[Junk]Fax.com Fined $5.4 Million

Satanboy writes "This article states that a record $5.4m fine was levied on Fax.com after blatantly ignoring requests by the FCC to discontinue the activity of sending unsolicited faxes. This is similar to actions CmdrTaco posted about earlier." The people at junkfax.org are apparently planning a large class-action suit against fax.com as well.

Comments

Why can't this apply to SPAM?

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

I am SURE someone has pointed this out already but why can't the junk fax law apply to SPAM as well? That is, why can't there be a smiliar law drafted that applies to SPAM like junk faxes? SPAM affects EVERYBODY.

Re:Why can't this apply to SPAM?

[CheechBG]

Simple. The damages in fax blasting as they apply to the consumer are quantitative, a somewhat measurable decrease in toner, paper expense, stuff like that. Bandwidth, especially how much quantitative bandwitdh the inet spammers consume, is not that easily determined. Congress decided to tackle the easier problem, which still got a major nuisance off our backs. I recall at a old job that I was at as a tech how many junk faxes we received for all sorts of stuff.

Re:Why can't this apply to SPAM?

[MsWillow]

The theory was, years ago, that fax paper was expensive; by sending a junk fax, you wasted somebody's tangible property, hence it is illegal. Spam doesn't waste paper, it wastes bandwidth, disk space and time. Apparently, though, those don't matter enough to warrant making junk email illegal.

Re:Why can't this apply to SPAM?

[jmooney]

Heads up: It is not just faxes and spam to your PC. In Japan there was a major problem with spam email to mobile phones (that costs a lot more than spam email to your PC), and the latest problem is millions of spam hang-up calls to mobile phones - enough to severely overload the network. See this Infoworld article today.

The scam: the spammer pays nothing for the cell calls since no-one answered. The target sees a "missed call" with an unfamiliar caller ID number, they call back and get a phone sex line. In doing so they incur at least cell phone charges plus the operators use anything else they can to persuade/intimidate people to pay more to the operator for the "service".

This is really large scale, and unlike the US Japan already had rules preventing phone email spam:

... the volume of calls started rising at around 10 a.m. in the morning and within 15 minutes the carrier had been forced to place a 50 percent curb on the number of calls that could be made, to keep the network operating. The disruption, which lasted for several hours and affected more than 5 million telephone lines, was traced to a one-giri operator that began making more than 4,000 calls every three minutes over roughly 200 telephone lines.

For Japan's cell-phone users, the rise in one-giri calls came just as they were getting relief from another annoyance: unwanted e-mail. A new law prohibiting mass e-mailing to random cell phone users went into effect on July 1.

Spammers

[delta407]

So, wait, if there's only a handful of spammers that account for 90% of the spam in my inbox, when do they get a 5.4 million dollar fine?

Surely there are damages. Bandwidth may not be as expensive as paper, but possible productivity used to delete spam is costly. Besides which, the porno spammers could get sued for lots of money by the parents of minors...

Re:Spammers

[cmowire]

The 5.4 million dollar fine is based on the TCPA, not actual damages.

The problem is that the TCPA hasn't been shown to cover spamming. Which is unfortunate. They really need to superscede it with a law that bans advertisement in all cases where the caller does not foot the bill of the communication -- i.e. making only telemarketing and junk mail legal.

some people are just dumb

[Auckerman]

Let's see their business model is illegal. The FCC tells them that it knows what they are doing, it's illegal, and they should stop it. They don't listen. At what point do you NOT beleive the FCC and keep doing it?

Idiot 1: Hey man, let's send some more junk faxes.

Idiot 2: Didn't the FCC say we would get hell if we kept doing that?

Idiot 1: What's the worse they can do? Fine our "company"?!?

Laughter

Idiot 2: I hear the Bamahas are nice this time of year.

Re:some people are just dumb

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

But seriously, isn't this the current American business model when you get in trouble, buy off the politicians

No, no, the really successful model is to buy the politicians before you get into trouble:

• Disney and the Pillage the Public Domain Act, er, the Copyright Term Extension Act;
• software companies and UCITA;
• Hollywood and the DMCA

The only trouble is, the shelf life of a politician is pretty short: six years for a senator and only two for a representative. You have to make sure you renew or you might not get your money's worth...

Meanwhile, that law is found unconstitutional...

[bons]

Article
ruling Kuro5hin thread on the subject

The difference between faxing and emailing ...

[SuperDuG]

See I've seen companies like this hold up medical faxes and important contract faxes before. Because usually these things are a few pages. I also know people who have resorted to turning their fax machines off when they aren't using them because of the huge waste. The other thing that is really annoying is that these machines sometimes get the wrong number and will give those wonderful fax tones in your ear when you pick up the phone.

The damages from faxing are aparent in costs of paper and toner, along with tying up the machine itself. Email while annoying doesn't neccessarily impede you from downloading the rest of your email in a timely manner. The only way I can see a comparison would be if there were more email spams that were attachments that were in the megabytes. Those are always a real treat to download when your on dialup, and I can see where it would be comparable.

