Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MonsterHut Jammed for Spam

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the good-start dept.

DeAshcroft writes "Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lottie E. Wilkins has ordered MonsterHut, its CEO Todd Pelow and CTO Gary Hartl to stop behaving badly. The New York Post has a story on the ruling. The suit, brought by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in May 2002, alleges that MonsterHut sent over 500 million messages, fraudulently claiming that they were opt-in, and ignored at least 750,000 requests by consumers to be taken off their lists. Newsday also has coverage. The AG has an official release on the case. Penalty hearing is scheduled for Feb 11, 2003."

55 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Officials were quoted as saying the CEO would be punished by being force fed thousands of cans of Spam a day.

  2. How long by tmark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Before all these spam companies just move off-shore to avoid litigation ?

    1. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like that'll stop US courts deciding they have power over everything out of their borders.

    2. Re:How long by PhxBlue · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A better question is, would it do them any good to move offshore? Skylarov (sp?) lived in Russia, and the American government still managed to yank him into their "justice" system.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    3. Re:How long by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can make that argument for any law.

      If the person still owns/runs/profits from/operates the business in the US, they're still in the reach of US law enforcement. If the person actually moves out of the country, there's not much that can be done.

      However, I suspect there are many spammers who do it because it's easy, profitable, and has very low risk. Once it becomes criminal, they're going to find something else to do.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:How long by Steve+B · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spammers need a point of contact to collect the loot from the suckers, and as a practical matter that needs to be domestic (international postage and currency conversion would eat the profits, unless you pull off something like the Nigerian scam where the sucker loses a lot of money). If the spam operation is illegal, the authorities can close down the money contact point.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    5. Re:How long by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Before all these spam companies just move off-shore to avoid litigation ?

      Have you been to Grand Cayman? Would you want to actually live there?

      Moving the data center operations of a spamhaus offshore does not prevent prosecutors charging owners living in the US. If the criminal activity takes place in the US they can prosecute in the US.

      It is quite likely that the offshore havens can and will prosecute also. Hosting SPAM senders does not bring anywhere near the amount of revenue that the traditional offshore industries of banking and shipping do. Any country that is in the offshore game is anxious to ensure that it does not draw unwanted attention to its current scams by allowing high profile criminal activity. You don't get much more high profile than businesses that anoy millions of people an hour.

      Offshore havens are not by and large lawless, in fact the cayman islands sells itself on the fact that as a result of its British administration it has a government and banking system that have very high integrity. Cayman is not going to do anything to threaten that reputation and its existing business. So that leaves the spam senders with places like Congo, Nigeria and Afghanistan where the civil government has collapsed (though few 'libertarians' seem to want to live inthose countries).

      Moving data centers offshore is in any case a high cost and would be a significant barrier to entry for new spam senders. If you have to move to a jurisdiction where the civil government is corrupt costs are going to rapidly spiral out of control.

      The 'regulatory arbitrage' stuff is all about ideological commitment rather than analysis.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    6. Re:How long by shilly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I realise that you're pissed off with the previous poster, but nonetheless, I don't think that you can reasonably argue that either European countries or the US have a great human rights records. That said, I think it's also worth bearing in mind that much of the rest of the world's governments restrict their citizens' liberties far more severely. It's not just hate speech that's banned in Zimbabwe, it's criticism of the government; women as well as minorities have restricted rights (e.g. driving, walking unaccompanied in public) in Saudia Arabia; and if the worst failing of the Chinese intelligence agencies was that they didn't operate under democratic supervision, the practitioners of Falun Gong would be very much happier than they are. It's worth keeping things in perspective.

    7. Re:How long by sakeneko · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Before all these spam companies just move off-shore to avoid litigation?

      Good point, but there's also a good answer. The answer is that all spammers are not alike.

      Some spammers undoubtedly will move offshore, if they haven't already. Spammers of illegal or otherwise questionable products -- stuff like travel scams, herbal "Viagra", Make*Money*Fast pyramid schemes, 419 Advance Fee Frauds, stock manipulation stuff, and the like -- are the 21st century equivalents of the 20th century boiler room telemarketers. The laws never could do much about them.

