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."
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.
Remember, Capone was busted for tax evasion -- not for his worst crimes. Get 'em any way you can.
How much would it cost to extradite Koreans and Chinese for spamming - thousands of them a year??
I especially like them going after people who have the fake "click here to be removed" which really means "click here to get a thousand times more spam". It's nice to see that one of the better laws is finally getting enforced. I always laugh when I hear about some of the crazy laws we have and how many we have that never get enforced.
For example, in South Dakota it is legal to shoot Native Americans under certain conditions. There are a couple laws regarding this. One law states that if there are 5 Native Americans (the law uses the term Indian but I will refrain from that), on your property, you may shoot them. Another one that may be only applicable to the town of Spearfish is that if there are three Native Americans walking together, you may declare them a war party and shoot them. Another law says they have to be crossing a bridge to be a war party and shootable.
So many crazy laws in this country. But back to the point, the anti-spam is a good law, in my opinion and it's nice they are finally going to enforce it.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
From: antispam@ftc.gov
To: evilspammer@somewhere.kr
Subject: !!!!NEW!!! SPAM BUST!!
Yes, YOU! We are busting you up big time for crimes against humanity. This is a free service to you from the FTC! A unique one time offer!
To be acquitted and removed from our list, please go to this web site and leave your home address.
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?
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.
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!
It could never be made illegal...simply because it's a form of unwanted advertising. Ever take a trip on the highway and seen all the billboards? I don't like the way that the billboards cover up the country side. I think that billboards are a physical equivilent of email spam......see my point?
--CypherDragon
And to comment what zillions are thinking, billboards don't cost me money. Spam does. But I like the idea of paying money everytime I see a billboard.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Download my list of spammers, which is updated every day or so: /etc/firewall/blacklisted_nets and run a bash script:
/etc/firewall/blacklisted_nets`
http://enthalpy.homelinux.org/spammers.txt
Then dump it in
for I in `cat
do
echo Blacklisting Spammer: $I/23
iptables -A INPUT -s $I/23 -j REJECT
done
It puts a drag on the spammer's system as they try to send mail to you for 5 days or so before their mail server finally gives up and decides your domain is not reachable.
Of course you need to have your own domain to do this, but with Linux and free Dyn-DNS services, this is not a problem. And it WORKS!
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.
From the Yahoo! story:
Internet users can forward spam for FTC investigation to uce@ftc.gov
How many spambots will harvest that address?
How excellent a way is that for spammers to hang themselves?
How about a law against ALL CAPS in e-mail? At the very least, we'd get rid of the more annoying stuff. Plus, what member of the registered voting population would vote against this? It could even weed out the unsavory elements of IRC.
RedBetty: Hi, everyone!zerokool772: WHTA R U WEARNG??/?
FTCBot: zerokool772, your use of the capslock key is unwarranted and without license. Cease and desist, or pay the consequences.
zerokool772: WTF DO U THNK U R?
*FTCBot has banned zerokool772 and has contacted the appropriate authorities.
The only way the FTC can go after spam is for fraud and other things already illegal. It's not illegal simply to advertise via email (yet, anyway). They're doing the best they can with the rules that they're allowed to govern in.
:)
At least they are one division of government that doesn't try to overstep its bounds
josh
hookers and grits.
As humans, we have an amazing ability to adapt. /.er has grown acustomed to Spam as a fact of Internet Life.
We find ourselves able to zone out and ignore almost anything after awhile. I'm sure that every
It's what we trade to have freedom. Of course, the Spammers have freedom too.
Weird. So the fact that nobody believes those penis enlargement advertisements makes them legal?
Yeah, no shit. I tried it. It works, but not like they say. I'm now a foot in diameter but still only 3" long.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
On a related note, Barbara Anthony, regional director for the FTC said, "In all fairness, it must be noted that my husband now has a permanently erect 47 inch penis, our mortgage rates are the lowest in decades, we earn $7,000 a week working at home, and we'll never buy a toner or ink cartridge ever again."
