FTC Wants Secret Spam Investigation Powers

PingXao writes "Amidst the various anti-spam efforts underway in Washington, the FTC surprised lawmakers by saying they need to be able to secretly investigate the worst-offending spammers, according to a Washington Post article. I'm generally against government secrecy, but quietly investigating spammers isn't as bad as secret courts and arrests. Is this acceptable, or another mis-step down the slippery slope?"

Comments

well that's all well and good...

[sweeney37]

let's just hope they don't put the spammers on "Double Secret Probation"

Mike

Re:well that's all well and good...

[WindBourne]

They won't be (even though it feels this comidic). More likely we will have millions of "People of Interest". Sadly, this is a stupid way around the patriot act II which would have extended Ashcrofts ability to spy on all of us.

how about...

[Anonymous Coward]

they secretly investiage the losers who try to get first post?

another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

what is there even to ask? why should secret goverment agencies at once become good, just because they go against something the most of you dont like?

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[ePhil_One]

The FTC is not a secret government agency. We know its there.

The NSA is a secretive government agency, but it too is not secret (though they like to pretend)

A secret government agency is like the one SciFi's Invisible man worked for, their budget hidden in the Dept of Fish & Wildlife's budget.

I could name a real secret government agency, but then I'd have to kill you :^)

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[kaisa_sosey]

it seems to be a common "concept" these days that one can fight evil with evil ,-)

it's like cutting your leg to save your finger...

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Rimbo]

Precisely. In fact, the whole point of defending rights is that you can't be selective on whose rights you defend. You have to defend even horrible things, which is why the ACLU is generally reviled -- they are the ones who typically step in when no one else will to defend some of the worst garbage born.

Spammers are basically evil. Yet they must be dealt with through legal means and with respect for the same rights we all ahve.

As another poster already mentioned, the FTC is hardly a "secret government agency." They are not in the habit of doing surveillance. Nor should they get into it. They should need a warrant just like everyone else.

Or at least, like everyone else USED to need... *sigh*

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Tackhead]

> The FTC is not a secret government agency. We know its there.
>
>The NSA is a secretive government agency, but it too is not secret (though they like to pretend)

And while we're at it, the evidence that should be sufficient to start a spam investigation ain't exactly secret either.

I mean, if Osama bin Laden's minions in Floriduh had been sending 50,000,000 mails a day saying "CL1K HERE 4 HOT PL4N3 THRUSTIN BETWEEN BIG DOUBLE TOWER SEKS!", every day for six months, maybe the INS would have woken up too. (Naaw, you're right. Still the INS we're talking about, so probably not.)

But if your scam involves telling 50,000,000 people what a scumbag you are, worrying about the FTC "secretly" investigating you oughta be the least of your worries.

So I say give the FTC a few million bucks and let 'em go medieval on 'em.

I can't go undercover and investigate the links between spam rings, organized crime, pyramid scammers, software pirates, and illegal pharmacies in South Floriduh, because I'm not a law enforcement officer.

The FTC and FBI, and anyone they properly deputize, are authorized to investigate, and I say more power to 'em.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[cpeterso]

If you what to make a tax deductible donation to the ACLU, then donate to the ACLU Foundation. Fight Uncle Sam with your own tax dollars!

ACLU and ACLU Foundation, What is the Difference?

Although both the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation are part of the same overall organization -- it is necessary to have two separate corporate entities of the ACLU to receive two separate types of funding. This allows for the over-arching support of all the ACLUâ(TM)s various activities. Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are fully tax-deductible to the donor; membership dues and gifts to the ACLU are not tax-deductible.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[zurab]

As another poster already mentioned, the FTC is hardly a "secret government agency." They are not in the habit of doing surveillance. Nor should they get into it. They should need a warrant just like everyone else.

Or at least, like everyone else USED to need... *sigh*

You are right - "used to". If **AA doesn't need a warrant, neither should FTC. Why is it that private industry has more policing power than the government whose job it is to enforce the law?

You are also right that FTC is not in the secret surveillance agency, but they do investigate and help prosecute. Public investigation and legal notices allow spammers ample time to shut down their activities and hide their assets even before the investigation begins.

I don't want to tie DMCA and USA PATRIOT Act into this but that's where the slippery slope started. It seems like what FTC is asking doesn't even come close to those two.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[LBArrettAnderson]

because some things are better left unknown to the general public.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Jeremy Erwin]

Police departments and the FBI already have the ability to conduct investigations in secret. Police departments are not required to notify a gang of criminals long before raiding them. They are simply required to show a warrant.

Prior to obtaining this warrant, the police may conduct an investigation unbeknownst to their target. They may interview witnesses, collect crime scene evidence, etc, all without neccesarily notifying their target. The FTC, however, notifies targets before commencing formal investigations. Unfortunately, targeted spammers may use this notification to frustrate the investigation, destroy evidence, or otherwise interfere with enforcement activities of the FTC.

If the FBI were given jurisdiction over spam, perhaps investigations could be conducted with a modicum of secrecy. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Instead, the FTC, hampered by bureaucratic rules and procedures, must conduct preliminary investigations in the full light of day.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[MrLint]

Why do we need secret anti-spam investigations? A nice public anti-spam might put the fear of god into these scum. Besides a nice public inquiry would help avoid those nasty backroom negotations that would let them off with a fine and keep spamming.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to tie DMCA and USA PATRIOT Act into this but that's where the slippery slope started.

Hardly. The FBI has been seeking those kind of powers forever. We pased through the slipperly slope during the 90s. The US and Europe are on the greased chute to the bottom now.

Also, the DMCA is a bad law, but not in the same league as the patriot act, read the text of the patriot act and mourn for a once great country.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

"The road to hell is paved with good intensions"
dont know who said it but it is damn true

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Rimbo]

"Public investigation and legal notices allow spammers ample time to shut down their activities and hide their assets even before the investigation begins."

The old way to deal with this was to make the public notices in places where you had to look for -- like the basement cork-board of some oddly-located government building.

"It seems like what FTC is asking doesn't even come close to those two."

True, but any comparison to some other wrongdoing is irrelevant. This one is wrong, and it should be fought just like the rest.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[snoochyboochy]

Or chopping off your arm when trapped by a boulder to save your life... Nobody would do that...err....right? /throws away pocketknife....just in case...

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

"like the basement cork-board of some oddly-located government building."

guarded by a panther?

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Rimbo]

"guarded by a panther?"

Precisely. Possibly even TWO panthers.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[chameleon_skin]

There is one important difference between these situations that you have not acknowledged, however. Gangs are suspected of having broken the law. As of right now, most spammers are suspected only of being annoying. In most US jurisdictions their actions are still completely legal.

Until such time as spamming is legally outlawed, I don't think there is any reason to broaden government surveillance powers to include them. You might not like how spammers operate, but dislike isn't sufficient justification for this sort of action.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that the FTC should be dealt with through "legal means" also. Obviously they wish to change the "legal means".

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[MillionthMonkey]

what is there even to ask? why should secret goverment agencies at once become good, just because they go against something the most of you dont like?

Oh geez... "(Score:5, Insightful)" too... where to begin?

First of all, the FTC is not a secret government agency.

Second, saying it's merely "something that most of us don't like" isn't being quite honest. This will mark a long overdue attempt to stop wholesale destruction of a public resource. Unlike the sillier things we declare "wars" on (e.g. drugs, terrorism), law enforcement activity here may actually accomplish something. It may even increase my quality of life. Lord knows nothing else has worked so far, and we're clearly becoming desperate for anybody to do something. This problem is getting exponentially ridiculous with time.

Third, cops do stuff like this all the time to stop non-Internet-related crimes. You can't pick up a hooker or buy drugs without having to worry that you might be talking to a cop. Small time con artists in real life have to worry about undercover cops all the time. Why should crimes involving the Internet be any different? How does involving SMTP at some point in your criminal activities magically exempt you from having to worry about this? It makes no sense.

