to adhere to these laws.

"E-tailers" are subject to the same rules, regulations, and laws that apply to their brick-and-mortar cousins. (See the FTC's Dot Com Disclosures)

Best Buy has stated that absolutely no one will be receiving the card at the previously agreed-upon price, yet well over 140 customers have already done so.

Best Buy is ignoring its customers at this point. E-mails go unanswered, and phone calls are greeted with a promise to escalate the call, but the customer must wait for someone to contact them; this, of course, never happens.

At least one person has already taken this to Small Claims Court. He had his first hearing a couple of weeks ago, but Best Buy requested a continuance, which was granted.

A class action lawsuit is still an option, and one that may be used.

There are more facts that are pertinent, but these are the most commonly misunderstood or ignored pieces of information.

Best Buy advertised the VisionTek Xtasy GeForce4 Ti4600 for preorder at the price of $129.99 (plus applicable sales tax) on their website (bestbuy.com) on Wednesday, February 6, 2002.

Over 2,000 customers placed orders for the card at this special price.

These customers were greeted with confirmation web pages, confirmation e-mail messages, issued order numbers, and some even received backorder confirmation e-mail messages (some even received multiple backorder confirmations).

Within hours, Best Buy pulled the offer, and "corrected" what they later called a "pricing error."

Cancellation e-mails were sent out, and cited a "systems error" for the mistake.

Best Buy issued a press released (only published at news.com) which blamed "human error" for the mistake.

Customers who called Best Buy to inquire about the order cancellation were told that VisionTek would not allow Best Buy to sell the cards at the originally agreed-upon price (Best Buy was falsely accusing VisionTek of illegal price-fixing tactics).

Best Buy does have a disclaimer on their web site in the form of their Terms of Service Agreement.

At no point during the account-creation or order-placing processes are customers required to read or actively agree to these terms (see Specht vs. Netscape; also see the FTC's Advertising and Marketing on the Internet: Rules of the Road).

Best Buy has actually changed their Terms of Service since this entire fiasco began.

Best Buy's Terms of Service do not supercede federal, state, and local consumer protection laws, which (in many cases) specifically outlaw this type of activity.

Best Buy's Terms of Service exist for the sole purpose of tricking customers into surrendering their consumer rights. The way consumer law is written, customers must exercise their rights; if they surrender them, the company in question is not required to adhere to these laws.

"E-tailers" are subject to the same rules, regulations, and laws that apply to their brick-and-mortar cousins. (See the FTC's Dot Com Disclosures)

Best Buy has stated that absolutely no one will be receiving the card at the previously agreed-upon price, yet well over 140 customers have already done so.

Best Buy is ignoring its customers at this point. E-mails go unanswered, and phone calls are greeted with a promise to escalate the call, but the customer must wait for someone to contact them; this, of course, never happens.

At least one person has already taken this to Small Claims Court. He had his first hearing a couple of weeks ago, but Best Buy requested a continuance, which was granted.

A class action lawsuit is still an option, and one that may be used.

There are more facts that are pertinent, but these are the most commonly misunderstood or ignored pieces of information.

The government already enforces the age restrictions on rated "R" movies

It does no such thing.

Now that's scary.

It's also a violation of the FTC's telemarketing rule.

Well, actually it took several lawsuits and an FTC consent decree to put a damper on price-fixing by the audio CD industry.

Submit your comments by sending an email to tsr@ftc.gov or by writing to the Office of the Secretary, Room 159, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. Comments are due to the FTC by April 15, 2002.

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

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

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

I have automatically directed some SPAM to the FTC. I have an address on my website, for SPAMBOTS to grab. This address has an automitic forward to uce@ftc.gov. Some spammers might be smart enough to filter out .gov, but this avoids the filter.

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

What we really need is the Grey Spy as she always wins. Now, who is that Grey Spy [gnu.org]?

1. BBB.org
2. FTC
3. USPS Post Master

FTC policy statement on misleading advertising

I got the warning from godaddy.com so I'm not going to be deceived in this case, but if I hadn't received that warning I would likely have at least been confused. (I would have read the fine print and not done it, but I'm a cynical SOB.)