      But many spammers have established businesses and customers in this country. Businesses like Verisign/Network Solutions, Encyclopedia Britannica, Citibank, Barnes & Noble, and Real Networks (makers of the RealPlayer) have all spammed repeatedly. Some of these have done their own spamming; others have paid "legitimate" marketing companies to spam on their behalf. In either case, they are legally responsible, at least in the United States, because in the U.S. companies are responsible for what their agents do. And, just like laws against abusive telemarketing practices have stopped legitimate companies from doing abusive stuff, laws against spamming would stop legitimate companies.

      The moral is that laws won't stop an outright crook, or a crooked company that appears one day and disappears the next. However, they DEFINITELY affect the behavior of companies that have established products, established places of business, an established customer base, and a reputation to loose.

      So I'm all for using the laws against spammers. Just don't abandon blacklists, filtering, and other tools. :)

      --

      Catherine

  3. Ironic by jyuter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That Monsterhut.com lists links to spam filters.

    1. Re:Ironic by ShinmaWa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really ironic.

      The page you saw actually belonged to Ultimate Search -- a rather infamous squatter company.

      Its no suprise that ultsearch put links to spam filters on there.

      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
  4. pattern? by mschoolbus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't think the "*huts" are doing to well... I mean, Fingerhut, Monsterhut, etc... But i wonder about Pizza hut? =P

    1. Re:pattern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Last I heard, Jabba the Hut wasn't doing so well either.

  5. A Swing in the right direction by FortKnox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many states are implementing no-call(/spam) lists, spammers are getting nailed for not following the law 'to the T', and more spammers are just getting prosecuted for various charges. Looks like the law finally is on the side of the spamee's. Looks like we may be in for some good times in the near future...

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:A Swing in the right direction by mark_lybarger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh my.

      it's quite too bad that we can't have engineers design and develop a communication method that doesn't allow this type of "abuse". these people are merely taking advantage of a flawed system and we want prosecution?

      our freaking law makers are busy trying to figure out how we'll implement the "no child left behind act" from mr. gwb to spend their time making and implementing spam laws.

      here's a wacky idea. educate the population. educate them A LOT. let them design a system which is secure, easy to use and easy to maintain. let them learn from our mistakes with telephone, email , cable tv and all the other failed communication mechanisms.

      radio and over the air tv are about the only decent delivery mechanisms i can see. their major flaw is that they are only one sided in that you send a message and hope someone tunes it in. they're also highly regulated in that not everyone can get their messages out via those channels.

    2. Re:A Swing in the right direction by walt-sjc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh my.

      It's too bad we don't educate our kids to learn how to use the Shift key.

      But back to the topic at hand, if nobody can build a general purpose secure OS, how the fuck do you expect anyone to create a messaging system which the main purpose of is to allow any-to-any communication that is invunerable to spam and still a viable system to be used by businesses and the masses in general? Do you REALLY think that spammers won't find a way around technical limitations?

      Imagine a society with no laws. You can be killed by anyone, have your stuff stolen, your daughter raped and no laws to stop it. Only the strong survive. Warlords control everything. This is essentially the internet as it is today.

      Back in the "good old days" before AOL invaded Usenet, laws were not really needed. The community for the most part policed itself. This is no longer possible.

      We now need laws to enforce proper behavior. Will this stop all spam? No. Do laws against shoplifting stop all theft? No. Do they discurage most people from shoplifting every time they enter a store? Yes, they do. They provide a way for shop owners to protect themselves.

      The bottom line is that we KNOW anti-spam laws will not stop all spam. It will however reduce it significantly.

    3. Re:A Swing in the right direction by mark_lybarger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      first off, i don't like getting uninvited emails, phone calls or USPS messages any more than the next guy (UPS packages are most welcome). I'm not a spammer nor a telemarketer nor a mass emailer. i'm a java developer.

      first off, i can't quite see how the "antisocial" person had committed thievery? they haven't taken anything concrete. only given something that wasn't asked for. it's up to you to accept or reject the offer, correct? you pick up the phone or you don't. it could be a student loan consolidator who just wants to talk to you for a minute, or it could be mom calling to talk about nothing (either way it might be better not to answer :) ). in order to steal something to be a thief, you need to take something of value. the only thing taken is the recipeients time to decide weather or not to accept or delete the message. there's also your internet bill, but you elected to sign up for your email service from whatever provider plan you like. if you're provider is charging you per message and it's not working out for you, find a new provider.