Mention law enforcement and the Internet in the same breath and everyone gets all defensive, as if this is the same network as it was in the 80s and early 90s, with only scientists and researchers having access. I remember when it was like that, and it was great. But it isn't like that anymore. Now it sucks. It's full of people who can't fucking behave themselves. I say let the damn cops in already. It's not like they're not already here pestering people who don't deserve it. Christ, you can't even buy a bong online anymore! Wouldn't you rather they spent their time chasing down spammers?

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[balthan]

Spam is hardly a life-or-death matter. At most it's an annoyance. It's more like chopping off your arm because you have a splinter.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Reziac]

Why doesn't investigating spammers fall under the same rules as investigating any theft (meaning when they use a mail server without permission) or fraudulent activity?

How is spam fraud different from telephone boilerroom fraud?

Point being, I don't see why FTC regs should get in the way of what in many cases should be an ordinary criminal investigation.

Maybe they need to run stings on the worst frauds??

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[dtfinch]

More like chopping off the arms of a few people for giving you and 100 million others splinters, and probably getting a few extra splinters in the process.

Sending out spam is like dumping asbestos from a plane to get people to notice the "enlarge your member" banner flapping behind it. I would cheer if the plane was shot down after a hundreds of passes and millions of complaints, and accept the risk that occasionally a missile might fly astray.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[crapulent]

Or randomly wasting SCO's web server bandwidth in a ridiculous attempt to get their attention, and "get them back" for some perceived evil. Not that I agree with SCO, but fighting abuse with abuse is retarded.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[kmilani2134]

A lady died in NYC recently when police mistakenly raided her apartment and threw a flash grenade into it after knocking down the door. If police had not been given such broad powers and if there were more checks and balances in place that lady wouldn't have died from a heart attack induced by fright.

When the government takes away someone else's rights they take away all of our rights.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[stephenbooth]

Very often spammers do break the law. If you RTFA you'll see that the 53 spammers already prosecuted were prosecuted under existing fraud laws.

The FTC has used anti-fraud laws and a database of millions of spams to prosecute some 53 spammers over the past few years, but FTC commissioners said they need additional powers to go after the worst offenders. Because many spammers close up shop and hide their assets once they realize they are being targeted, FTC agents should be allowed to investigate them in secret for a limited period of time, commissioners said, or at least delay notification. FTC agents should be able to review spam complaints amassed by Internet providers and given greater latitude to go after spammers who hijack others' accounts, they said.

I have recently heard that US legislation bars the sending of emails with spoofed From:/Sender: adderesses, i.e. you can only send emails with addresses that belong to you or where you have been given explicit permission to do so.

Police, FBI and other agencies already conduct secret investigations, constrained by the 4th ammendment. Why should the FTC not operate similarly in investigating crimes that fall under it's demesne?

Stephen

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[mal3]

Source please?

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

As I recall, they're more interested in protecting the rights of the spammer than stopping spam.

No thanks.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[greenrd]

As of right now, most spammers are suspected only of being annoying. In most US jurisdictions their actions are still completely legal.

Why do you think the FTC is going after some spammers then? Use your brain. It's not to waggle their fingers at them and say "That's very antisocial behaviour you know, unfortunately it's not illegal so we can't do jack squat about it, but we're going to stand here and waggle our fingers!"

They are going after spammers because many of those spammers are pretty obviously frauds and fraud is illegal. Also, federal spam laws are in the works - and the FTC wants international anti-spam cooperation in the worldwide law enforcement community.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Spokehedz]

And its been there for god knows how long--you had plenty of time to know we were going to knock down your house...

*entire planet shakes as the Vogon construction fleet looms over head*

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[poot_rootbeer]

it seems to be a common "concept" these days that one can fight evil with evil ,-)

Law enforcement is evil?

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[kaisa_sosey]

Not evil by itself but evil if it get's out of proportion or out of control. There must be a very good reason to ask for secrecy when it comes to law enforcement. And to get to know the source of spam you certainly don't need it. It's not even common law that spam is illegal (personally i think it is) so how can we talk about law enforcement anyway?

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[cpeterso]

yes, thank goodness. When the government starts spying on you, then you'll wish they were on your side.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[zurab]

The old way to deal with this was to make the public notices in places where you had to look for -- like the basement cork-board of some oddly-located government building.

You are right - that would be an "old way". Last unneeded complication to add to this would be a "spammer early warning service" for some guy to take those notices and post them on his website, or charge for the service for relaying those notices to individual spammers.

True, but any comparison to some other wrongdoing is irrelevant. This one is wrong, and it should be fought just like the rest.

I wish that was the case, but you know as well as I do that that's not how the government works. First of all, DMCA and USA PATRIOT act are not considered by lawmakers as a "wrongdoing"; because in the black and white picture we know who the real "evildoers" are. Second, if other similar government agencies, and even private industry have such policing powers then there is no case for making an exception for FTC. Hence, the discussion about slippery slope. Third, FTC's recent record doesn't show that they listen to public opinion - just look up the recent media consolidation ruling, or broadband ruling and its reversal (but that's no reason for backing off).

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[Mucky]

Yeah! Invisible Man ruled! Damn I miss that show.

Oh Crap.

Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope

[ahodgson]

The act of sending unsolicited bulk E-mail is legal.

However, raping open relays and open proxies, while selling fraudulent or illegal products, is not. Forging someone else's E-mail address to avoid complaints and bounces is also fraudulent.

So I'm hard-pressed to see anything in my spam folder that is not breaking at least one law at this time.

uhhhh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! No! Maybe! *head explodes*

Penile Envy

[svvampy]

C'mon, we know they just want to be on the cutting edge. Or is taxidermy a more appropriate comparison?

spammers are evil, so all is okay!

[Barbarian]

Spammers are evil, we all know that, and for all we know, they could be using their ill gotten gains to support terrorists!

Re:spammers are evil, so all is okay!

[arivanov]

Do a search on Nigeria and muslim fundametalists. That's all I am willing to say.

Secretly investigate?

[ePhil_One]

Is the FTC required to knock on folks door and inform them they are about to start gathering evidence? Why does a spam bill need to be passed for this?

Re:Secretly investigate?

[Anonymous Coward]

because this country is built on words and people learn quickly how to use those words against the country. and if there is no words in place to make it ok then no action could be taking because there were no words set forth to allow it to happen!

Re:Secretly investigate?

[poofmeisterp]

As it stands now, yes. They are required to notify the subject of investigation.

Re:Secretly investigate?

[DustMagnet]

Does sending an e-mail to "remove@hotmail.com" or whatever fake address is included in the spam count as a good faith effort for notification?

How bout investagating them in the open first?

[Unknown Poltroon]

As near as i can tell, theres very little being done to stop spam from a legal/criminal point. Wht, its not exciting enough unless they can play at being a spy?

Re:How bout investagating them in the open first?

[bricriu]

I quite agree... nothing in the article even mentioned why this would need to be a secret investigation. The whole thing seemed to be "rah rah rah spam is bad" (which is true, but irrelevant).

Well..

[pdbogen]

This might just be trolling, but...

How can we get all riled up about the one government organization spying on us, and be completely neutral towards (or should that read in favor of?) another government agency spying on someone else, just because that someone does something we don't like?

I hate spam as much as the next guy, but if we want a chance of keeping our privacy private, it has to be unconditional.

Re:Well..

[inertia187]

...but if we want a chance of keeping our privacy private, it has to be unconditional.

Oh? Show me where it says in the (US) Constitution you are entitled to unconditional privacy?

Re:Well..

[vladkrupin]

I don't see how in this case FTC can support their claim that they should be able to go beyond what ordinary private citizens are allowed to do. Nothing prevents them from gathering the evidence and not telling the spammer they are doing so. Just like I can watch you and gather evidence against you as long as it does not go beyond what's allowed by law. No secret powers needed. On the other hand, if you already have sufficient evidence, you can get a court warrant on wiretapping, etc - here is a mechanism for you to use some secret surveilance powers - and that's fine.