My company got a call from these folks as well. Actually the old contact for our domain got the call (since NetSol doesn't seem to update their Whois info often). The voice mail message got forwarded down the chain of command to me. It immediately sent up blaring sirens and red flags in my head and I did a Google search for "Domain Support Group." (With the quotes.)

Found this page with some info:

http://www.carr-ferrell.com/pubs/html/dotinfonotic e.html

I also found out that this scam is similar to another scam that took place last year from "Electronic Domain Name Monitoring." A Google Search on that name came up with the following FTC page:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/02/morgenstern.htm

The interesting thing is that both last year's scam and the current one seem to be based out of Toronto, Canada. Looks like the same guy's at it again.

Instead of ICANN, I would suggest contacting your State Attorney General's office for deceptive trade practices, or the Postmaster General for mail fraud. ICANN can't prosecute these scumbags the way they should be.

If you have already paid this, you could complain at the FTC, too.

This case might make industry think twice about the DMCA if the copyright work in question were owned by, say, Bertelsmann or another AOL-Time-Warner competitor. But as the suit was brought by some puny individual (no offense, Mr. Ellison, but you're not a mega-media conglomerate) and the Right Side won, this won't change the opinions of Anyone That Matters.

As per the FTC:

What do you do when you receive merchandise that you didn't order? According to the Federal Trade Commission, you don't have to pay for it. Federal laws prohibit mailing unordered merchandise to consumers and then demanding payment.

Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?

A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn't order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.

Advertising is the hemoragging wound of capitalism: the only way to compete with advertising is to advertise in response. The net result is higher prices without value, a completely useless sector of the economy, and a lot of cultural pollution.

Also, although much advertising is image and puffery, there is also a lot of valuable information conveyed in ads. I've learned a lot about new products and product features from ads.

Oh, I agree. Unfortunately, it is a problem if you're the DMA or some other bunch of marketing goonz.

Historically, the DMA's "problems" seem to get fixed by Congress with greater frequency than our "problems".

This may be changing - the FTC has asked for a national do-not-call list. Although it's opt-out, it's enforced by law, not "voluntary compliance on the part of the DMA". See, for instance, the FTC's press release on the FTC proposed national "Do Not Call" registry.

In typical fashion, DMA lobbyists are out in force to try and shut this one down. With overwhelming grasroots support for such a proposal, Congress might not bow to them this time. Perhaps a letter to your Congresscritter might be in order?

If you read about the purpose of that email address on the FTC's site you will see that while the FTC is aware of the burden/inconvenience of spam on the user and ISP, their primary focus is on identifying trends in illegal activities (ie: get rich quick schemes and other types of fraud).

While bulk UCE burdens Internet service providers and frustrates their customers, the FTC's main concern with UCE is its widespread use to disseminate false and misleading claims about products and services offered for sale on the Internet. The Commission believes the proliferation of deceptive bulk UCE on the Internet poses a threat to consumer confidence in online commerce and thus views the problem of deception as a significant issue in the debate over UCE.

On another front, the FTC set up a special electronic mailbox reserved for UCE in order to assess, first hand, emerging trends and developments in UCE. With the assistance of Internet service providers, privacy advocates, and other law enforcers, staff publicized the Commission's UCE mailbox, "uce@ftc.gov," and invited consumers to forward their UCE to it. The UCE mailbox has received more than 2,010,000 forwarded messages to date, including 3,000 to 4,000 new pieces of UCE every day. Staff enters each UCE message into the database; UCE received and entered in the database within the preceding 6 months is searchable. Periodically, staff analyzes the data, identifies trends, and uses its findings to target law enforcement and consumer and business education efforts.

This is a great example of the Free Market at work!

It is also a great example of the "Tragedy of the Commons" where a free-for-all resource is exploited to the point of being useless. There are two possible answers to avoid this: One is regulation (which would be cumbersome and probably ineffective, given the global nature of the Internet), or technical means (which I favor). In any case, there must be a certain penalty associated to misusing the resource, or else we'll have a econonomy-textbook case here.

Two links which might be worth a read: This and this (go up one directory for more comments).

MOD THIS UP PLEASE! The FTC wants your spam - forward it to uce@ftc.gov. It's in their news release here.