Slashdot Mirror

Business Opportunity Scams

Making Money By Sending Bulk E-Mailings

Chain Letters

Work-At-Home Schemes

Health And Diet Scams

Easy Money

Get Something Free

Investment Opportunities

Cable Descrambler Kits

Guaranteed Loans or Credit, On Easy Terms

Credit Repair Scams

Vacation Prize Promotions

Business Opportunity Scams

Making Money By Sending Bulk E-Mailings

Chain Letters

Work-At-Home Schemes

Health And Diet Scams

Easy Money

Get Something Free

Investment Opportunities

Cable Descrambler Kits

Guaranteed Loans or Credit, On Easy Terms

Credit Repair Scams

Vacation Prize Promotions

Business Opportunity Scams

Making Money By Sending Bulk E-Mailings

Chain Letters

Work-At-Home Schemes

Health And Diet Scams

Easy Money

Get Something Free

Investment Opportunities

Cable Descrambler Kits

Guaranteed Loans or Credit, On Easy Terms

Credit Repair Scams

Vacation Prize Promotions

you mean the email address, so a spammer can harvest it is

uce@ftc.gov
abuse@[127.0.0.1]
abuse@127.0.0.1

--joshua

There is a relatively easy way to report businesses and organizations you believe to be acting unlawfully to the FTC. Here's the link: FTC complaint page.

From the page:

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.

Use with care,


PhatKat

Additionally if you check here you'll notice that there isn't an e-mail channel for complaints; only telephone, fax, US mail and web.

Additionally if you check here you'll notice that there isn't an e-mail channel for complaints; only telephone, fax, US mail and web.

This is what Gerald Mossinghoff had to say. I started off thinking that this guy might not be too bad. By the time I got to the end though, I realized that the way this guy thinks is the source of many of the problems with the patent system. Check out his report here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/mossinghoffgeraldj.pdf

He seems to think that the current system is good enough and should not be challenged because it could cause confusion. Furthermore, he think that such a challenge would probably be unsuccessful due to the combined power of the high-tech industry, Patent Bar, and various inventors groups. He seems to think that it's a great thing that we've cemented IP laws in place through legislation and treaties. So much so that it would cause chaos if we were to try to roll any of it back or even simply subject patent applications to a higher standard than we currently do. I'm depressed now. Thanks Gerald.

Then we have economics professor, Richard Gilbert. He has a formula that will tell us whether we should pursue anti-trust suits against holders of blocking patents (collections of patents that bar competition). I can't really tell whether it makes sense or not since I don't have any handy way of applying it to a real world case. Does anyone have any idea what this guy is saying, or who will benefit the most from it? His presentation is done in Powerpoint, so you'll need access to MS Office or something else that can read Powerpoint documents. http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/guide1.ppt

Finally, we come to someone who is making sense to me. Yale president, Richard C. Levin. He makes several good points, some that cover the same topics as Mr. Gilbert, and others that cover areas of concern to many of us who have had our eye on the IP system. Read his presentation here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/levinrichardc.htm

This is what Gerald Mossinghoff had to say. I started off thinking that this guy might not be too bad. By the time I got to the end though, I realized that the way this guy thinks is the source of many of the problems with the patent system. Check out his report here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/mossinghoffgeraldj.pdf

He seems to think that the current system is good enough and should not be challenged because it could cause confusion. Furthermore, he think that such a challenge would probably be unsuccessful due to the combined power of the high-tech industry, Patent Bar, and various inventors groups. He seems to think that it's a great thing that we've cemented IP laws in place through legislation and treaties. So much so that it would cause chaos if we were to try to roll any of it back or even simply subject patent applications to a higher standard than we currently do. I'm depressed now. Thanks Gerald.