I think all the secrecy necessary is already provided to them to the maximum extent possible (and arguably even beyond that). Looks like just another government organization trying "ride the wave" of a popular legislation to grab a bit more power (that they don't even need).

For comparison, remember the not-so-old antiterrorist bills that had everything-and-a-kitchen-sink in them. Since the antiterrorist bill is obviously going to pass no matter what, why not cram something totally unrelated (and hard to get passed otherwise) into it? Everyone, from FBI to RIAA tried to put their own little pieces in. Now we have a different popular legislative wave - this time for a righteous case of SPAM fighting.

There will be tons of people who will try to cram privacy-invading clauses and amendments into any legislation under the anti-SPAM banner. Since SPAM is arguably becoming the biggest legislative target after terrorism, it's a good vehicle to drive your little privacy-invading amendments into becoming the law.

Re:Well..

[g_arumilli]

Oh? Show me where it says in the (US) Constitution you are entitled to unconditional privacy?

4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is certainly not unconditional (and I don't believe that's what the previous poster intended with those words), but the key point is that probable cause is required for the issue of any warrant. The FTC, like any other investigative agency, needs a warrant to probe personal files/information. Publicly sent spam, obviously, is open for investigation as it always has been.

Finally, keep in mind the 9th Amendment. The Bill of Rights' purpose is not to enumerate the only rights which we hold, but instead lay out some of those which the government may not trample upon. Just because some are not enumerated does not "deny or disparage" their being "retained by the people."

Re:Well..

[Reality Master 101]

Oh? Show me where it says in the (US) Constitution you are entitled to unconditional privacy?

Although I'm not a privacy nut, that's the wrong question to ask. The 10th Amendment specifically spells out that the constitution does NOT grant rights (particularly inalienable rights). In other words, what isn't specifically granted or prohibited by law is power reserved by the people.

That said, it would be absurd to argue that privacy is an inalienable right (although, there are a lot of absurd people on Slashdot that will try and argue it without thinking it through).

Re:Well..

[Chris Burke]

That's no troll you got there, my friend. That's called a principle.

To PingXao: Secret warrantless spying is bad. It doesn't matter if they are investigating a suspected terrorist cell, a suspected pot smoker, a suspected communist, or a suspected annoying spammer.

You can't allow the secret spying because who they're spying on is "bad". Remember the whole reason you don't want them spying on you is that even if you "have nothing to hide" right now, that can change as what is "bad" changes. What good does it do if they can just label you a spammer and spy on you? Today it's the other guy they don't like; tommorrow it could be you.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The real solution is to un-define "the corporate person". It is not a real person and should not have any such rights. In fact, it has far more rights that a real person due to the fact that it can accumulate far more power ($$$) than a real person and its rights are being defended by all the other monster corporations.

Re:Well..

[Black Copter Control]

Nothing prevents them from gathering the evidence and not telling the spammer they are doing so.

You mean like laws?

IANAL, and I don't know the laws around the FTC, but my guess is that they're bound by rules that were written for the 'protection' of the 'big boys' that the FTC normally ends up investingating (stock brokers etc.) -- I.e. they probably do have rules that require them to notify someone that an investigation is going against them. Did you ever wonder why companies like Enron, Microsoft and MCI end up announcing that they're being investigated? Where would they get this information, if not from the body investigating them?
This is almost acceptable when you're investigating a company like Enron or MCI -- the worst that they can do is go bankrupt durint the process, or clean up the practice that they're being investigated for. When that happens, you've still got the abiity to charge them (and/or their executives) for practices previous to the notification.

With spammers, on the other hand, notification that they're being investigated causes them to simply close up shop (or, at least, the front that's being investigated) and open up under another name, somewhere else. Even if you manage to find sufficient evidence of previous activity, by the time that happens they've already disappeared and all of the identity trails have run cold.

The 'secret investigation' rights that the FTC are asking for seem to be a good bit less than what (say) the Seattle Police Department might have the rights to do. They're basically asking that they don't have to go knock on a suspected spammer's door and effectively tell them to close shop and hide the evidence -- at least for long enough to allow the FTC to gather some of that evidence.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? Show me where it says in the (US) Constitution you are entitled to unconditional privacy?

#include "4th Amendment"

This is certainly not unconditional (and I don't believe that's what the previous poster intended with those words), but the key point is that probable cause is required for the issue of any warrant. ...

A spammer is typically operating a business. Note that the business is not afforded the same rights as an individual person (and should not be). The most basic example is that a corporation cannot be imprisoned if it does wrong. In this scenario, the FTC wants to investigate "spammers" the corporations, not "spammers" the individuals.

Re:Well..

[Qzukk]

That said, it would be absurd to argue that privacy is an inalienable right (although, there are a lot of absurd people on Slashdot that will try and argue it without thinking it through).

So, after giving it some careful thought, I'm going to argue. As long as any one entity claims the right to privacy, then all entities must share that right to privacy. This is a classic "who watches the watchers" case. Lets go way out on a limb here and propose a completely one-sided transparent society. Citizens' every moves are recorded, analyzed, and filed away. Meanwhile, government offices no longer permit citizens to review their own records, review government records, or otherwise break through the privacy that the government maintains it needs in order to operate.

Citizens wake up every day, they go to work, they go home, turn on the "news" which is just the same government-provided "we are doing our best for you" feel-good media that doesn't reveal one bit about what the government has actually done, on every channel.

Crime spikes suddenly, well... not really, the criminals just get caught nowadays, instead of getting away. But lets take pedophiles, since they're the people everyone loves to hate (them, or terrorists, its hard to say). Rather than sitting around at home trying to download kiddie pr0n, they now sit around at the government office of popular observation and whack off to your daughter taking a shower. But you don't know this, you're not permitted to know who is on the other side of the camera. You just know that the cameras had to be installed to make sure you (or someone else) weren't molesting your children, or stealing your things, and that everyone's house has them. So now, the rest of the criminals have moved into the ultimate protection, the government offices, where they can falsify records and destroy evidence with impunity since nobody can watch them. Innocents are caught (perhaps because of a falsified record!), but since they are not permitted to review the secret government "evidence", they cannot defend themselves.

Now, lets look at the opposite: a completely open government and a private citizenry. Ignoring the benefits of seeing how your tax money goes to waste, we'll focus on crime fighting in this case. Anyone can anonymously look in on, say, the FBI and see whats going on. They can see that the FBI has the wrong address for them, and update their records (at this point, the anonymity should have to be dropped since you should be required to prove you're not changing someone else's records, as well as proving your changes are correct.) You can also see the progress being made on every investigation. A successful criminal in this world would track the investigation into his crime and stay one step ahead for as long as possible (people make mistakes). In this case, though, the criminal is limited to reacting to the information available to everyone, including the next door neighbor who knows that their neighbor is a wanted person. Our country is currently something like this, though with a little more privacy on the government side, and a little less privacy on the people's. But you still know its time to run and hide when your mugshot is on the 9 o'clock news. Unless you're a terrorist (or possibly a terrorist, or mistaken for a terrorist), and then youre simply disappeared into a world of secret tribunals and indefinite incarceration without trial or oversight or recourse.

There are two other possibilities to consider as well.

The first is a private government and a private citizenry. This, I believe, was the model for a very long time. The government had its secret toys in the guise of various secret agencies, the people had their secrets in the guise of a strong 4th amendment, and popular idea that what you do is your own business. In this society, the criminal investigation process was rigidly laid out. A cop would find evidence, present this evidence to the proper authorities, then if the evidence was sufficient,

Re:Well..

[Sylver Dragon]

the FTC wants to investigate "spammers" the corporations, not "spammers" the individuals.