      secondly, yes, i do believe that the system should be designed as robust as possible and as flexable as possible. trust should also be inherant in any system. pagers for instance have a level of trust. the pager company doesn't generally publish your number so it's a pretty trusted environment for communication. you give people a pager number and they can page you. you know when you get a page that it's needed to be returned.

      it's not the gov'ts job to play playground moderator telling people how to play nice together. their job is to protect the borders and uphold the constitution. your constitutional rights are not being infringed on by email spam or phone spam. your right to "privacy" is not infringed since you elected service from that particular company, and probably in the small small print was disclosed how the system works and weather they'll give your number/address to others, or weather it's just a guessing game. in a true monopolistic market there needs to be governement rules (they created the monoply after all) otherwise the rules will be created by the market and consumers. if someone doesn't give the consumers what they want, someone else will come along and do it.

    4. Re:A Swing in the right direction by SquadBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No they have taken something *very* concrete. They have used up bandwidth that I have paid for, they have taken up space on my HD, they have taken my time which is most certainly both of value and concrete. In addition to this they have used processor cycles and other precious resources on machines that do not belong to them to send out their stuff.

      Then lets get into the other damages. If I where to send you half the stuff via snail mail that these people send out I would be arrested, as well I should be in that case. So in short yes they are theives and criminals and should be treated as such. So yes there should be laws against this stuff because it does cost me money and denies me use of resources I would otherwise have. It may be small in some ways. OTOH in the not having to look at their filth area it is big.

      Having said that you are right we need a tech solution also. I think http://www.tmda.net/ have the right idea. Read about it install it and use it. I'm looking at a way to make it reject anything that is not signed (Think GNU Privacy Guard) with a similar message. This would be a good thing but we also need the law to be on our side and it should be.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    5. Re:A Swing in the right direction by odaiwai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spam is theft.

      They are stealing bandwidth. You may pay a fixed rate per month, but your ISP has to pay for extra load on their lines by having more powerful servers, more diskspace. These costs get passed to you.

      They steal your time. If you don't care about stopping these thieves, you can just hit delete. How much time does that take? What if you never had to receive the crap in the first place? If you want to track them down (as you *know* that they're stealing from you), that takes even more time.

      I can remember when getting an email meant that one of my friends or family wanted to communicate. Spammers have stolen that feeling from me. Now, when I get an email, I have to worry about whether I can open that email in the office, whether I'm going to be pissed off about someone intruding on my work with their marketing crap.

      Spammers are thieves. Lowlife, scum-sucking thieves. They are taking advantage of a system built on everyone behaving responsibly and polluting it for everyone. They are greedy, self-centred and short-sighted. They are destroying a means of communication which had so much promise. Email is rapidly becoming worthless thanks to spammers. Thay have taken that from us. It didn't belong to them, it belonged to all of us, but they took it anyway and abused it until it was useless. It is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large.

      dave

    6. Re:A Swing in the right direction by odaiwai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is not a good analogy.

      If someone steals my car becuase I didn't have enough security on it, is it my fault? You can't say that the person who took it isn't a thief.

      We had a world where you could trust people not to steal your car. In fact, you could leave your car unlocked (your relays open) and people who need it would use it, but not abuse it, and you wouldn't notice (it would be returned to you full of gas).

      I had a friend lving in a village where the neighbours might come in (because the door was never locked) and help themselves to something from the fridge. But that was ok, because they'd always replace it or you could always just go round to their place for something. I remember being there when a neighbour dropped by and deposited a few cases of beer in the fridge ("we had a party and we've got beer left over 'cause we needed some of yours last night.") It was a tremendous environment. You *trusted* your neighbours.

      That's what the 'net was like: "Hey, I need a news feed for alt.fan.pratchett." "Sure, leech some of mine, one of my users needs an account on your VAX." "No worries, point them here."

      Now its: "Do I know you? No? Fuck off!"

      That's what the spammers have stolen.

      dave

    7. Re:A Swing in the right direction by mattACK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I won't let my five year old have his own mail box because I don't want hot and wet lolitas and horse fuck invitations hitting him. These messages reach children and that is CRIMINAL. The blanket pornography that is spam's staple must cease.

      --


      "My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
    8. Re:A Swing in the right direction by Dimensio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if your isp charges you a fixed rate for bandwidth, then i suggest getting a new isp.