Then we have economics professor, Richard Gilbert. He has a formula that will tell us whether we should pursue anti-trust suits against holders of blocking patents (collections of patents that bar competition). I can't really tell whether it makes sense or not since I don't have any handy way of applying it to a real world case. Does anyone have any idea what this guy is saying, or who will benefit the most from it? His presentation is done in Powerpoint, so you'll need access to MS Office or something else that can read Powerpoint documents. http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/guide1.ppt

Finally, we come to someone who is making sense to me. Yale president, Richard C. Levin. He makes several good points, some that cover the same topics as Mr. Gilbert, and others that cover areas of concern to many of us who have had our eye on the IP system. Read his presentation here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/levinrichardc.htm

This is what Gerald Mossinghoff had to say. I started off thinking that this guy might not be too bad. By the time I got to the end though, I realized that the way this guy thinks is the source of many of the problems with the patent system. Check out his report here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/mossinghoffgeraldj.pdf

He seems to think that the current system is good enough and should not be challenged because it could cause confusion. Furthermore, he think that such a challenge would probably be unsuccessful due to the combined power of the high-tech industry, Patent Bar, and various inventors groups. He seems to think that it's a great thing that we've cemented IP laws in place through legislation and treaties. So much so that it would cause chaos if we were to try to roll any of it back or even simply subject patent applications to a higher standard than we currently do. I'm depressed now. Thanks Gerald.

Then we have economics professor, Richard Gilbert. He has a formula that will tell us whether we should pursue anti-trust suits against holders of blocking patents (collections of patents that bar competition). I can't really tell whether it makes sense or not since I don't have any handy way of applying it to a real world case. Does anyone have any idea what this guy is saying, or who will benefit the most from it? His presentation is done in Powerpoint, so you'll need access to MS Office or something else that can read Powerpoint documents. http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/guide1.ppt

Finally, we come to someone who is making sense to me. Yale president, Richard C. Levin. He makes several good points, some that cover the same topics as Mr. Gilbert, and others that cover areas of concern to many of us who have had our eye on the IP system. Read his presentation here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycommen ts/levinrichardc.htm

My understanding is that they are going after the chain mail and pyramid schemes, not trying to shut down all the porn email (oooooh, hot girls waiting just for ME!!! WOW!!!) So it won't do anything about the deluge of unwanted email pouring into your inbox, just keep people that are dumb enough to answer the ads from hurting themselves. Like putting nerf corners on the world of email for them

I would rather see some kind of legislation that holds spammers accountable if their "remove' methods do not work. I think a "do not call" type of list would be better than nothing. Filters don't always work, no matter how well you configure them. Maybe a new version of the SMTP protocol that would require a secure connection or authentication by you to be able to send you an email

--insert comment to the effect of "what has slashdot come to posting this type of story
--insert comment to the effect of "if you weren't such a loser you wouldn't get spam"
--insert comment to the effect of "jane you ignorant slut that's not what it says at all"
--insert comment to the effect of "this is all the fault of M$ and their monopolistic practices"

See the second paragraph in this document.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/01/iphearings.htm

People known to have been affiliated with Dash include Dan Kaufman, CEO, and Rob Goldman, "Executive Vice President of Customer Experience".

What did Dash do? "Dash.com is a mobile shopping and advertising portal that surfs the Web with consumers, bringing them real-time offers from merchants." Sounds a lot like VX2.

More later.

The Nevada Secretary of State Corporation Search gives us.

• President:MAURICE O'BANNON
• 
  Address: PO BOX 27103
  LAS VEGAS NV 89126

• vx2 (VX52-DOM)
• 
  po box 27103
  Las Vegas, NV 89126
  US

  Domain Name: VX2.CC

  212 255 1008 fax: 123 123 1234

"Maurice O'Bannon" is mentioned in several legal documents related to the J.K. Publications scam. In that case, O'Bannon was on paper an officer or director of several dummy Nevada corporations which were fronting for a multimillion dollar phony credit card billing scam operated by Kenneth Taves of Malibu, CA. (Mr. Taves is currently Inmate #12289-112 at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center). O'Bannon, though, appears to be some guy in Nevada who just signed whatever was put in front of him. In the judge's words [large .PDF] "Maurice O'Bannon had an informal agreement with Nevada Corporate Headquarters, Inc., an incorporator, to act as a nominee for their client-corporations and sign whatever documents Nevada Corp wanted him to sign." The judge was bothered by O'Bannon's actions, but the FTC didn't have enough evidence that he had control of or profited from the scam to put him away.