Maybe its just me, but I don't think that many of the spammers are actually coporations. They usually seem to be a single person who is out to abuse the rest of the internet users. Moreover, depending upon how the wording of the proposed law is written, how does one differentiate between an individual spammer and a spammer corporation? If its just by the documents of incorporation, then the spammers will stop incorporating. Anything else can lead to a slippery slope far to quickly.
I do hate spam as much as the next /.'er and wouldn't be too broken up if people like Ralsky got run over by a train; however, in order to ensure that we keep freedom and liberty for ourselves, we have to make sure that everyone has freedom and liberty, no matter how much we disagree with them. Keep in mind that this whole freedom thing is a two way street, its easy to say that I am free to think and do as I wish, the real bitch about true freedom is saying, "ya, and this asshole is too." Freedom for all or freedom for none, nothing in the middle is sustainable. And as long as they are not using fraudulent means to do it, I don't think we can really stop spam without painting ourselves into a corner.

A little irony anyone?

[dragoncortez]

FTC commissioner Orson Swindle told the lawmakers that spam "has become the weapon of choice for those engaged in fraud and deception."

I wonder if he got that job just on the basis of his name...

Re:A little irony anyone?

[fidget42]

I wonder if he got that job just on the basis of his name...

No, I don't think the previous FTC commissioner was named Orson, too.

Re:A little irony anyone?

[rekkanoryo]

I have to wonder that myself. Since we all know the government is squeaky-clean, this is a curious issue, indeed.

Re:A little irony anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sometimes think the same thing about Alan Greenspan.

There's something just so... so... fiscal about it.

Re:A little irony anyone?

[nick_davison]

I wonder if he got that job just on the basis of his name...

If that were the case, don't you think Dr. Evil would be working for the RIAA, not staring in all those Austin Powers movies?

Re:A little irony anyone?

[fenix down]

And Dick Armey gets on all the defense comittees...

There's others I've noticed from time to time, can't remember any now. I'm pretty sure I've posted something before about whether that Asan Akbar guy that grenaded that tent would have been on the fast track to admiral if he'd joined the Navy instead. How can you not do that? Even if you don't take it as a Message From GodTM, it's Admiral Akbar. Worst case, he gets you all killed, and then you can die knowing Admiral Akbar ordered your ship into a trap...

Re:A little irony anyone?

[yourmom16]

No he's working for the MPAA

Re:A little irony anyone?

[CGP314]

Make me think of all the names in Harry Potter.
Emeric Switch
Cornelius Fudge
Ernie Prang
All all the others.

secret investigations are commonplace

[Anonymous Coward]

be it by a federal law enforcement or your local police. It's really useful in cases where a subject of the investigation is a flight risk. But - the secret parts dont last long - once someone outside the circle of investigators gets interviewed, the cats out of the bag.

It's the internet

[Transient0]

most of it is public by default and by definition. I may have left my tin-foil hat on by mistake, but asking for the right to hack into the boxes of suspected spammers when all the evidence is sitting in public mail routing logs strikes me as a serious breach of privacy for the general public. Now I have to worry about being a suspected terrorist AND a suspected spammer?

Seriously, most spammers are not organized criminals. I doubt that they have concealed themselves and their activities so well that a few well placed subpoenas can't get at them.

Re:It's the internet

[retto]

For a subpoena to work, you have to know something about the person you want to drag into court. I've known of some spammers that have done a very good job of concealing themselves and are quite adapt at disappearing rather quickly.

This isn't designed to spy on an amway salesman that CC's everyone in his contact list, but the advanced spammer that does a good job covering their tracks.

And just wait...I'm sure Ashcroft will come out with a terrorism/spam link soon.

Re:It's the internet

[HornyBastard77]

RTFA dude. The FTC isn't asking for permission to hack into spammers' boxes. What they are asking for is this:

Because many spammers close up shop and hide their assets once they realize they are being targeted, FTC agents should be allowed to investigate them in secret for a limited period of time, commissioners said, or at least delay notification. FTC agents should be able to review spam complaints amassed by Internet providers and given greater latitude to go after spammers who hijack others' accounts, they said.

I honestly don't see how this would cut down on spam with the current set of laws. All this would do is give the government precedent to pass other ordinances infringe on people's privacy. Even if this did get passed, I am not sure how well it would hold up in court on appeal. Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.

I also wonder if anyone has moved court against the companies that spammers advertize for. These would be a lot easier to track, and surely a company who markets gambling/porn to twelve year olds through a spammer should be held liable for it?

Re:It's the internet

[Naurgrim]

public mail routing logs

Dunno about you, but my mail logs are most certainly not public. They contain information on who my users are communicating with, therefore, I treat them as confidential.

would you want records of who you sent email to, or who you called on a telephone, to be public? I don't think so.

Re:It's the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

UYFB, Dude. It's hardly unconstitutional.

All they're asking for is the ability to *investigate* spammers without notifying them first. Not search, not arrest, just investigate. You know, like interviewing witnesses/victims, pulling public records, and such. Kinda like cops do to murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. As it stands, they must notify the investigated party before investigating a complaint, which gives the offender (innocent until yada yada) a chance to pack up and move on.

(UYFB? Use your fucking brain.)

HOORAY

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally the government will save me from unwanted email!

freedom

[ccoder]

I don't think this kind of thing NEEDS to be secret. While spam is annoying, it certianly doens't fall under a heavy enough category in my book (rape, murder, mass murder, etc) to require ANYTHING near secret investigative power...

If we all have the right to face our accuser - NOTHING should get in the way. Nothing short of the threat of further murder, at least in my book.

Freedom is the right to voice your opinion.

Re:freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, let's make no law enforcement efforts secret. Killers and Rapists should get 48 hours notice before anyone attempts to server a warrant. Police should always be required to wear flashing red and blue lights, even when they are off duty. Undercover work should be eliminated.

If you had bothered to read the article, you would know that in this case 'secret' means that the FTC would be allowed to investigate someone with out first informing them and giving them a chance to cover their trail and move all of their assets off shore.

Re:freedom

[Caseman13]

fine take your freedom and VOICE IT IN YOUR OWN MAILBOX! cause no one else wants to here it!

Re:freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

They do that anyway up to the point a warrant for additional evidence hunting is required. There are no special additional powers needed. They can accumulate "enough" to go further, it's a case by case basis. and nowadays, they can call it RICO and then that allows a lot more leeway, and if they think money laundering or-gasp-terrorists are involved, they need about less than zip to do whatever they want to do, and no notice is necessary for 6 months.

I know a better authority!

[Dark Lord Seth]

The US military!

Spam viagra to people? Expect a B52 carpet bombing your estate into something which resembles the lunar surface. Selling CDs with email adresses? Say hello to your new friend, Mr Daisy Cutter. Running spam servers or operating an ISP which turns a blind eye toward spammers? Duck and cover! Don't forget the iodine!

Re:I know a better authority!

[PhxBlue]

That would rock, especially since the military isn't held to the same standard of investigative integrity as civilian agencies. If we accidentally bomb a wedding or two, we just say, "Another potential spammer bites the dust!" This wouldn't even be that much of a stretch, if we redefine unsolicited commercial e-mail as a terrorist attack on the nation's information infrastructure.

Re:I know a better authority!

[wo1verin3]

>> If we accidentally bomb a wedding or two

US Gov't: Our intelligence lead us to believe that Saddam Hussein was inside both of the weddings at the same time, we're sorry, our bad.

Slippery Slope.......

[Anonymous Coward]

While I am all for the total annihilation of spam mongers, what will the FTC want next?

This is absolutely unacceptable

[the_bahua]

This will, once again, make federal law enforcement agencies the sole arbiters of who is good and bad. I see no reason why they need to conduct investigation of something as mundane as mass email, secretly. SPAM is an annoyance, that wastes time and bandwidth, and unfortunately, a lot of it is legitimate.