      I pay a fixed monthly fee for unlimited bandwidth, so 'spam' does not directly increase my ISP bill. However, my ISP still has to deal with the extra bandwidth resulting from the spammers shoving their scam offers into my inbox without my consent. It adds up to a REAL cost that is passed on to the consumers, and the spammers are NOT paying their fair share.

      All spammers should be skinned alive, impaled and have salt poured onto them as they are left in fields to die as a warning to all others.

      --
      STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
  6. Catching them on fraud by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That's a very good plan. They claimed to be opt-in but weren't, so sue them. Nice. Kind of how they got Al Capone for tax avoision, not racketeering or murder. It's a lot easier to prove the former.

    The best of it is that they can put these guys behind bars while skipping right by the free speech issue. While normally I hold the first amendment to the highest standards, I favor suspending it for spammers.

    1. Re:Catching them on fraud by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fraud is not protected speech. There is no free speech issue for such cases.

      --
      Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
  7. HOW TO Deal With Chinese Spam by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 5, Funny

    The government just ordered all ISPs in China to start monitoring email for subversive phrases and the like, so I started replying to Chinese spam with little replies of the form at the end of this spam. Might be a useful tactic on companies who think that unsolicited email is "just regular advertising."

    "Jack(export manager)" wrote:
    >
    > Dear Sir
    > How are you .
    >
    > We are a lighting factory in China ,It is glad
    > to introduce ourselves to you:
    >
    > I am XUBIN (Jack) , XUBIN is my chinese name , you can just
    > call me Jack !! , I am export manager of [deleted] ,
    > China, our group have four factory
    [snipped]
    >
    > Here is our company profile :
    >

    [Rest of sales talk snipped]

    (And now, the reply)

    Thank you for your coded order. The weapons and ammunition will ship by way of the usual route in ten days, and you already know our secret Swiss bank account number to wire the payment to.

    It is a pleasure doing business with you for so long, and I hope your cause will prevail. I am new to this particular computer, so I hope the encryption is working and the monitoring authorities cannot read what I am sending you.

    Long live the Falun Gong! Free Tibet!

    Best regards, Your arms supplier

    (from http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/02/Feb/spam.html )

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
  8. MonsterHut Wins by telstar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not only did his spam get distributed, his story got coverage by the media, and it's now a front-page story on slashdot which all will result in an increase in traffic to their site.

    I'd argue that spam DOES work.

  9. Doesn't help (Re:How long) by edgrale · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's what KaZaA was all about and yet the RIAA (or who ever) was able to sue them.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  10. Re:Very easy solution by mistered · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually it's not a very easy solution, since in most cases "the provider which sent it" can be very difficult to determine. The From: address is completely useless, of course. You can track back through the Received: headers to find (most likely) an open relay that send the spam to you. More than likely it's in China and complaints to its owner will do nothing. Spammers also like open relays that don't add useful Received: headers (i.e., don't put the IP address in) so good luck finding out where the spam really came from.

    --
    Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
  11. It's about time by andyring · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm glad judges and juries are finally seeing the light and understanding this whole spam mess. Free speech? Nope. It's just like junk fax laws, junk faxes are actually illegal because the recipient pays for the fax machine, paper, toner, etc. Same reason why telemarketers cannot call your cell phone (if you do get a call from them on it, just tell them it's a cell and they'll hang up quick) because you're paying for those minutes. With spam, I'm the one paying for my 'net connection, and after a certain amount of traffic, I pay by the byte. If only I could force direct mail marketers to stop snail-mailing me crap all the time. Why does a single 24-year-old guy need coupons for feminine hygiene products?

    1. Re:It's about time by jdreed1024 · · Score: 2, Informative
      If only I could force direct mail marketers to stop snail-mailing me crap all the time. Why does a single 24-year-old guy need coupons for feminine hygiene products?

      Actually, I've found direct-mail marketers are the most amenable to taking you off their lists. Their marketing method actually costs them real money each time they send something (well, so do telemarketers, but they probably have deals with the cheap long distance carriers), so they're not interested in sending things to people that don't want them.