The J.K. publications scam involved obtaining a database of 3.6 million valid credit card numbers and charging them small amounts each, supposedly for use of a porno site. The mess involved offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Vanatu, but much of the money has been recovered. Company names involved were JK Publications, Inc., MJD Service Corp., Netfill, N-Bill, Webtel, Billing On Line, Fun On Line, and Discreet Bill.

We're not at the bottom of this yet, but it looks very suspicious.

The Nevada Secretary of State Corporation Search gives us.

• President:MAURICE O'BANNON
• 
  Address: PO BOX 27103
  LAS VEGAS NV 89126

• vx2 (VX52-DOM)
• 
  po box 27103
  Las Vegas, NV 89126
  US

  Domain Name: VX2.CC

  212 255 1008 fax: 123 123 1234

"Maurice O'Bannon" is mentioned in several legal documents related to the J.K. Publications scam. In that case, O'Bannon was on paper an officer or director of several dummy Nevada corporations which were fronting for a multimillion dollar phony credit card billing scam operated by Kenneth Taves of Malibu, CA. (Mr. Taves is currently Inmate #12289-112 at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center). O'Bannon, though, appears to be some guy in Nevada who just signed whatever was put in front of him. In the judge's words [large .PDF] "Maurice O'Bannon had an informal agreement with Nevada Corporate Headquarters, Inc., an incorporator, to act as a nominee for their client-corporations and sign whatever documents Nevada Corp wanted him to sign." The judge was bothered by O'Bannon's actions, but the FTC didn't have enough evidence that he had control of or profited from the scam to put him away.

The J.K. publications scam involved obtaining a database of 3.6 million valid credit card numbers and charging them small amounts each, supposedly for use of a porno site. The mess involved offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Vanatu, but much of the money has been recovered. Company names involved were JK Publications, Inc., MJD Service Corp., Netfill, N-Bill, Webtel, Billing On Line, Fun On Line, and Discreet Bill.

We're not at the bottom of this yet, but it looks very suspicious.

O'Bannon argues that there is an absence of evidence to support the FTC's case. O'Bannon contends that the FTC's evidence shows he only temporarily acted as an officer for MJD, Discreet Bill and TAL, he had no actual authority over these companies, he resigned shortly after each corporation was formed, he did not know the other defendants and did not receive any compensation from the companies. O'Bannon motion at 2. Notably, O'Bannon does not mention the Charter Pacific merchant account agreement that indicates O'Bannon signed a legal contract on behalf of TAL in or about December 1998.

First, contrary to O'Bannon's assertion, the evidence shows that he was not always a "temporary" officer for the companies. In fact, the corporate documents indicate that he was an officer and director of Discreet Bill, at least on paper, for 13 months. [emphasis is in the original court order ] [...] During the interim, O'Bannon, on behalf of Discreet Bill, signed the four fictitious business certificates. Second, it appears that O'Bannon signed the Charter Pacific merchant account agreement on behalf of TAL and he may have done so in or about Dec 1998, after he puportedly resigned from the company. The merchant account agreement enabled TAL to continue the fraudulent scheme, albeit only for about a month before the Receiver took over the company.

Nevertheless, the Court finds that O'Bannon is entitled is entitled to judgement in his favour. The FTC's case against O'Bannon is based solely on O'Bannon's role as an officer of the defendant companies. Therefore, to hold O'Bannon liable for injunctive relief, the FTC must establish that O'Bannon either participated directly in the wrongful practices at issue or had the authority to control the corporation.

Again, this all assumes we are talking about the same O'Bannon here.

