Slashdot Mirror


FTC Sues Six in Spam E-Mail Round-Up

TamMan2000 writes "This story over at Yahoo makes it look like the federal government is going after some spammers with gusto... Although they seem to be busting them for fraud via spam rather than just the fact that they spam, it is still good to see them going after them. Also interesting, it looks like one of the things they are nailing them for is the fraudulent 'remove me from your mailing list' that actually brings more spam."

11 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Go FTC by Telastyn · · Score: 5, Informative

    In other news the FTC reached a settlement with Miss Cleo (the companies that run her stuff rather) for decieving customers and generally being assholes.

  2. Earn cash with your computer... by Duderstadt · · Score: 2, Informative
    Addresses left in chat rooms were certain to receive spam, they found. In one instance, an e-mail address posted in a chat room started to receive spam eight minutes after it was posted.

    Eight minutes?! Damn, that's what those ads for 'make money fast over the internet' are all about. All you have to do is hang around chat rooms and sell email addresses to spammers.

    Seriously, though, eight minutes? If it's a bot, I'm really impressed...

  3. Hang 'em high by MacAndrew · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not widely known, but the FTC does excellent consumer protection work.

    I worked on a (for a court) regarding those TV ads that promised you could buy a Corvette at government auction for $10 or get a credit card regardless of your credit history. The FTC involvement was important because it took an incredible amout of work to nail the slimeoid who ran the schemes -- he just kept repackaging them. He finally ended up in jail, unusual for this sort of low-grade fraud, but a last resort after he scoffed at every other penalty.

    Sound like a spammer?

  4. My reaction? by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

    it looks like one of the things they are nailing them for is the fraudulent 'remove me from your mailing list' that actually brings more spam.

    Yeeeaaahhh. Get those bastards and make 'em pay. This one in particular has caused an acquantance of mine (in her 90's) problems. She honestly and naively attempted to remove herself from many of these spammers and only ended up getting more and more frustrated before calling me to inform me that due to the porn spam she was getting, she was cancelling her email account unfortunately isolating her from an important communication medium to family members and friends scattered all over the country.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  5. uce@ftc.gov reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    As the article points out, Uncle Sam wants your spam! Forward your unsolicited commercial email to uce@ftc.gov - it will go into a magic database that they can use as ammunition against spammers!

  6. Some good out of my forwards by DeadSea · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can forward your spam to uce@ftc.gov. Some spammer took a random address from one of my domains to use as a return address. I was suddenly getting hundreds of bounced spam per hour. I redirected that address to uce@ftc.gov. Hopefully they are using some of those bounces in this roundup.

  7. Re:Wake up! by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Informative
    Remember. I never visit Korean or Chinese websites, so its not them stealing my email address...

    Korean or Chinese spambots could visit your websites and get your email address that way.

  8. Remove me by coyote-san · · Score: 4, Informative

    IIRC, the "remove me" line is not required by any federal law. (Some states may require it.)

    However, the spammers are cutting their own throat with it. Citing S.1816 (or whatever) as proof that the message "cannot be considered spam" is a lie. There is no, and has never been, any law of the United States passed by the Senate alone.

    That's somewhat abstract - although it's still a criminal act in some states to claim something is the law when you know it is not. But the promise to remove the person's email address from future mailings is a very specific claim. This means that the spam is asking for something of indeterminant but real value (a valid email address which can be sold to other spammers) in exchange for a specific promise you have no intention of keeping. That's fraud, and I wouldn't mind seeing every spammer who makes that claim get hit with a warning letter followed by a stiff penalty.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  9. POPFILE WILL CURE AIDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative
  10. You cannot be more wrong by DiveX · · Score: 4, Informative

    The courts have long support that saying whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want is protected speech. Commercial speech does not have to be unrestricted speech. Take the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 for instance. That federal law (47 USC 227) outlaws and regulates several components of commercial speech. Making a prerecorded solicitation to a residential line, without a prior business relationship, is outlawed.

    Believe me, I won a $1500 judgement (plus court costs) against a company that made one single, prerecorded call to my home last may. I settled for a $1000 check cut by the company's insurance. Unsolicited commercial faxes sent to any fax machine, business or residential, are prohibited unless you have a prior business relationship with the company. Live (operator) solicitation calls are not prohibited outright (exception: you are on an official state DNC list) on the first occurrence. Upon your request, they must add you on their list and maintain that request for 10 years. They must also send you, again on your request, a written copy of their policy regarding the maintenance of their company's DNC list. This is a matter of federal law. If you get 2 or more calls in violation of this request in 12 months, (I know, it *is* absurd that you have to get 2 violations in 12 months [which means they can call you every 53 weeks with no repercussions], but that is the way the law is written.), then you may sue in courts for statutory damages of $500 for [b]each[/b] violation and demand treble damage of triple the amount. My suit was for the $500 violation and then the treble damages.

    The law was created to prevent the abuse of privacy and the inalienable right to b simple left alone. This law has ultimately been upheld in every major case to date (exception: the cousin of Rush Limbaugh [a federal judge] prevents its use in his district, but it is currently on appeal). The best part of this law is the private right of action that this law creates. Any spam bill passed must contain this portion or it will ultimately be a dead hand law. The government does not have the resources to attack this problem, so the rights of collecting damages has been given to the people.

    To date I have received $1800 in settlement due to a single prerecord from 3 different companies. I have a case in December against a local junk faxer and fully expect a $1500 judgement (plus court costs). Do a google search for just the term 'junk fax' and get your eyes opened.

    Some try to (erroneously) argue that the government has better things to do than make laws like this. The government does not have to make progress on every front just to make progress on any front. It is not the mere unwanted advertising, it is the fraudulent method and often illegal or illicit methods used to push it. I for one would not have a big problem with the law legitimize commercial email if it set the requirements regarding it such as a simple field that would thus allow people to choose on their own if they wish to receive it. If something as simple as '[ADV]' were required to be added to the subject line and headers could not be forged, then the problem as it is known would die. People can set a single, simple filter to block it if they do not wish,a nd that would be the end of it. Those that wish to get it will retain that right.

    You thinking billboards equals spam misses the point [b]entirely[/b]. It does detract from the natural view, however those billboards are on private property using private resources that does not directly cost the consumer anything. What about people placing ads on your windshield or through your open window? One isn't bad, but would you mind of I stuffed several hundred into your car window? That is my 'right' is it not? Obviously you have not been shafted by a 'joe job' where a spammer uses your address as their 'reply-to' or 'remove' address causing you to get hundreds or thousands of bounce messages or angry threats each hour for several days. Try actually doing some research next time.

    To really provide teeth to the bill, the consumer must be allowed to enforce it by collecting damages on their own.

    --
    Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
  11. But look at the stupid penalties by wildbill2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    That particular Yahoo story doesn't point it out, but the FCC is allowing these companies to "settle" by them promising not to do it again.

    Oh right.

    The only thing that will stop these spamsters is *stiff* penalties, like maybe a $100 fine per spam or jail time.