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
I almost don't need spam anymore. I can get my penis pills and magical diet pills (Trim Spa, Body Solutions) from the radio and Howard Stern's commercials these days. Now all they need is an ad with a guy speaking Chinese and giving a 1-800-555-1234 number as their contact address for more information and I could get rid of my e-mail address completely. Why isn't the government going against ALL fraud? Are you telling me penis pills actually work? Trim Spa magically makes you lose 100lbs while still being a fat ass eating whatever you want? Come on, where are the truth in advertising laws for not only spam, but radio these days??
There are no billboards in Alaska.
And that's just not much of a point. Billboards are unsightly, but they're passive. You don't have to take specific action to avoid dealing with them. You don't have to delete them, and they don't take up any of your resources (unless they start making roads windier to allow for more billboard space.)
I'm really suprised that spam-busting hasn't become a bigger political issue. There realyl isn't a large pro-spam lobby, and any senator/rep who campaigned against spam ("I'm going to ban spam! Vote for me") would pick up not only a lot of techie votes, but votes from the general population as well - there isn't really a pro-spam segment of the population, either.
Issues like this, which a few people (the spammers) act against almost everyone else's intrests are ripe for conventional political action... why hasn't it happened yet? Granted, there are examples at the state level, and they have run into legal hurdles, but I'm really suprised we havn't seen federal legislation yet - it seems like an easy way to pick up votes.
Korean or Chinese spambots could visit your websites and get your email address that way.
Punishing the company advertising is problematic. Let's say I want to put one of my competitor's out of business... what's to stop me from hiring someone to flood the internet with ads in their name?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Next door to my friends grandparents lived the bo family. Kim Bo was the oldest son, sorta suffered from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and had lived in his parents house well into his 40's.
:)
Nice enough guy, when we were teens he let us put a bunch of carp in his nasty green algea swimming pool. We spent the summer getting high, learning guitar rifts, and fishing for carp in our backyard fishing hole.
Well, eventually, his dad, the glue that was holding it all together died so his brothers and sisters wanted to sell the house and divide up the inheretance. Kim took his 150k share, bought a van, and spent the next 2 years living in his van, driving around playing music and doing odd jobs. It's not like he couldn't have gone and gotten a place, but at 40 this was what he decided to do with his life..
One day he got an e-mail "NIGERIAN OFFICIAL NEEDS HELP IN FUNDS TRANSFERS" or some shit like that. I saw him in person one day and he asked me if it was a scam. From all the stuff on slash I had read I knew it was.. But the promises in the e-mails were just too good for him to pass up.
The scammers had him convert everything to a cashiers check, then had him fly to amsterdam in person to deliver the check. He flew halfway across the world thinking there was going to be some big payoff for helping these people..
3 months later he hasn't seen a dime or heard from the people. He got screwed out of 150k in just one moment of handing over a check..
I know most smart people wouldn't fall for this, their "SCAM ALERT" alarm would go off in their heads. The sad thing is these people prey on people not of sound mind, the elderly, the lonely. To say, "Oh they should have known better" just doesn't fit because the MO of these scammers takes them directly to these types of people.
Kim Bo is doin alright. He had to sell his bass guitar, which he loved dearly and some other music stuff. He's doing odd jobs to keep gas in the van and food in his belly but at his age in his mental condition the outlook isn't going to be so bright in another 10 years.
Before someone suggest he goes to the FBI, well he's done that already, but the FBI told him there's not much they can do. Kinda sucks we got them goin on these wild Osama Bin Laden goose chases because the frequency of these scams seem to be increasing.
I hope the FTC nails these fuckers to the wall. Hopefully they'll be in the same cell as nasty nate and really get what they deserve
As others have pointed out, this content would be illegal no matter how they distribute it. You can't take a magic pill to grow larger breasts, a bigger dick and get a new credit card despite your horrible credit history.
But even setting that aside, I dare you to show me ANY precedence for your right to come into my house, raid my refrigerator, cook a meal on my stove, eat it on my plates, then leave the mess in the middle of my living room to poison my dog.