But who knows? Maybe VX2 is already planning to commit a crime with the information they have surreptiously gathered (that's supposing their information gathering methods aren't already criminal). There may be an opportunity here to haul them (further) into the limelight before they do some serious damage.

Looking up "Maurice O'Bannon" in Google, we find that name associated with a major Internet fraud case in Nevada and California involving $37 million of phony credit card charges which resulted in jail time for some of the participants.

Uh oh. Spyware from people involved with credit card fraud is big trouble. This needs to be followed up with law enforcement.

Sorry - but it's total crap. DVD's are software. They contain logic - menu systems, scene browsers, and most importantly, a nasty little piece of malicioius code called "region coding" which illegally allows the Motion Picture cartels to practice Predatory Price Discrimination against a worldwide customer base.

No, DVD's are software. Malicious software, in fact. They should be dealt with as such.

Which reminds me -- Slashdot oughta run a story on the move towards National Do-Not-Call legislation. The FTC's proposed plan involves an $11,000 kick in the teeth of every telemarketing pigfux0r who breaks the law, and would make it easier for victims to trace back and report lawbreaking telemarketers to the authorities.

The FTC is accepting public comment on the proposal, in sextuplicate, by March 29, 2002.

Make sure that the comments they get aren't entirely from DMA lobbyists.

Due to fraudulent charity telemarketing after 9/11, the good guys have the political momentum on this one -- and the DMA is running scared on this one.

Let's put the nails into the telemarketing coffin once and for all.

uce@ftc.gov

they're particularly interested in fraud, pyramid schemes and the like.

See their press release.

This is very interesting... Do you know how to report such scams to the credit card Co's (any useful mail addresses, phone numbers, ...)?

It looks like the Federal Trade Commission would be a good place.

I'm not too convinced that action toys alone will lead to violent behavior. A friend of mine grew up Amish, where there is no tech or 'dangerous toys'. The Amish are strict pacifists. However, without being taught or influenced to do so, give an Amish boy a stick and he will turn it into a weapon (then get switched for doing so). Cops and robbers, cowboys and indians are normal for little boys, which I wouldn't classify as violent. A chainsaw to the head - now that is violent. What I think is 'dirty' about these toys is the marketing: "Hey kids - here's the action figure, now go plan that 'M' rated game!" I have worked in marketing and this is diliberate (see also movie marketing).

Another key to understanding why violent games for kids is bad is this: whatever we spend time doing influences us. Spend a week playing Doom, then contemplate on the nature of life. Spend a different week in Paris with your loved one, then see what your outlook on life is like. Read slashdot all week and your brain turns to ... We can influence ourselves and others just by what we choose to do. This influence feeds us to do more of the same, and even think about things differently. For kids, this is 10x as true. But they don't 'feed' themselves - their parents do. Or the TV or computer or ... Most parents don't think this way, but that is a parent's job: feed the kids and clean up their s--t. That's how it all starts, and that's how it should continue - with ideas, activities, and morals.

As for the reasearch, you can try this:
1) Play Quake, Diablo, (_____) for 6 hours.
2) Stop immediately when 6 hours is done.
3) Get up and write a love poem to your amore.
4) Post it here, because he/she certainly won't want to see it and we could use a good laugh.

You may also want to look at the Surgeon General's Report on Youth Violence. Plenty of references and research if you really want to dig.

• The House of Representatives
  
• Thomas at the Library of Congress
  
• The US Postal Service
  
• The Securities and Exchange Commission
  
• The Federal Trade Commission
  
• (FWIW: i.e. not much) The Internal Revenue Service This is one of the poorer examples, but at least you can download forms in PDF.
  
• The White House
  
• The US Dept of Justice Not as useful as the others...
  

The FTC has an address where they accept spam ("unsolicited commercial e-mail") in order to take action on it. The address is uce@ftc.gov (yup, no cloaking here: spammers--do your worst). In fact, according to this press release, the FTC has been accepting UCE at that address for a couple of years.

