Slashdot Mirror


Feds Cracking the Whip on Spammers

Britano writes "Fox News is reporting that the FTC has started to go after spammers and online scammers. So the governement has finally started on the side of the consumer. "The Federal Trade Commission announced Tuesday that is has created a nationwide task force that has already brought 63 law enforcement actions against Web-based scams ranging from auction frauds to bogus cancer-curing sites." Hey, this way we don't have to spend our own money on fighting this problem!"

17 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. our own money? by avandesande · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where do you think our tax dollars come from?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  2. hmmm. by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet them spammers like the taste of the whip! Filthy bondage whores...

  3. spammers or scammers? by room101 · · Score: 5, Informative

    From what I have heard, it isn't so much spammers as scammers. They are shutting down the illegal scams. If you have a real business, but use spam to advertise your product, I haven't read anything to indicate that they are being targeted.

    --
    room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
    (they always break you eventually)
    1. Re:spammers or scammers? by Violet+Null · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the article, it seems that they're also targetting spammers that don't offer a way to opt-out; those with 'remove' links in their emails that are dead, for instance.

    2. Re:spammers or scammers? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      • it seems that they're also targetting spammers that don't offer a way to opt-out; those with 'remove' links in their emails that are dead, for instance

      I feel that I have to point out that everything after the semicolon is redundant. ;-)

      Incidentally, I actually do click on the remove links (yes, I know I shouldn't, but I won't lower myself to their level, and really, how much worse could it get), but it's been at least five years since I actually saw one that worked. Serious question: has anyone here received spam (in the past three years, say) with a "remove" link that actually did anything but attract more spam?

      In addition, the stock lie "This is a one off mailing. You are not on a distribution list." (insert your own typos) is also trivially disprovable, once you get the second spam.

      Seems to me like the FTC could bitchslap just about any spammer they liked simply on the grounds of flat out deception - what we old folks used to call lying, before we all started speaking like weas^H^H^H^H lawyers.

      I know it's a small point, but I actually detest honest spam slightly less: just pitch the product, tell me how to give you money (you delusional retard), and then shut up. Don't compound the insult by pretending to give a damn about opt-ins, opt-outs or privacy. That's just insulting. That makes it personal.

      So if the only thing the FTC does is to stop the insulting lies, that will at least drop my blood pressure by about five points. Go for it, G Men.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  4. Why is it by Dead+Penis+Bird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That it took so long for the Feds to finally realize that crimes on the Internet are no different than those off of it? Bogus charities and pyramid schemes have existed long before the net. It shouldn't be any different, should it?

    --

    If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!

  5. Own money? by EDinWestLA · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hey, this way we don't have to spend our own money on fighting this problem!


    Um, who do you think pays for the FTC to do this in the first place?
  6. Uh OK... by MasterBlaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you can manage to track the spammers down in another country...

    Anyway, this is mostly about scam spam. This wont even effect the "buy a million addresses on a CD" spam as long as they are actually selling that product.

    This just cracks down on something that was already illegal--it really doesn't have anything to do with spam.

  7. This just in... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Cyberspace is a wondrous place, but we are quickly learning it can also be a dangerous place for the unwary," she said. "Con artists who once relied on telephone boiler rooms and mass mailings can now rip people off through Web sites and e-mail."

    In a related news story, Fox reports that gullible people often get ripped off.

    Ok, here's the thing. I strongly believe spam would go away if people would QUIT BEING STUPID. If they would just think for a minute and say hmm, it seems this magic Cancer cure is too good to be true. Why haven't I heard about it in other sources? Now, I will say that these bastards selling hope in the form of a cancer cure is genuinely despicable, and they need to share a room with Bubba for doing it. However, WISE UP PEOPLE!!!! Do you really think xsegry17l33t@yahoo.com is a viable businessman? Come on!

    -5 redundant

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  8. mailto:UCE@FTC.GOV by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative
    On the FTC web site they state:

    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.


    So, add that to Securities and Exchange commissions abuse site enforcement@sec.gov and you have some good places to forward your spam.

    Send all "Great new stock tip" crap to the SEC, send all the ripoff products to the FTC, and copy Spamcop on everything, and maybe we can crush these bastards.

    (Hey, by placing these addresses on a public site like /., they are likely to get harvested by the spammers....)


    1. Re:mailto:UCE@FTC.GOV by The+G · · Score: 5, Funny

      UCE@FTC.GOV

      Excellent. Now I'll just provide that address to all of those "you must provide your email address -- not that we'd ever spam you..." registration-required sites.
      --G

  9. Help the FTC fighht SPAM. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. We need to whip them, into shape by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shape them up. Get them straight. We need to go forward and move ahead. Try to detect spam. It's not too late to whip them. Whip them good.