      When I moved into my new apartment, I got the usual barrage of of "Resident" catalogs and coupon books, and credit card offers with the "low, low rate" of 24% interest. They died down a little, but were still a lot. I called the opt-out number for the credit-bureaus. (888) 5OPT-OUT. It's automated, takes two seconds, and then you just need to fill out and sign a form they send you. That gets you off the free credit offers for all 3 credit bureaus.

      The other aggravating thing was that in the Boston Area, if you don't subscribe to the Globe, you still get the advertising circulars by direct mail. (Some people love this). However, I got the return address, looked them up in the phone book, and called them. They have a menu option to be removed from their mailing list - press it, and you get a real human being on the other end (that surprised me). She was very nice, and promised that I'd stop receiving the flyers by the end of the month. And indeed I haven't gotten one since.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
  12. What's scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    is that there are 750,000 idiots out there who tried to have their names taken off a spammer's list.

  13. "ignored" - hardly by AssFace · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ignored at least 750,000 requests by consumers to be taken off their lists.

    I'm sure they didn't ignore them - they use those responses to determine that they now have a confirmed live e-mail address which is worth more than a bunch of e-mail addresses that nobody checks.
    so I'm sure they don't just ignore them - they likely instead do just the opposite and have much interest in those 750,000 responses and gave them a little extra attention... like logging them in their database as "live" or something like that.

    All I have to say about this is 1) I wish I had thought of it all in 1995 - could have made a bundle and 2) SpamAssassin rules!

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  14. Point of clarification... by Compulawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...for all the non-lawyers (and non- "Law & Order" watchers) out there. In New York, the "Supreme Court" is the trial court - the lowest level in the system. The next step is the Appellate Division and finally the Court of Appeals. NY's C of A is analogous to other states' Supreme Courts. And no, I have no idea why they did it like that.

    --

    Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

  15. Spitzer strikes again! (Spitzer for President) by egoff · · Score: 2, Informative

    Working in the financial services industry, I see Eliot crack down time and time and time again on evil-doers in investment banking. Its good to see he's not so focused on just one area. This guy is really great guy, always focused on the little guy. For he's a jolly good fellow!

  16. DON'T REALLY DO THIS by socratic+method · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the parent post is quite funny, I would seriously recommend that no one actually take this route to cut down on spam. It is very possible that such a reply could get someone/someone's family killed. In China, it isn't like it is in the West... there may not be an opportunity to refute such charges before an impartial court. Couple a technically illiterate local government agency with the language barrier, and you could make some awful big trouble for a (relatively to the crime) innocent person.

    sm

    1. Re:DON'T REALLY DO THIS by wytcld · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In China ... there may not be an opportunity to refute such charges before an impartial court

      An understatement. There's no impartial court, so no opportunity. Still, a friend's band is called "The Nail Nippers," with some samples on an mp3 site. They keep getting e-mails from China and elsewhere in Asia offering to supply them with nail nippers. These letters are written in good enough English, apparently by someone using data mining software to find every e-mail address on every Website that mentioned "nail nippers" - since if a human had read my friend's site it's just obvious it's the band's name.

      So, is every factory in China staffed by people who write sophisticated data mining software? Or is there some quiet central government program that is helping facilitate spam in order to build China's export businesses? There's a certain likelihood that really doing this (replying to the spam with dangerous keywords) would really be tripping up the Chinese government, not some innocent little factory spam manager.

      Of course, if you don't share my view that the legitimate government of China sits in Taiwan you may still consider this a bad thing. Those of us who favor armed insurrection on behalf of Tibet, Fulun Gong and freedom generally might even welcome it if the illegitimate government got more involved in chasing its own tail, rather than focusing effectively on suppressing and killing Tibetans and those with unauthorized spiritual faiths.

      Sure, the innocent could suffer the worst fates; but the innocent already do. It's the sort of tough ethical dilemma where a choice may spare two innocent lives, but take another.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    2. Re:DON'T REALLY DO THIS by Dimensio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If a Chinese admin is unethical enough to allow Alan Ralsky continued hosting, I really don't care if he gets a bullet put into his brain.

      --
      STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
    3. Re:DON'T REALLY DO THIS by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So your theory is that Chinese government will track down people who fake links to Falun Gong and disappear them from other countries, risking international sanctions and a PR nightmare (Obviously, if they go to the trouble of tracking you down they will know you actually have no link.) but they continue to blantantly ignore people in the US who do actually have links to Falun Gong? Like the people wandering around in public parks practicing it?