The FTC has an address where they accept spam ("unsolicited commercial e-mail") in order to take action on it. The address is uce@ftc.gov (yup, no cloaking here: spammers--do your worst). In fact, according to this press release, the FTC has been accepting UCE at that address for a couple of years.

I decided to let the name expire and then re-register it with a better registrar. I thought it wouldn't be a problem, because it was an obscure name.

Well, this same scumbag who took your old domain now has my old personal site, and is using it for porn ads. Apparently he is using a bot to repeatedly check for newly expiring domains, hoping to capitalize on the traffic from people's old bookmarks/search engine listings. I'm calling this "expire-squatting".

I filed a complaint with the FTC because of this and because he was using hostile "mousetrapping" javascript code to force open new windows whenever you close one. The FTC had previously shut down another one of these jerks, so I thought it might help.

Well, the FTC sent me back an email saying that they don't investigate individual complaints, but will act if they see a pattern of fraudulent behavior emerge.

So, go report this at the FTC website, and maybe you can push this over the threshold for FTC action.

I decided to let the name expire and then re-register it with a better registrar. I thought it wouldn't be a problem, because it was an obscure name.

Well, this same scumbag who took your old domain now has my old personal site, and is using it for porn ads. Apparently he is using a bot to repeatedly check for newly expiring domains, hoping to capitalize on the traffic from people's old bookmarks/search engine listings. I'm calling this "expire-squatting".

I filed a complaint with the FTC because of this and because he was using hostile "mousetrapping" javascript code to force open new windows whenever you close one. The FTC had previously shut down another one of these jerks, so I thought it might help.

Well, the FTC sent me back an email saying that they don't investigate individual complaints, but will act if they see a pattern of fraudulent behavior emerge.

So, go report this at the FTC website, and maybe you can push this over the threshold for FTC action.

The FTC privacy site is here. I quote:

Advances in computer technology have made it possible for detailed information about people to be compiled and shared more easily and cheaply than ever. That's good for society as a whole and individual consumers. For example, it is easier for law enforcement to track down criminals, for banks to prevent fraud, and for consumers to learn about new products and services, allowing them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. At the same time, as personal information becomes more accessible, each of us - companies, associations, government agencies, and consumers - must take precautions to protect against the misuse of that information.

Here is their check list of pro-privacy iniatives:

• Creating a National Do-Not-Call List
• Beefing Up Enforcement Against Spam
• Helping Victims of ID Theft
• Putting a Stop to Pretexting
• Encouraging Accuracy in Credit Reporting and Compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act
• Enforcing Privacy Promises
• Increasing Enforcement and Outreach on Children's Online Privacy
• Encouraging Consumers' Privacy Complaints
• Enforcing the Telemarketing Sales Rule
• Restricting the Use of Pre-acquired Account Information
• Enforcing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)
• Holding Workshops

It seems that at the very least, privacy is on the radar of the FTC... are they doing all they could? Of course not, not with big business pushing them around.

I don't necessarily even see where Passport would fall into one of the catagories above, although it is by not means a complete list.

All sorts of groups are calling foul about MS/Passport. I don't think it will go un-noticed.

The FTC privacy site is here. I quote:

Advances in computer technology have made it possible for detailed information about people to be compiled and shared more easily and cheaply than ever. That's good for society as a whole and individual consumers. For example, it is easier for law enforcement to track down criminals, for banks to prevent fraud, and for consumers to learn about new products and services, allowing them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. At the same time, as personal information becomes more accessible, each of us - companies, associations, government agencies, and consumers - must take precautions to protect against the misuse of that information.

Here is their check list of pro-privacy iniatives:

• Creating a National Do-Not-Call List
• Beefing Up Enforcement Against Spam
• Helping Victims of ID Theft
• Putting a Stop to Pretexting
• Encouraging Accuracy in Credit Reporting and Compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act
• Enforcing Privacy Promises
• Increasing Enforcement and Outreach on Children's Online Privacy
• Encouraging Consumers' Privacy Complaints
• Enforcing the Telemarketing Sales Rule
• Restricting the Use of Pre-acquired Account Information
• Enforcing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)
• Holding Workshops

It seems that at the very least, privacy is on the radar of the FTC... are they doing all they could? Of course not, not with big business pushing them around.