  11. Guess Carnivore is choking on all that Spam by theLunchLady · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not that spam is meat, but anyone notice the appropriateness of the name Carnivore?

  12. This also just in... by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dude, you can't legislate against stupidity. You can't buy a commercial on national television and shake your finger sternly at the world and say "stop being stupid!" and suddenly all of the suckers disappear off the face of the earth.

    You and I would walk by a game of three card monty and laugh. A rural teenage tourist would possibly be suckered in and lose $20. That's why you still see that game on the street. It works, and it always will.

    "There's a sucker born every minute" as Barnum would say.

    What about the elderly, who might be losing their faculties and are preyed on by these folks? Is it still the victim's fault in your eyes? Blame the victim, blame the victim. "Look at what she was wearing! She deserved to be raped." How does that sound?

    The point is, if you are in a position of greater knowledge, looking at a group of people with less knowledge and saying "stop being a bunch ignorant fools!" doesn't do a dang thing for anyone, doc, except maybe for your feeling of self-righteousness, sorry to break it to you. Ironically, your attitude reveals a naivete about how the world works, similar to other forms of naivete that suckers of scam-artists possess.

    "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

    In your book is it "fool me any time, shame on me"?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  13. Link to FTC's own press release by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 5, Informative
    The FTC's own press release is at

    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)

  14. Good, but not good enough by dh003i · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a start. But it doesn't go far enough. The real problem with SPAM isn't that alot of it is scams or cheap porno get-your-dick-sucked come ons. The real problem with SPAM is that it STEALS OUR BANDWIDTH. By being responsible for 30% of the traffic on the internet, SPAM steals the true potential of the internet from us all. OUR Internet is slowed down 30% because of SPAM.

    I am a moderate Libertarian, but this is something where the market can't regulate itself. There are many such situations, where the market doesn't regulate itself on par with the ideal. M$ is one such example.

    In this particular case, SPAM, it doesn't matter if everyone blocks it out using filtering that won't even d/l SPAM from the server. REGARDLESS of whether or not YOU block out SPAM, its still stealing from YOU. Because your ISP's have to devote huge amounts of their resources to sending SPAM around, they put the tab on your bill. Furthermore, its still slowing down the Net at large, and ultimately you, whether or not you download it. This is my proposal:

    PREAMBLE: Any violations of these statutes can result in jail time and severe fines paid to the state, the individual harmed, and the individual's ISP. The following proposal applies, unless otherwise stated, to E-MAIL, FAX, and the TELEPHONE. SPAM in all of these areas SHIFTS almost ALL of the cost of advertising from the ADVERTISER, to US and OUR ISP.

    (1) What's needed is an OPT IN ONLY system. ONLY people who OPT IN get sent stuff from organizations.

    (2) Furthermore, the OPT IN should have to be exclusive; opting in to receive e-mail from IBM NEVER gives them the right to let their "partners" send you crap. If they want to let their partners send you crap, they should have to contact you, explaning which partners they want you to let send you stuff, and what those partners do. Misrepresentation of this information should be considered a violation.

    (3) Unsolicited solicitations encouraging people to OPT IN are SPAM themselves. That is, if some organization (i.e., bigdicks.com) sends you an unsolicited "one time" request to "opt in" -- irrelevant whether that request is text-only or not -- its SPAM and a violation.

    (4) That said, the only legal way to propose to someone that they opt-in would be if they went to your website (and you had an opt-in option on your site) or requested information from you on opting in and you sent it to them. BUT, such opt-in options MUST state how large the OPT-IN proposal is in KB or MB accurate to 99%.

    (5) Any Opt-in proposals (either on the website or ones send by e-mail/fax/phone) must state the following about the commercial communication that consumers are opting into. (1) How frequently they send their communications, or on what bases [i.e., is it once every month? Or does it go by "whenver there's news"?] (2) How large is the average communication that is sent, plus or minus standard deviation? (3) Opt-in proposals must also state accurately what the communication sent is about. Intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of ANY of these pieces of information is a violation.

    (6) Said information in (5) must be updated at every new communication, correcting for that communication.

    (7) All such solicited communications are to include clear removal instructions. In ALL cases, the option to remove MUST be presented such that the individual need only respond with REMOVE in the subject field. The removal must be immediate, or quick enough such that the individual gets no more communications from that entity.

    (8) All such communications are to include an appropriate 3 letter header: Adv, Upd, or Nws. Adv applies for any commercial entity trying to sell you something. Upd applies for an update on a situation or software (i.e., an available upgrade). Nws applies for news (i.e., the stuff slashdot sends my e-mail).

    (9) This law is not intented to cover the communications of private INDIVIDUALS, but ONLY of organizations.