      Alternately, you're an idiot.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  17. datacommarketing.com by Openadvocate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe someone could do something about the infamous datacommarketing.com. It is so annoying to get your mail servers spammed by their name guessing server(65.242.117.50).
    Now I can't see their homepage because I have blocked their entire subnet in my router :), but I seem to remember their homepage saying that they don't spam. Sorry, but I have got the logs to prove it, and so does many others.
    How on earth can a company like that just continue act like they do?

    --
    my sig
    1. Re:datacommarketing.com by odaiwai · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're on a lot of blacklists: Choose from one of the following

      http://openrbl.org/ip/65/242/117/50.htm

      dave

  18. Corporations want first amendment right too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Fraud is not protected speech.

    Oh, but it will be soon

    "...Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens have in their personal lives...They took this argument all the way to the California Supreme Court, where they lost. The next stop may be the U.S. Supreme Court in early January"

    Neat, ain't it.

    1. Re:Corporations want first amendment right too by StevenMaurer · · Score: 2

      Nike is not arguing for the "free speech" right to "deceive" - that is a twisted interpretation made by the author you quote. They are arguing for the "free speech" right to make a political argument. In this specific case, the right to assert that their actions in third-world countries do more good than harm.

      Given that today even Michael Moore calls Phil Knight (the founder of Nike - who made the company's first sneakers himself using a waffle iron) one of the "good guys" in terms of corporate responsibility, that isn't an unreasonable position.

      And even if you disagree, it certainly isn't fraud.

  19. is it possible by ChuckMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but if all spammers move offshore, could we black list providers at routers where they come into the country? If a provider refuses to remove a spammer, can they be added to a black list, so that any packet with an ip from those routers get tossed? Or packets without received ips in their email headers? I know its kind of an extreme solution, but it would defintely attact the providers attention if their users can no longer send email to usa or canada

  20. declare WAR on spam! by AwesomeJT · · Score: 2, Interesting
    No more passive deletions: get active, sue them to the stone age, send them "snail mail" spam, post their address on /., do whatever to get even!

    I hear a case where someone started sending spammers bills for the time used to delete messages and investigate who sent the message, etc. The funny thing is, a large number of spammers actually paid or were forwarded to collections. I'm hoping this was not another urban legend -- I want to start doing the same.

    --
    SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
  21. Results by tiltowait · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This apparently actually produces results:
    Earlier this month, said Ralsky, somebody told the Chinese government that a Web company from which he leases e-mail servers in Beijing was sending messages critical of Chinese policy.

    Police promptly raided the business and confiscated Ralsky's servers. Although they were returned a few days later, Ralsky now tries to cover his tracks better, so opponents won't know what companies and servers he's using.

    Linford said he heard of the raid. "It wasn't us that caused it," he said. "But there are a lot of anti-spam activists, and apparently some of them on their own started organizing a campaign to get the Chinese government to think that Ralsky was supporting" the Falun Gong, an outlawed spiritual group the Chinese government considers subversive. "We didn't endorse that, but it shows you how deep the anti-Ralsky feelings are."
    - http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend22_20021122.h tm
  22. Re:Haven't they already? by Cyberdyne · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Correct me if I'm wrong (probably no need to ask for that), but hasn't Alan Ralsky already done this to a large extent? He claims he has servers in India, Canada, China, and Russia, and most of his mail is now sent from overseas countries. (This is taken from the second link provided.)

    Would it even matter? It's the person who commits the crime, not the server; I'm sure if an American were storing, say, child porn or national secrets on a Russian server, the FBI would still be able to bust him - why would illegal spam stop being illegal just by going via a foreign relay? (UK law certainly makes it a crime for anyone under UK jurisdiction to crack ANY computer, wherever it is, so I think a US spam law could do the same...)

  23. Re:Very easy solution by odaiwai · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not just China: ISPs in South America don't care about spam either. Also, some major US ISPs like UUNET, Level3 and Worldcom don't, in my experience, give a fig about their users spamming, or undertaking any abuseive activities. I get probed by all three regularly and get no response when I send LARTS to abuse@ anyone of those three ISPs. Well, i get a response from Level3, but they just send my complaint to the spammer and I get more spam.