I don't necessarily even see where Passport would fall into one of the catagories above, although it is by not means a complete list.

All sorts of groups are calling foul about MS/Passport. I don't think it will go un-noticed.

As part of the ongoing Internet law enforcement initiative, the FTC has trained more than 700 law enforcement and consumer protection officials from 20 different countries, including 17 federal agencies, 25 state governments and 14 Canadian consumer protection offices in online investigation and law enforcement techniques in locations ranging from Anchorage, Alaska to Paris, France.

Sounds like these are the boys (and girls) in blue to talk to. This is where to find them to file a complaint.

Auction fraud is illegal, I believe there is a way you can file with the FTC and have the fraudelant seller fined thousands of dollars, or even possibly jailed. IIRC, something about interstate commerce, or whatknot.

It's good to see that the FTC isn't totally out to lunch under the Bush administration. Usually, the FTC takes wimpy actions like asking somebody to cease and desist what they're doing. This is an unusually aggressive response.

FCC [sic], stay the hell out of the net.

Oh, for pity's sake.

It is exactly the FTC's job to enforce legislation against deceptive trade practices. These `typo' sites are exactly that, and fall under the same laws that would apply to Real-World marketing under names intentionally similar to trademarks.

But seriously, I for one am glad the federal government is on top of this case. Just think of all the shoppers out there who were innocently looking to buy cupcakes online and got drawn into this insidious web of browser betrayal.

Now, could they do something about my problem? Every time I buy a new car, the trunk turns out to be mysteriously stuffed with black 30-gallon trash bags full of child pornography, gambling tokens, and a substantial fraction of body parts that somebody must be missing...

Bockman, I'd be curious to find out on what you base the assertion that "CD Now cannot _legally_ sell credit card info . . . nor user preferences. "

CD Now has a privacy policy, the relevant portion of which states:

"We will not rent or sell your name, address, email address, credit card information or personal information to any third party without your permission. However, we must cooperate fully should a situation arise where we are required by law or legal process to provide information about a customer." (CD Now's Privacy Policy)

Lets assume for a moment that this constitutes a legally binding agreement between you and CDNow. (A question somewhat up in the air, particularly here in New York, given recent caselaw on click-through licenses). Let's further assume that CDNow violates this agreement if it sells your information. Your option is to sue CDNow for breach of contract and if a court finds the agreement to be legally binding and if the court finds they have breached, you will be allowed to prove your damages arising out of that breach and be compensated. If you live in the US that's probably about $50, the maximum liability you might sustain for fraudulent use of your credit card information. There has never been a successful lawsuit for missuse of "personal demographic information" or "musical taste" or anything like that. Remember here what many lawyers forget: in civil actions, "no harm no foul" is a good defense. Unless you can show with certainty that you have been harmed by CDNow's sale of this information, you have no legal recourse.

Then again, if CDNow goes into bankruptcy, the customer database would likely be considered an asset and sold. This would be ordered by the bankruptcy court, required by law, and therefore exempt from the privacy policy according to the second sentence of the language quoted above.

This is what happened to Toysmart, which sought to sell its customer lists in bankruptcy. It was sued by the FTC and various state attorneys general for the attempt (press release) but the case eventually settled when the Bankruptcy court found that there were no real buyers and Disney (the majority shareholer) agreed to pay $50,000 to Toysmart's creditors in exchange for having the info destroyed (NY AG press release).

The Toysmart case has led to an effort to get a law passed making it illegal to sell private information, but no such general law exists yet as far as I know. Thus it is not illegal (at least in most US states) to sell user preferences. Certain kinds of sensitive information (such as medical records) are protected by state law, and personally identifiable information that has been collected on a user under 13 years old cannot legally be sold (see: COPPA: The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act), but there is no general federal law barring sale of this kind of information.