I see nothing but trouble from this witch hunt.

Re:This is absolutely unacceptable

[Guspaz]

Spam isn't legitimate if it's unsolicited, and most spam is. It doesn't have to be fraud to be illegal.

Re:This is absolutely unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a witch hunt, it's more like a holocaust. jeez, get it right.

I have a hard time with it..

[schon]

While I think that anything that can stop spam would be good, I don't think this will actually stop spam.

"Secret investigation" powers aside, the commisioners quoted don't seem to get it - spammers shouldn't need to be forced to "honour remove requests" - spammers need to be forced to shut down completely.

If I didn't ask to be added, I shouldn't have to ask to be removed.

This is a bad thing.

Re:I have a hard time with it..

[zurab]

"Secret investigation" powers aside, the commisioners quoted don't seem to get it - spammers shouldn't need to be forced to "honour remove requests" - spammers need to be forced to shut down completely.

If you read the article, that was in reference to e-mail marketers since there is a legal and moral way to simultaneously be an e-mail marketer (e.g. to people who have explicitly or willingly subscribed to receive special offers from specific sources) and not be a spammer.

If I didn't ask to be added, I shouldn't have to ask to be removed.

Fair point but a different topic altogether.

Re:I have a hard time with it..

[nocarborundum]

"Secret investigation" powers aside, the commisioners quoted don't seem to get it - spammers shouldn't need to be forced to "honour remove requests" - spammers need to be forced to shut down completely.

If I didn't ask to be added, I shouldn't have to ask to be removed.

Oh, they get it alright. They know exactly what they're doing.

The DMA has the best whores money can buy. They're going out of their way to legitimize spam.

Take a look at this, for example.

Short excerpt:

Tauzin said many points were akin to those in a House antispam bill that he co-sponsored last month, adding that the earlier proposal "may go even further than the FTC proposal as it allows consumers the opportunity to opt out of all commercial e-mail, not just unsolicited commercial e-mail."

That's like saying that, "My anti-food-adulteration bill is SO good that it not only makes sure that people can avoid getting adulterated food -- it makes sure they won't get *any* food, if they decide to accept the bill's protection."

Don't want spam?

No problem, sucka. You'll get no spam -- and, you'll get no "commercial email", period.

Oh? You say you WANT to get SOME "commercial email"? You want to be able to comm with companies you're dealing with?

No problem. Just shut up, and eat your spam.

Some slimy vermin toss out the baby with the bathwater. THESE slimy vermin are gonna make you take the sewage with the steak. No sewage, no steak. Want steak? Then eat your sewage.

They'll be joined at the hip.

What vile, despicable, absolutely disgusting pieces of feces roam the hallowed halls...

Kiss your email goodbye.

Re:I have a hard time with it..

[nocarborundum]

Oops, I hit [send] too soon. $&*@# blood pressure...

From that same article:

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., wondered whether antispam sentiment was going too far. "Are we doing anything that protects the legitimate players and lets them operate without being harassed by the FTC?" Lautenberg asked.

Well isn't *that* special.

Lautenberg, the piece of work who never saw a gun control law he didn't love -- who pushed through some *radical* anti-Second Amendment legislation -- the same snake who slithered in at the eleventh hour to salvage NJ for the democRATS after "The Torch" RF'd his failing campaign due to being crooked beyond description (yet, managing to avoid prosecution, gee, I'm shocked)...

Lautenberg now wants to protect LEGITIMATE spammers?

Let me guess -- they're the ones with *working* "remove" opt-out BS?

I wonder how many millions *that* whore is pocketing from the DMA?

Color me cynical.

Is this acceptable?

[GMontag]

Is this acceptable, or another mis-step down the slippery slope?

No, it is not acceptable.

Slipper slope is not the proper phrase (but please excuse some of my improper spelling), this is a bad policy.

Slippery-slope implies some difference between the top and the bottom.

Umm, backiiing up a little, since when do lawful investigations need to be anounced to the targets anyway?

Is this anything new?

[WIAKywbfatw]

How is this that different from a cop going under cover to bust a drugs operation or a fraudster?

If they use every dirty trick in the book and think nothing of emailing paedophilic pictures to anybody and everybody, don't spammers deserve the same level of attention as other criminals? Why should they be any different from other people who openly break the law for personal profit?

Re:Is this anything new?

[brauwerman]

Quoth:
>If they use every dirty trick in the book and think nothing of
> emailing paedophilic pictures to anybody and everybody, don't
> spammers deserve the same level of attention as other > criminals?

s/spammers/FBI/ , and it reads more clearly.

Re:Is this anything new?

[rsborg]

If they use every dirty trick in the book and think nothing of emailing paedophilic pictures to anybody and everybody, don't spammers deserve the same level of attention as other criminals?

1. Not all spammers are neccessarily into child porn. Don't mix the two different issues.
2. Spamming is currently not a criminal activity. If you want spammers to be treated like criminals, talk to your local congresscritter about making it illegal first.

Re:Is this anything new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spamming is currently not a criminal activity.

No, but fraud is. That is what the FTC would be looking into, not the spamming per se.

Re:Is this anything new?

[WindBourne]

Cool. I heard that a number of pedophiles was living in the USA. Perhaps it is time to open all the doors and windows.
After all what is the difference between going into my computer that is at my home. Both have a door that is closed, but opens for circumstances. In fact, the more that I think about it, the computer is actually more secure than the house which has glass windows.

Re:Is this anything new?

[GigsVT]

Spamming is currently not a criminal activity.

The fraudulent sort of spam the FTC would be interested in in the first place is illegal though.

If there isn't business fraud involved, it's pretty much out of the FTCs area of interest.

Come on people use logic

[Iron Monkey543]

Why do we either FOR or AGAINST privacy? To me extremism of any kind is bad. Now I'm a pragmatist. If these guys only go for the worst offending spammers (which seem to be most of them!), then I'm all for it. It might actually make things alot better.

Re:Come on people use logic

[sqlrob]

I'm a pragmatist in another way.

Give powers to the government and they WILL be abused.

Repeat after me, trying to keep a straight face:
DMCA will only be used against pirates
RICO will only be used against drug dealers

Re:Come on people use logic

[realdpk]

I'm for governments being able to quietly investigate crimes before they arrest someone. Cops going up to your house saying "We're just outside, and we'll be following where you're going, FYI!" just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm against them being able to blanket spy on everything everyone does just in case someone might intend to or commit a crime. The difference being that in this (FTC's) case, they've identified people they want to investigate - they're not fishing quite as much.

Re:Come on people use logic

[vnv]

The definition of 'spam' is up to the government.

So who will actually be investigated for 'spam'?

-- the Sierra Club and other environment groups for sending out mass environmental disaster alerts. Look at all the emails that have gone out because Bush is gutting the Clean Water Act, for instance.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0609-04.htm

-- all the government reform groups sending out mass communication to potential supporters

-- all other political activism groups

We know who won't be investigated using these 'secret powers'... the merchandisers who under the new Internet Tax Law are contributing sales tax to the government.

If you value the rights that were wrested from government, please don't be naive and give those rights back to the government. Once given back, they are gone forever, until taken back by force.

Fight evil with evil

[batkid]

Maybe we should also allow constant monitoring of individuals to ensure the safety of everyone.

It always surprise me how 1984 is so relevant in today's society.

Its the Gov'ment, that's why!

[NavelFozz]

What is there even to ask? why should secret goverment agencies at once become good, just because they go against something the most of you dont like?

http://www.slippingaway.org/

"I have powers. Secret powers."

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know CmdrTaco worked for the FTC!

Journalism 101

[eyegone]

Apparently the reporters at The Washington Post didn't feel the need to even ask why these investigations should be secret.

Woodward and Bernstein would presumably be rolling over in their graves if they were dead.