    The major backbones in the USA condone spam. What makes you think a Chinese ISP will condemn it?

    Shove all of Worldcom, UUNET and Level3 into SPEWS, that's what I say!

    dave "rot in Spews"

  24. How I deal with spam. by Big+Mark · · Score: 2, Funny

    See those wee "click here to be removed" or whatever links in spam? Click there, be removed. That's some spam you won't receive again.

    Yes, it validates your email address. So does the fact that the spam didn't bounce. And with those images that are downloaded off the web if you open a spam they accomplish the same even if you delete the spam.

    Admittedly I don't get all that much spam (well, for now at least, ya bastards! :p ) but when I do get one I just click the remove me link and I never see it again.

    Well, until I use Google Groups that is. I get hideous volumes of spam after I post to netnews using that. I think I'm onto something...

    -Mark

    1. Re:How I deal with spam. by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it validates your email address. So does the fact that the spam didn't bounce.

      No, not quite. The mail not bouncing validates the address; it does *not* prove that anyone's actually reading the mail. Clicking the link proves not only that the address is valid, but that someone read the mail, too.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  25. He should get 47 years in prison. by pclminion · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Assuming that only 1/5 (100,000,000) spams reached human recipients, and assuming each person wasted 15 seconds recognizing it as spam, cursing, and deleting it, we have a total waste of time:

    15*100000000/3600/24/365 = 47 years.

    Maybe he should have 47 years of his time wasted.

    (No, I'm not actually serious. But that's a lot of wasted time.)

  26. Differences between speech (free and protected). by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Honestly people, please look this stuff up. IN the US Constitution, there is a difference between free speech and protected speech.

    Free speech is a more nebulous term, it allows for the rights to freely congregate and express opinions about anything. If you use that to hawk wares with people that is fraudulent, then you may be prosecuted for your behavior. If you are falsely yelling "fire" in a theatre, then you may be prosecuted for injuries in the stampede. However, protected speech is a little different.

    Protected speech in the US is Political Speech. Meaning that you cannot be restricted from standing in a public place and protest an event within reason. All political opinons are considered protected, and part of the democratic process. But even this has limits. You cannot disrupt or cause a public nuisance with this, like say blast a recording of the Communist Mannifesto every day with 1k watt speakers at the White House Lawn. That would disrupt the political process, and infringe on others rights to a working government.

    In a word, we do have free speech, but these are solicitations... not political speech.

    Also, corporations should not have free speech, because they are not citizens, do not vote, cannot be jailed for disruptive behavior, and do not pay any real taxes compared to their earnings.

    Either way, free speech is not a license for fraud.

  27. Re:Differences between speech (free and protected) by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 2, Informative

    Honestly people, please look this stuff up. IN the US Constitution, there is a difference between free speech and protected speech.

    Actually, that's not correct. The US Constitution has no specific reference to protected speech. Protected speech is a term that is synonymous with free speech, in the sense that all speech which is protected from restriction by the government is free speech. In particular, political speech is not the only form of protected speech.

    Some forms of speech (obscenity or threats) have no right to protection at all. Corporations have the right to free, protected speech, but in a more limited form. In the case of this article and lawsuit, what the spammer puts in his ad might be unprotected speech because of false content, but the case seems to be based on misleading email recipients about the opt-in nature of the email. The following links offer some insight on free speech and protected speech.

    Free Speech the First Amendment and Censorship
    FreedomForum.org - The First Amendment

    --
    Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
  28. Re:But was were the spammers penalized? by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is this a win against spam?

    Not getting any more spam from MonsterHut is a win. We just need a lot more wins.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  29. Why not? by Zone5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So let's recap.

    Sending the reply this way is funny.... Check.
    The reply could get someone killed.... Check.
    The person killed is a spammer.... Check.
    So my reply could kil a spammer.... Check.

    What exactly is the problem, from either a moral, ethical, or legal standpoint?

    Spammer dead = less spam = me happy. Hell, I'll even cough up the price of the bullet it it makes Beijing happy!

    --
    "So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
  30. Just follow the opt out procedures... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2, Funny

    MonsterHut officials claimed that the reason 750,000 people where not removed from their mailing lists was that they had failed to follow the proper removal procedure. The procedure is apparently more involved than just clicking 'NO' and includes bringing a shrubbery to the MonsterHut headquarters.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!