Just an aside. IAAL, but this should not be construed as legal advice or relied upon for any purpose.

Actually, according to this primer on antitrust law, Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to [...] maintain or acquire a monopoly position through unreasonable methods."

The OEM contract certainly sounds unreasonable to me, but, of course, IANAL.

The organizations that prosecute credit card fraud are the FBI and Secret Service. Weird, huh? And they generally don't go after crimes unless they involve a large dollar amount -- i.e. large scam operations. If some kid just found your card, you're basically SOL. But it might be worthwhile to call them and hound them into taking a report.

I did a few web searches, and was unable to find any kind of instructions for reporting fraud to the FBI or secret service. There are a few dead links out there for some FBI reporting form, but it appears to be gone. I wonder if the situation has changed in the last few years? The Secret Service's page on the subject says to contact your CC company, the three credit reporting agencies, and the police. But that obviously will go nowhere as far as criminal prosecution of the theif.

The FTC has a page but it says at the top "the FTC does not resolve individual consumer problems"...looks like the page is just for gathering statistics. I'm sure it's really fucking effective. The FTC also has an Identity theft complaint form and has a checkbox for credit card theft, but again it says "the FTC does not resolve individual consumer problems...".

So, it appears that the government quietly approves of credit card fraud. This sucks. This really sucks. We need a new system so badly...

--Bob

The organizations that prosecute credit card fraud are the FBI and Secret Service. Weird, huh? And they generally don't go after crimes unless they involve a large dollar amount -- i.e. large scam operations. If some kid just found your card, you're basically SOL. But it might be worthwhile to call them and hound them into taking a report.

I did a few web searches, and was unable to find any kind of instructions for reporting fraud to the FBI or secret service. There are a few dead links out there for some FBI reporting form, but it appears to be gone. I wonder if the situation has changed in the last few years? The Secret Service's page on the subject says to contact your CC company, the three credit reporting agencies, and the police. But that obviously will go nowhere as far as criminal prosecution of the theif.

The FTC has a page but it says at the top "the FTC does not resolve individual consumer problems"...looks like the page is just for gathering statistics. I'm sure it's really fucking effective. The FTC also has an Identity theft complaint form and has a checkbox for credit card theft, but again it says "the FTC does not resolve individual consumer problems...".

So, it appears that the government quietly approves of credit card fraud. This sucks. This really sucks. We need a new system so badly...

--Bob

Back when we had real enforcement of consumer protection laws, the more obnoxious forms of this would have been stamped out quickly. Now it's going to be tough. But those laws are still on the books and can be used. Start sending those complaints in to the FTC and your state department of consumer protection. (The FTC site is down today. That's a bad sign, given the current administration.)

Exercise: Go to the Surf+ web site and find the uninstall directions. How long did it take you? Here they are:

• How do I uninstall Surf+?

  To Uninstall Surf+ please follow these steps:
  1. Select the Start Menu
  2. Choose the Run command from the menu
  3. Type in surfplus.exe /u and hit the O.K. button
  4. Answer 'Yes' to the question that pops up
  5.After you uninstall Surf+, please close all the IE windows.

• Spedia has replaced my home page. How can I restore my original one?

  To restore your original home page, right-click on the left side of the SpediaBar and choose Spedia options from the menu. Go to Startup and uncheck the box that says "Make Spedia my home page".

Note that uninstalling through "Add/Remove Programs" isn't offered (this disqualifies Surf+ for the Microsoft Windows Logo Program), and that the home page apparently can't be changed in the usual way. Now that's hostile.

(I haven't actually tried these directions. Someone who runs IE on Windows might try them and see if they work. I wonder if you can in fact execute the uninstaller with the default path from the run menu.)

Others have pondered whether we'd give "rights" to software, if it could simulate a human well enough.