Re:Journalism 101

[geekoid]

well, when you make up stories do you need toa sk all the nright questions?

humor aside..

This is a problem with many journalist. They don't seem to ask why.

Why secretly?

[Arcanix]

The secret part of the FTC's request seems odd to me, don't they already operate in somewhat secrecy? I can only assume they don't go around telling people who they are investigating that they are being investigated up until the point when they can serve search warrants and subpoenas.

Re:Why secretly?

[nocarborundum]

A cynic might conclude that a motive for keeping the investigation secret is not to "violate" any spammer's rights, but to *protect* yonder spambag's "rights".

Do some research into the incestuous relationship between the DMA and the slimy pro-spam legislators and regulators.

Hint: keep a barf bag handy.

no way...not a good idea at all...

[Spydr]

In testimony before the House of Representatives consumer protection subcommittee, FTC commissioners said they need the ability to secretly investigate those who send deceptive e-mail and more leeway to go after spammers who send their messages across international borders.

so what exactly is the definition of a spammer?

i could see this used against anyone that sends e-mail, just label them a 'spammer' and the FTC gets open doors?

IF they set up very clear(and accurate) rules of what a "spammer" is, then maybe. MAYBE.

Re:no way...not a good idea at all...

[wo1verin3]

>>just label them a 'spammer'

I have an ex-girlfriend I'd like charged for 'spamming' me ... I don't want to 'talk about us'

Secrets can be good

[briancnorton]

The government does a LOT of things without telling you about them. Secrets allow important things to be done, and for bad people to be caught without knowing that they are being chased. It's called the element of suprise. Advertise an anti-spam solution, and a clever spammer will figure out a way around it before it even hits the market. Monitor the spammer before they think anybody is watching, and you may be able to catch them doing bad things without covering their tracks. I say secrets are for my own good. Go Feds.

Interstate Fraud/Illegal Activity

[Josuah]

I would guess this request by the FTC is because they are responsible for interstate commerce. Spam would be an obvious case of interstate, or even international commerce, and we all know how misleading and fraudulent spam can be.

I don't see this as being very different from quietly investigating people who use the U.S. Postal service or telephone system to try and commit fraud or execute other illegal activities like ponzi or pyramid schemes. I don't think they intend this to be a way to investigate people based on the number of emails they send. Unless they also think that the abuse of the infrastructure and cost to the economy (i.e. businesses) is also something they should be responsible for.

consistency

[maliabu]

i think it's all about consistency and sticking to the same standard.

if it's acceptable for government to secretly spy on people, then it is acceptable for government to spy on spammers.

otherwise how can the suspects (not convicted yet) be dicriminated by law?

Re:consistency

[c0dedude]

That's so absurd. That's like saying because the military can bomb people, they should bomb everyone.

Yawonder

[Trelane, the Squire]

FTC commissioner Orson Swindle told the lawmakers that spam "has become the weapon of choice for those engaged in fraud and deception" and is "about to kill the killer (application) of the Internet, specifically consumer use of e-mail and e-commerce." "Dealing with the emotional reaction of spam by millions of users requires our immediate attention before it gets out of hand," Swindle said.

BEFORE it gets out of hand? hmm

E-mail marketers should be required to describe their products honestly and honor consumer requests to be taken off their contact lists, the commissioners said, while criminal penalties should be explored for those who falsify their return addresses.

but if they did that, they wouldn't get any business... oh wait

Special powers? Yeah, right.

[MsWillow]

What concerns them is that, when they ask an ISP to tell them who so-and-so is, the ISP can, and sometimes (often?) does, tell so-and-so that they are being investigated, thus giving the person time to shred documents and purge files. Normally, this would be called "obstruction of justice", but it's darned hard to prove everything, and tie it all up in a neat bundle, without that now-destroyed information.

What the FTC wants is to keep the ISP quiet, while they investigate. Is that too much to allow them?

Are they really terrorists?

[Sebby]

This makes it seems like they're treating them as terrorists (as opposed to simple 'criminals').

Of course I'll leave it up to you to define the term for yourself, but the way I see it, it's spammers today, hobbyists tomorrow.

Explain this...

[c0dedude]

Why should we let them place wiretaps on spammers, who, mind you, at present commit no crime? Why not just make spam a crime and let them get a warrent like any other enforcement agency? It seems, at the least, they should have to go before a judge. To give a commerce regulatory agency spying powers is absurd and smacks of a police state. Let them regulate commerce, but leave spying to law enforcement and national security.

Re:Explain this...

[taernim]

Incorrect. As the article states, this is for Washington, where spam IS illegal if it has fake headers, etc.

So I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to spy on them. The people don't go to court when we sue them and they don't pay up when they lose... so if the government wants to help stop the problem, I'm all for it! (And yes, I'm a Washington citizen too)

Re:Explain this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmmmm, in general, you're kind of correct, but I rather suspect that it would be inordinately easy for the FTC to target an individual spammer whose products/services are illegitimate.

Consider the fact that the FTC is being forwarded upwards of 170,000 spam messages daily, and it's not a real stretch of the imagination that at least some of them are offering bogus products or services or are otherwise doing something illegal, perhaps identity-theft scams, credit card fraud, etc.

So, yeah, let the FTC go to the DOJ and get a court order for a wiretap and let them monitor some of the assholes out there. And, if they don't find any basis for filing a formal complaint against them because of some sort of fraud issue, then let the wiretap expire, and simply announce to the world, "We tapped Joe Blow's Internet connection because we thought his spam was fraudulent. It wasn't, and we really did check all 5,236,783 messages that he originated last week".

Then step back, turn away, and let the lynch mobs finish the job appropriately...

Re:Explain this...

[gfody]

soo..
spam is illegal if we can't track you
but..
its not illegal if you don't get cought

Re:Explain this...

[dubiousdave]

FTC's purpose from http://www.ftc.gov

To ensure the smooth operation of our free market system, the FTC enforces federal consumer protection laws that prevent fraud, deception and unfair business practices.

From what they say in the article, it seems that are trying to track down people who are, in fact, committing the crime of fraud. The article also says they are asking for the anti-spam powers to be modelled after the powers they already use to fight fraudulent telemarketers.

If these secret investigative powers are harmful, it seems that it's a little late. They already have them and are simply attempting to apply the same standards to electronic commerce that are applied to telecommerce.

It seems highly unlikely that the FTC will be sending brute squads to our houses, even those of us who send out lots of email pretending to be hot teenage girls. Provided, of course, that in said e-mails you are not trying to sell your used panties as a penile enlargement/cancer treatment tool, particularly if you are actually a fat, balding, middle-aged man.

Re:Explain this...

[nocarborundum]

"Why should we let them place wiretaps on spammers, who, mind you, at present commit no crime?"

Theft is a crime.

"Why not just make spam a crime and let them get a warrent like any other enforcement agency?"

Aye, there's the rub.

This form of theft is not explicitly declared a crime (a meaningless distinction, along the lines of, "there's no law that explicitly says you can't steal a ham sandwich from my left pocket, therefore it must be legal"). The disingenuous pro-spam effendi are trying to torture this "logic" into an explicit *permission* to spam.

This whole thing isn't about "stopping spam".

It's about legitimizing spam.

It's about protecting spam.

Of course, since everyone *hates* spam, the word-twisters have to put a publicly plausible spin on it. But make no mistake -- it's not about doing anything to *solve* the problem, it's actually quite to the contrary.

Look up the BS that surrounded the despicable "Murkowsky Bill" a few years ago.

Then look at the BS surrounding *this* travesty. It's SS,DD.

Ok...

[PaizuriTatsujin]

But what is secretly investigating spammers going to achieve, even if they do stop them theres always going to be more of them to take their place. Just seems pointless to me, but I am always wrong, about everything.

Re:Ok...

[nocarborundum]

"what is secretly investigating spammers going to achieve[?]"

It's going to achieve something.