Basically this sets a precidence that will be followed in the future. Spammers beware... we can only take so much. Right now I average about 80 spam messages a day. While I just sort them into the trash, it is becoming a trend which is getting rather annoying. And I can attest that quite a few of them all come from the same PLACE, not the same email server. If it's an advertisement for the same sex site then they should be held accountable, last I checked there wasn't any free advertising packages available.

Re:The difference between faxing and emailing ...

[Steve B]

Email while annoying doesn't necessarily impede you from downloading the rest of your email in a timely manner.

Spam e-mail can fill an in-box memory allotment and cause the loss of legitimate e-mail, just as spam faxes can exhaust a paper roll and buffer and cause the loss of legitimate faxes. The two are exactly analogous.

Spam the Fax Spammers Back

[peterdaly]

I have posted this on slashdot before, but the comment fits the article.

They will hate me for putting this idea into people's minds...but everyone I explain this to gets a kick out of it, so here goes.

1. Take 5 sheets of black construction paper.
2. Scotch tape them into a single 5 sheet long sheet.
3. Place start of "page" into fax machine.
4. Dial the "recipient".
5. Watch sheet start going into the fax machine with glee.
6. Once out the other side, Scotch Tape beginning of "sheet" to end of sheet forming a giant black loop.
7. Giggle like a teenage girl and show your co-workers. Trust me, the showing co-workers step is needed for the full satisfaction. Choose co-workers carefully.
8. You Are Done! Not only that, but the recipient is now out of ink or toner.

Not that I have ever done this...but I know someone who has done this to someone who kept sending them spam faxes.

I hold no responsibility for your actions yada yada...

-Pete

Re:Spam the Fax Spammers Back

[Bios_Hakr]

Most FaxSpammers do not originate from a fax machine. They would use a PC or a bank of PCs to send hundreds of faxes simultaneously.

On a related note, wouldn't it seem to you that the fax machine software gurus know about your "Mobeus Fax"? Now, as a programmer, if you know about a specific attack, don't you close the hole? On most machines, the local buffer holds a scan of all the pages BEFORE the machine even dials. Your machine may differ.

READ ME!

[Guppy06]

We have a few major AP articles on the state of spam today and where it's going, plus we have this tidbit hitting the national news.

This is an election year in the US!

Print out these articles and mail them off to your congresscritter and your class II senator if you have one. Include a letter talking about how spam is an issue to you and how you'd like to see things like this happen to junk e-mailers as well. Maybe talk about how similar the two are (using the recipients expensive communications equipment without permission or reimbursemet). Mail some letters off to anybody else running for those seats that you know of.

Write them! Now! You don't even have to get up off your asses for this one! Just open the damned StarWrite window and write!

Freedom to ignore

[nuggz]

You should be free to say pretty much whatever you want.
I should not have to pay for your speech.

When you fax me, I have to pay for your speech, unless I agree to do so, this is theft.

Free speech is not absolute, Trade secrets, NDA's, treason, libel, slander, fraud and any number of other things are "speech" but that doesn't permit you to do them either.

The best junk faxes

[Liquidity]

My favorite is the one where there is some product information printed out, as if from internal company report or something Then, there are some lines underlined or circled and a note written in the margin somewhere which says something like: "Jim, this is the one I told you about!"

I guess you are supposed to grab this off the incoming queue and think, "AHa! I've intercepted a confidential memo! Now I, too, will reap the benefits of this secret deal!"

That's Harsh (a good thing)

[peterdaly]

The fine calls for the company to pay the maximum penalty of $11,000 per violation.

The FCC is also issuing citations to more than 100 businesses which used Fax.com, warning that they too could be liable to pay the maximum fine if they continue to send unsolicited faxes.

$11,000 per violation? That's a lot. This will make people think twice before doing it. I especially like how the advertisers may be held liable if they continue as well, although I don't think they should only be punished if they continue the practice. They knew what they we buying for their advertising dollar, or at least they should have.

-Pete

Let Evil Fight Evil.

[pb]

Here's a sure-fire way to confound junk faxers and spammers alike:

1) Harvest phone numbers from spam e-mails and e-mails from junk faxes. (you can find these online)

2) Figure out where spammers and faxers get their information from and flood these locations with the e-mails and phone numbers you find; USENET and message boards (like slashdot!) are good for this.

3) Wait for the faxers to start faxing the spammers, and for the spammers to start e-mailing the faxers.

Problem solved.

Jurisdiction (Mod me up!)

[sam_handelman]

Phone calls take place, in legal terms, at the location of the person who gets the phone call. For now, let's assume faxes work the same way.

So, the ruling (pointed to by the person to whome I respond) might apply to all of the faxes that Fax.com sent to Eastern Missouri, which may have contributed to the fine, but not to the others. Other courts may (or may not) be advised by this ruling - it is only binding precedent in Eastern Missouri, and coming from a district court, it isn't very strong.

The company itself is in Alisa Viejo; so, unless someone in the District for Southern California, on the 9th circuit has ruled the TCPA unconstitutional, they definitely have no blanket protection. If Faxes take place at the point of transmission, this ruling provides them no protection at all.

Yeah!