Yet that's exactly what spammers are doing (in a rhetorical sense) when they use my domain name to send out their crap, or abuse an open mail relay, or use poorly designed forms on some web site to send their messages to others. They're deliberately and willfully using my resources and good reputation to their own benefit, without my consent and without any renumeration to me.
Like you, I have very mixed feelings about government regulation of spam where the company has the balls to stand behind its own message. Let me blackball them myself. But I have no more qualms about the government cracking down on spammers who "borrow" my good name or resources than I do about the government cracking down on criminals who "borrow" my car, or "borrow" my credit card, etc.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I have to tell you that sometimes (like this weekend when I received neary 9,000 bounced spam messages after a spammer used various email address at the domain I adminster in the "from" field of their emailings) I feel like becoming a hitman for hire.
:-)
Let's see...
I'd put up a website where you could send me your most despised spam and a $5 donation.
Once any given spammer accounted for $25K worth of donations, I'd put on my steel-capped boots and go pay them a visit.
A little basic "attitude readjustment" (courtesy of the said boots and the odd length of lead pipe) would provide significant encouragement for them to mend their spamming ways.
Photos of the repentant spammer (or what's left of them) would then be posted on the website as a warning to other spammers who might consider bothering Net users with their crap.
Now is there anyone who'd use such a valuable Net-community service I wonder?
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
I'm really suprised that spam-busting hasn't become a bigger political issue. There realyl isn't a large pro-spam lobby, and any senator/rep who campaigned against spam ("I'm going to ban spam! Vote for me") would pick up not only a lot of techie votes, but votes from the general population as well - there isn't really a pro-spam segment of the population, either.
... the only additional legislation I would favor would be the ability for user's to sue for some amount of money (say, $500.00) for misuse of their system resources, but even that is a can of worms likely to be best left unopened (consider if someone sent SPAM out in your name, purporting to represent your company, and 10,000,000 people sued you for $500.00 for something you didn't do).
While I frequently take issue with the libertarian knee-jerk reaction against government involvement in just about any area, no matter how constructive it might be, in this particular case, much as I hate and loathe SPAM, I come down firmly on the libertarian side.
With Spam Assassin and other filtering packages we have the technology to take care of SPAM ourselves. We do not need the government passing new laws regulating how people communicate (even sleazeballs like Spammers), we can and should dump those people in the bit bucket ourselves, with our own software.
The anti-fraud laws are generally sufficient
We have the means, and the tools, to deal with these lowlifes ourselves. Let the FTC chase down those committing fraud, and let us filter out the rest ourselves.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
On a side note, why aren't ISPs taking a more proactive approach in stopping spam? I remember here a while ago that people were bitching because Verizon blocked all tcp port 25 except to their servers. This should help dramatically in stopping spam as Verizon can then detect it at their server. People here cried about it. If you want to use your SMTP server at work then use a VPN. It is unfortunate but there has to be tighter controls to stop spam at the ISP it originates from.
One of the more interesting examples of this sort of bigotry was the motive behind the creation of universal publicly funded education in the United States.
This happened as large numbers of Irish came to the country, and was a result of anti-Catholic bigotry. The purpose was to undercut the Catholic school system. The result was the pathetic school system we now have.
The only good weather is bad weather.
"It could never be made illegal...simply because it's a form of unwanted advertising. Ever take a trip on the highway and seen all the billboards? I don't like the way that the billboards cover up the country side. I think that billboards are a physical equivilent of email spam......see my point?"
No, I don't see your point. As a matter of fact, I think your metaphor is heavily flawed. As posted elsewhere in this thread, "billboards are passive and don't cost you resources to see."
As a matter of fact, Fax machine ads are more akin to e-mail SPAM than billboards. They've been outlawed too. Why? It costs people ink.