Does this mean we're going to have to wait another 12+ years before we're able to connect these AIs to, say, ICQ? (Without breaking COPPA, that is...)

The Sherman Antitrust Act forbids using dominance in one market (PC Processor) to leverage control over another market (PC Chipsets). If you feel Intel is harming your consumer choice, file a complaint with the US FTC online, but please RTFM first.

The Sherman Antitrust Act forbids using dominance in one market (PC Processor) to leverage control over another market (PC Chipsets). If you feel Intel is harming your consumer choice, file a complaint with the US FTC online, but please RTFM first.

Is this true? Consider this article from Fortune about Rambus, in which they were dinged for not disclosing a patent to a standards committee.

The article mentions that Sun and Dell got in trouble for similar things, and had to license the patents royalty-free. Dell had a patent on VL-BUS technology, and Sun had one on DRAMs for SparcStations that Kingston complained about. The Dell story (from 1996) is summarized here and this is from the FTC, while the Sun case (from this year) is mentioned here and here.

- adam

Your wish is granted! FTC is investigating the Musicnet/Pressplay Douoploly as you read this.

The labels are starting to ask Why are we paying this Rosen woman a 1.1 million dollar salary? First the EU Investigation in June, this Boucher/Cannon bill, and now a FTC investigation. Not to mention that the FTC Finding of Price Fixing, or the 28 states lawsuit over the price fixing

As I posted previously, this is clearly deceptive business practice and possibly fraud. Take a few minutes to visit the Federal Trade Commission website. They have an online complaint form which you can fill out against Macrovision and the "John Doe" record companies. Only if lots of people fight this will the FTC take action.

The information for Macrovision that they request is:

Macrovision Corporation
1341 Orleans Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
408-743-8600

The text of my complaint reads:

Macrovision Corp. along with various John Doe corporations (unnamed record
companies) have introduced copy-protected music/audio CDs into
U.S. distribution channels. No notice is given consumers who purchase these
CDs, yet these new CDs take away a right which consumers have come to
expect, and which is protected by the Supreme Court's "Betamax" decision
and the Audio Home Recording Act, namely the ability to copy said CDs onto
a personal computer for personal use.

I believe this constitutes fraud and deceptive business practices due to
the failure to disclose this information to consumers. I urge the
Commission to help stop this activity.

Please see the following article for additional information:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6604222.htm l

They want your spam at: uce@ftc.gov

Don't mess with the Feds. Now if only they had a place to report pop-up ads...

A lawsuit may not be the best approach. This is clearly deceptive business practices and possibly fraud. Take a few minutes to visit the Federal Trade Commission website. They have an online complaint form which you can fill out against Macrovision and the "John Doe" record companies.

Please do not flame the FTC - it won't help our cause any. ;-)

The information for Macrovision that they request is:

Macrovision Corporation
1341 Orleans Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
408-743-8600

The text of my complaint reads:

Macrovision Corp. along with various John Doe corporations (unnamed record
companies) have introduced copy-protected music/audio CDs into
U.S. distribution channels. No notice is given consumers who purchase these
CDs, yet these new CDs take away a right which consumers have come to
expect, and which is protected by the Supreme Court's "Betamax" decision
and the Audio Home Recording Act, namely the ability to copy said CDs onto
a personal computer for personal use.

I believe this constitutes fraud and deceptive business practices due to
the failure to disclose this information to consumers. I urge the
Commission to help stop this activity.

Please see the following article for additional information:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6604222.htm l

Previous posters have brought up some poor analogies. Newspaper ads are clearly ads (and newspapers can get in serious trouble when this isn't the case). The yellow pages are entirely advertisement.

A better example is infomercials . These are clearly a `free service', too, as is all of broadcast television. That emphatically does not exempt them from the requirement to clearly distinguish paid ads from normal programming.

Now, you could argue about whether or not paid-for placement between `normal' links is the same as a tv commercial which is paid for in-between `normal' programming, but it's not a completely unreasonable stretch.