[1010011010]

There's an apropos quote from Carlin, or somebody. What was it? hmmm... oh, yes:

"Fuck the fucking fuckers!"

Maybe congress should pass a law requiring all marketing/advertising/solicitation to be traceable to the advertiser/marketer/solicitor.

In the case of phone calls: valid caller-ID information, and, on request, phone number and address.

In the case of faxes and postal mail: a valid phone number and address.

In the case of email: valid headers, address and phone number.

Suing fax.com?

[DarkHelmet]

The people at junkfax.org are apparently planning a large class-action suit against fax.com as well

And why? Did fax.com send them 5.4 million dollars of spam-infringing material? :)

Maybe it's me, but perhaps the Shareholders of companies running spam should get all the email from uce@ftc.gov forwarded to their private AOL accounts.

That'll show'em.

To clear things up with some fax...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

The fax of the case are black and white. Fax.com faxed unsolicited faxes, and as a matter of fax, that is bad and they are liable. Those are the fax.

FAX,, not EMAIL

[standards]

The law that was invoked only applies to messages sent to a Telephone Fax machine... and therefore doesn't apply to email. Bummer. Clearly, the law could be extended to include email.

And although it won't stop all spam, those who spam (and those who try to advertise via spam) will be at risk of significant fines. Plus, recipients will know that the messaging is illegal, and will be more likely to take action to protect their resources versus merely tolerating the crap and clicking "delete".

The right to privacy

[cdf12345]

What happened to the right to reasonable privacy within ones home? I know some *cough cough* public figures have said that we cannot expect privacy in public, what about within our homes?

Isn't faxing materials into the home a violation of our privacy?

Maybe we should hold the fax senders under the same standards as telemarketers, after all they are using the same technology.

Why the FAX law was important

[standards]

Clearly, a $500 fine per unsolicited fax is a lot of money now... and in 1991, when the law was passed.

But imagine a world where this law didn't exist. There would be many many more organizations that spam fax materials to every number they can find. IN the end, the FAX would become a useless device, where there would be 99% noise and only 1% light.

Therefore, congress passed this law to protect such forseen abuse. At the time, FAX machines were the next great electronic technology, and they had to be protected to be a success.

Now email is on the verge of failure. Many people get 10, 20 or more unsolicited email advertisements per legitamate business correspondence. Clearly, such misuse of email infrustrutre is damaging this new technology. Children can no longer use email due to the pornography advertisements; business people must wade through dozens of junk messages to find the important ones.

Therefore, congress should act now to protect this new and cost-saving technology. Otherwise, it'll be too late, and email will fall out of favor with the business world.

My workplace gets fax spam

[vandelais]

that requests that you fax your interest back to them.

Step 1) find black construction paper at your workplace.
Step 2) write "Stop Spamming" in stencil on white paper
Step 3) Cut out message and tape to black construction paper
Step 4) fax back message that uses a shitload of recipient's fax toner

Step 5) Smile and enjoy the rest of day.

Is it possible to slow down a fax transmission?

[Dahan]

I got tired of junk faxes wasting my paper, so I switched to using a fax modem and Hylafax. I still get a lot of junk faxes, but at least I can rm them.

Anyways, it'd be kinda fun if it was possible to somehow detect a junk fax (maybe an empty TSID is good enough? All the legit faxes I get have a TSID) and then deliberately try to keep the faxer on the line as long as possible, running up their phone bill. Force the modem to 300 baud or something like that :) Maybe request retransmissions too (I don't know if faxes even support that). So is this possible?

Re:They won't care

[ceejayoz]

"This is a fax virus. Please light this fax on fire and place it on the floor."

About spam email...

[slykens]

Fortunately my office doesn't receive too many of these types of faxes, and if we do I don't see them.

Quite a few people are asking how to apply something like this to email spam. My suggestion is to use whatever anti-spam law may exist on the books in your state and sue the advertiser named in the spam. File it in small claims court, then subpoena their advertising records to prove the purchase of service from the spammer. Even if the suits are thrown out we're still talking about a cost of several hundred dollars per suit to the advertiser. At some point it would have to become more expensive to defend the advertising than to stop it.

That really is the key here, to make it more expensive to advertise this way than not, and ideally the law should make both the company advertised and the spammer liable. That together with a spam email being prima facia evidence of the crime placing the burden of proving the spam was sent without the advertiser's knowledge on them.

Disabling memory send is trivial

[swb]

On most machines, the local buffer holds a scan of all the pages BEFORE the machine even dials. Your machine may differ.

There's lots of problems with the continuous black page attack, but this one is the most easy to mitigate. Most FAX machines that I've dealt with can disable the "memory send" feature, which results in a direct transmission of the FAX. I do this all the time, since my FAX machine is brain dead and waits 5-10 minutes before even starting a memory send.

The other problems others have mentioned: no actual printing machine on the other end, expensive toll calls, are hard to get around. I would imagine that "pro" faxsmappers use outbound-only trunks that cannot accept an incoming call, their computers are originate-only. And how do you get their number in the first place, providing they're dumb enough to call from a regular line with whatever machine they have set to accept?

Better to get their home address, some friends and a couple of fungo bats.