Unfortunately, it's a lot harder to make laws against unsolicited mail as they did for fax machines. The main reason being that it's a lot harder to prove that any significant amount of computer resources were used. It's easy to prove that somebody cost you a sheet of paper, you can even provide a mathematically sound cost for that resource. But that's a lot harder to do with digital bits. You don't pay for bandwidth, the electricity cost is negligable, and your e-mail address could have been acquired anywhere.
Worse yet, when somebody faxes you, you have an item on your phone bill that indicates where it came from. It's a lot harder to spoof a phone number than it is an e-mail address. (Isn't it irritating how fundamentally flawed the current e-mail system is today?)
What's my point? It's simple: The reason that law hasn't been passed is that nobody has a clear idea how it can be fairly enforced. It's too easy to send e-mail that's virtually untrackable. Even if they're tracked down, it's hard to enforce, especially if it's done overseas. And, it's relatively easy to block. The ones that don't get blocked... well pooey, it cost you a few seconds to delete.
I don't think the Gov't is going to get kicked into gear to deal with the SPAM until a corporate entity with thousands of comptuters claims it lost millions of dollars dealing with SPAM.
No force of US law in South America? Now *there* speaks someone majestically unaware of history.
It's only a matter of time before Venezuala joins the Axis of Evil if it keeps seeing off US backed coup attempts...
The difference is that it costs companies a significant amount of money to send out a large amount of advertiements via U.S. mail. It is relatively cheap to hook up a computer and send out thousands of spam messages a day through a dial-up connection.
Additionally, there is far more oversight over people who advertise with Federal mail. For instance, requesting that you be removed from third-class mailing lists generally works. A company doesn't want to waste money sending advertisments to someone who is so against them that they will take the time to request they not be contacted. Generally a physical address is valid and not a "spam catcher". Note how most bulk mailings are addressed " Or Current Resident", so the physical spammers don't really benifit from discovering an address is "valid".
Internet spammers are always up to all sorts of dirty tricks, such as adding addresses to mailing lists when the receive a request to remove the address.
"I'm no psychic but I can foresee this: If you make deceptive claims, there is an FTC action in your future," said Howard Beales, director of the FTC's consumer protection bureau.
Priceless.
So I was in the viedo-rental-sore with my roomate.
He says "That looks interesting" and points to a shelf.
I say "What? this?" picking up rather lame DVD.
"Not that... that!" he says, still pointing but stepping closer.
I pick up the cruddy DVD that was next to the first.
"No! This!" he says...
After several dense itterations I realize that he is talking about the rectanngular advertisement that is clipped to the shelf between two rows of DVDs. He is actually touching the sign by this point, and getting kind of upset.
It seems that I have cultured a blind spot for full-color rectangular advertisements immediately above or below anthing I feel is "content". It is so pervasive in my mental state that meat-world advertisements have begun getting the same treatment.
The comercialization of the internet has actually rendered me blind.
Square insets are next, and soon I wont even be able to read a text book any more.
Someone should do a study.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
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.
The major factor causing our public school system to be so shoddy is the fact that it is public and without adequate competition (although that is starting to change). This has led to some of the highest per-pupil spending in the world, with educational results some of the worst in the world.
The current system didn't give us Lincoln or Edison. That was the past system, before the teachers unions became entrenched, the "Schools of Education" became the authority on how to teach, and the school districts too big to be responsive.
Oh, and the countries that were kicking our butt also have strong private school systems and provide government funding to private schools.
The universal publically funded education system really did result in our pathetic system. It took quite a while for it to degenerate to the level it did, but the near monopoly on education by publc systems led to the natural result of a government monopoly - disaster.
As to your supposition. I was educated in public schools and my mother was a public school teacher. When my daughter was born, my mother said that she only had one firm request of us - that her first grandchild not attend public school! The request was honored.
The only good weather is bad weather.
What I do with those remove links is traceroute them to find the level one ISP and then add some e-mail addresses from their level 1 (like the NOC address from ARIN). Some of the spammers are undoubtedly clever enough to filter those out, but I'll bet most of them are too stupid. I started doing this a few weeks ago and I've been seeing a lot less spam lately....
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us