It's going to protect the spammers from being publicly stigmatized.

Face it -- the DMA owns this fight.

So what?

[cperciva]

If the police are investigating you for fraud, they're not required to write to you in advance to let you know. As the law stands right now, the FTC *is* required to give notification to anyone they're considering investigating. This proprosed change would simply put the FTC more in line with law enforcement agencies.

That said, I don't think this should be handled by the FTC at all. Rather than having the FTC go after spammers for "misleading advertising", we should have the police go after spammers for fraud and theft of services. Still, given the current regulatory situation, where the FTC seems to have the best chance to shut down spammers, I see nothing wrong with changing the rules which govern the FTC to help them.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that fraud is illegal. Currently spam is not illegal. No way should someone who is not comitting a crime be investigated secretly. Make sending spam illegal. Then a spammer is breaking a law and by all means investigate them and punish them to the greatest extent of the law.

Re:So what?

[Carlos Laviola]

You're wrong. There's spam that is illegal federally, so the FTC has a valid case, regardless of the amount of penis spam that is being sent.

Re:So what?

[Phroggy]

As the law stands right now, the FTC *is* required to give notification to anyone they're considering investigating.

So the concern here is that if FTC serves notice of an investigation, the spammers will actually STOP? This isn't as bad as throwing them in jail, but it might be good enough, and undoubtedly cheaper....

Re:So what?

[cperciva]

No, the concern is that the spammers will relocate and continue spamming under a new name. As long as the FTC serves notice before investigating, they'll never catch up with the spammers.

Re:So what?

[Anne Thwacks]

So sent in the police to investigate Spam.

If it were up to me, Id say skip the investigation, and just shoot them.

Anyway how is this going to affect Spammers in Sierra Leone of other places were far more hideous crimes happen on a daily basis? Some people's priorities are very dubious as well as their methods misguided.

Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dealing with the emotional reaction of spam by millions of users requires our immediate attention before it gets out of hand," Swindle said.

Gee.... When will that happen?

Empire Building.

[AgTiger]

This is just yet another attempt by a government agency at empire building. SPAM is nowhere NEAR a level of importance or National Security that would require investigations or legal proceedings to be held in secret. Conduct those in the proven existing methods. Very little NEEDS to be kept secret.

Have the representatives of the people once again intentionally forgotten that little fact: they represent the will of the people, and they govern solely at the sufferance and will of the people?

Has anyone checked the watering schedule for the tree of liberty recently?

Re:Empire Building.

[GoatEnigma]

Are you kidding? National Security totally requires this! The terrorists will definitely have won if they all have 13 inch penises and free lifetime supplies of viagra...

Re:Empire Building.

[El Cubano]

This is just yet another attempt by a government agency at empire building. SPAM is nowhere NEAR a level of importance or National Security that would require investigations or legal proceedings to be held in secret.

I am guessing you say that based on your extensive experience and the knowledge that a .gov or .mil mailserver has never ever been spammed. While I agree that in most cases the powers the FTC is asking for are unnecessary, your blanket statement is equally as bad. There are times when, in the interest of national security, something like this would be very helpful.

That being said, I echo a previous poster's sentiment that we must tread carefully on these matters becuase the government does have a tendency to abuse power.

Re:Empire Building.

[3Bees]

Has anyone checked the watering schedule for the tree of liberty recently?

Are you advocating revolution? I assume that you are referring to the quote by (? Thomas Jefferson ?) that the tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants.

Re:Empire Building.

[kindbud]

Have the representatives of the people once again intentionally forgotten that little fact: they represent the will of the people, and they govern solely at the sufferance and will of the people?

Probably not. But they probably do know that the people's sufferance is nearly infinite, and their will infinitesimal.

Re:Empire Building.

[WindBourne]

Needed for the 72 virgins?

Re:Empire Building.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming.

Oh, I would say that the revolution is already underway and unfortunatly, I would guess, just getting started.

Re:Empire Building.

[thejackol]

SPAM is nowhere NEAR a level of importance or National Security that would require investigations or legal proceedings to be held in secret No, no, no. You are mistaken. It seems this whole fiasco started after Prez Bush getting an email about penis enlargement. Seems he got offended by the offer of adding just 2". Apparantly he needs much more. "Make no mistake. We will ram these spammers"

Mixed blessing?

[Bagheera]

I'm not sure how this is any different from "normal" law enforcement practice, where investigators may put a suspect under survelyance without their knowledge. From what I gathered reading the article, they're not talking about hacking into suspected spammers boxen - they are talking about what constitutes more or less normal police investigative work.

Considering the fact that (SPAMMER bullshit excuses aside) SPAM amounts to Theft of Service, it strikes me as appropriate for the FTC to treat it as an illegal act and use appropriate Law Enforcement techniques.

With proper oversite (important in ANY situation where The Man is watching someone) this is almost certainly more of a Good Thing (tm) than Big Brother in Action.

Too slippery

[mao che minh]

Nope, it's too slippery of a slope. Though spammers are highly annoying and wreak actual financial loss, their actions are largely legal. Therefore, like it or not, the bastards are entitled to all of their rights under the law.

If we let them do it to spammers, who will be next? P2P file sharers? Oh wait....

And they need this because...

[tgibbs]

Their previous vigorous efforts to stop spam have been so unsuccessful?

Paranoia

[gmuslera]

This kind of things could make spammers paranoid, if its in deep secret. Maybe this measures will not get lifetime jail or finger mutilation for the spammers, but if at least they can't sleep in peace is a good first step.

Interesting idea...

[d3faultus3r]

But I doubt it'll do much good. Spammers constantly change their email addresses anyway and use services like hotmail which are hard to trace. It doesn't really matter if they're tipped off or not because of this. Secrecy benefits spammers, the less the public knows about them the more they thrive. If a large public investigation on them begins many of them will give up out of fear, even if only a few are caught.

Re:Interesting idea...

[nocarborundum]

This ain't about the chickenboners. It's about the mainsleaze -- specifically, it's about *protecting* and *legitimizing* their "right" to spam the living snot out of us.

The Answer is ... Unacceptable

[Saint Stephen]

Is this acceptable, or another mis-step down the slippery slope?

It's my personal opinion that playing Big Brother is SUCH a dangerous intoxicant, that it is no way ever acceptable. However, this does not mean some times it is not necessary. (The conculusion to draw is that it is sometimes necessary to do unacceptable things.)

I used to know this guy, well, let me just say he built a lot of airfields in Honduras in the 80's okay? I asked him: "Is Big Brother here?" He said: "When he wants to be."

We cannot avoid that sometimes our government *needs* to do sneaky, underhanded, yet wonderfully effective shit. This ain't one of those times.

MOD THIS UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Although he fails it, he makes a good point. Spam first, free speech next.

Re:MOD THIS UP

[Uber Banker]

Yeah.

> I'm generally against government secrecy, but quietly investigating spammers isn't as bad as secret courts and arrests.

And secret courts and arrests aren't as bad as automatic imprisonment on suspect of sending spam, which isn't as bad as automatic imprisonment on suspect of infringing the DCMA, which isn't a bad as public execution, which isn't as bad as holocost.

Slippery slope indeed.

Law is law. Law is dictated by the government. Infringement of the law deserves punishment. 'Secretly investigating spammers' gives an excuse for secretly investigating [if the need is worthwhile...what is worthwhile?] and will never stand up in court as it is not founded in law an fancy lawyers can get around it [unless another law is made].

Can you see beyond your nose?

YALWC (Yet Another Left Wing Conspiracy)

[Anonymous Coward]

Having seen federal employees at work first hand I am against any sort of Government secrecy. If we grant secret investigations to anyone we run into two inherent problems:

1) You are trusting that those doing the investigating are competent and ethical.
and
2) The door is now open for other secret investigations.

We've given up enough of our freedom over the last few years, to give up even more would be trouble. Does anyone actually believe that the US Government can stop spam?

Our Freedoms...

[NavelFozz]

I don't think this kind of thing NEEDS to be secret. While spam is annoying, it certianly doens't fall under a heavy enough category in my book (rape, murder, mass murder, etc) to require ANYTHING near secret investigative power...

If we all have the right to face our accuser - NOTHING should get in the way. Nothing short of the threat of further murder, at least in my book.

Freedom is the right to voice your opinion.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" -- George Orwell

First they came for the....

[jon787]

First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

-- Alara Rogers

(why did the lameness filter try to block this?)

Re:First they came for the....

[kindbud]

(why did the lameness filter try to block this?)

Maybe it's using a Bayesian classifier now, and your post scored lots of hits against tokens in the lame.db.

Re:First they came for the....

[bobintetley]

> (why did the lameness filter try to block this?)

Because your post will compress to a relative size (compared to uncompressed) below the filters threshold I'd guess.

This is because there is a lot of repetition in your post and compression is about finding and tokenising patterns.

Nice adaption though - good post :)

Re:First they came for the....

[travdaddy]

First they came for the spammers. But I sure as hell am not damn dirty spammer scum, so I didn't speak up.

Re:First they came for the....

[nocarborundum]

Cute, except for one thing: they're not coming for the spammers.

If you read the proposed legislation and regulations, and the comments of those promulgating them, you will quickly realize that this is the most DMA-friendly "enforcement" under the sun.

This ain't about stopping spam. It's about *protecting* spam.

Doing the "investigating" in secret is a fantastic way of protecting the Poor Misunderstood MainSleaze Spambags from being stigmatized.

RAWRRRR!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this acceptable, or another mis-step down the slippery slope?

I'd say it mostly depends on whether or not they are known for using such activities as leverage for doing something more despicable (in the public's eye).

Tsk Tsk

[michaelhood]

"He who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither freedom or security." -Benjamin Franklin

Our government

[Anonymous Coward]

is totally full of shit. Bureaucrats make up most of the federal government as it exists now (the entrenched politicians who rarely face serious challengers when reelection time rolls around basically fall into that category, along with the interest groups they cater to). When you have an ongoing "crisis" situation that naturally requires big power grabs and appropriations of taxpayer dollars in order to address a problem that none of the bureaucrats and "elected" officials have a clue about solving, this is the short of garbage you end up with. Considering the large number of apathetic boobs out there, it's pretty clear that nothing will change until the system collapses under its own weight.

This is silly...

[Doppler00]

I don't understand why we are still bothering with trying to enforce, with law, protocols that are inherently insecure. Could you imagine if instead of patching buggy software, we just sent law enforcement out everytime someone exploited a bug in Internet Explorer?

The solution is to replace e-mail, with something that requires authentication and encryption. Anyone have suggestions to what is out there already to solve this problem?

Re:This is silly...

[Gabe Garza]

The solution is to replace e-mail, with something that requires authentication and encryption. Anyone have suggestions to what is out there already to solve this problem?

If there was, would it matter? SMTP may be an inherently insecure protocol, but the infrastructure that's been built up to support it is immense: clients and servers for more architectures then you can imagine, the training for both the users and administrators of those programs, the training for the help desk staffers of the ISP's that support the clients (most SMTP users aren't Linux junkies pining for the bleeding edge of technology--learning something new for them is tough), the time required to create, rigorously define, and refine the new protocols, etc.. The merits of the technology matter less then you'd think.

I think legislature is likely the best hope for eliminating spam--and I don't think good anti-spam legislature needs to make the FTC a domestic intelligence agency.

Re:This is silly...

[nocarborundum]

SMTP was not designed for use in a hostile environment, and the inherently trusted environment for which it was designed no longer exists.

Thanks to the DMA and the congresswhores in their pocket, we'll shortly have no recourse other than to kiss our email goodbye.

In its wake, I expect something like a robust enhanced form of client-to-client RSS to be developed.

Of course, there's always Bayesian analysis waiting in the wings. I'm running K9 and it's *frighteningly* effective. But still, I'm stuck with downloading the spewage anyway, even though K9 does categorize it so that I can filter it into a toiletpatch.

It's just a matter of time before server-side Bayesian filtering becomes commonplace. At that time, spam is dead. But, it'll only be dead until the DMA & gang can round up the usual suspects and get them to make Bayesian filtering illegal.

Think that's far-fetched?

Think again. We've already got Movers & Shakers suggesting that it's a violation of "advertisers' First Amendment rights" for people to skip over commercials on time-shifted teevee programs.

Evil knows no bounds. "Ethics" in the post-clinton era is defined as "whatever you can get away with". And the DMA-enabled regulatory superstructure can get away with pretty much anything.

Slippery slope?

[erroneus]

Secret investigations? Why should they be necessarily secret? What advantage would it give the prosecution?

After reading the last story about spammers hijacking address space in order to support their efforts, I can only say that spamming at this level is quickly becomming a very high-profile crime.

I am beginning to think that not only should spammers be prosecuted as a first degree felony at certain levels, but the people who pay spammers should also be held responsible for the actions of spammers as well.

Simply put, there is no justification for spamming. If you have subscribed yourself, knowingly or otherwise, to some advertiser we, as users, should have the right to block any unwanted email.

There are many approaches to the problem. Some suggest revising the protocols email servers operate under might be an appropriate suggestion. I actually agree with this idea in spite of the obvious difficulties deployment will cause. Other angles include legal [criminal] strategy which I also support. It's clear the senders recognize their emails are unwelcome and go through great pains, illegal or questionably legal. They know what they are doing is unwanted, unwelcome and in the morally inappropriate. It's time to put the law behind this as well.

I find it difficult to imagine a case where "innocent" people could be hurt by legislation that aggressivly criminalizes spamming. Can anyone think of a scenario where innocents could be hurt?

Re:Slippery slope?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you accept that all email that mentions a commercial product is SPAM, then fine - eliminate all spam by prosecuting email senders that are sending commercial messages.

If, however, you agree that email sent in a particular way (cloaked return addresses) without a legitimate removal method is spam and there can exist commercial uses of email, then you cannot start criminal prosecution of spam.

Why not? Because you cannot choose to use a "I know it when I see it" standard for spam. Not when it involves any sort of prosecution.

To seriously eliminate spam we have to go back to the 80's for Internet use. Any mention of a commercial product is a violation that gets your service turned off. Period. No commercial use of the Internet. No corporate web sites hawking products, no USENET pollution by porn purveyers, no "web stores" that are just electronic catalogs.

The reason for this is because just like network television is unwatchable because of the ads, any space where commercial interests are allowed in will quickly become overwhelmed by them. They all have to go!

Re:Slippery slope?

[kindbud]

Can anyone think of a scenario where innocents could be hurt?

Worm, virus, security breach, human error - there are lots of ways an innocent party could fall victim to shoddy law enforcement with little oversight.

Re:Slippery slope?

[nocarborundum]

Oh, please. Defining "unsolicited commercial email" is not rocket science. And it's certainly not even *close* to the hackneyed "I know it when I see it" thang.

Sending unsolicited "postage-due"/"recipient-pays" advertising is theft of time and theft of services.

I repeat: figuring this out is not rocket science.

secretive.. so they can do nothing

[kaltkalt]

We're working really hard on reducing spam, but what we're doing is a secret. Uh huh.

Send the spammers to Guantanimo with the terrorists. Can you say MILITARY TRIBUNAL? If Ashcroft can suspend due process for those suspected of terrorism, then surely he can suspend due process for those caught spamming. if he can't, let's amend the constitution... 5th and 14th amendments shall not apply to anyone involved in direct marketing, and the 8th shall not apply to anyone involved in spamming. Who's with me?

Make spam illegal!

[NavelFozz]

Why should we let them place wiretaps on spammers, who, mind you, at present commit no crime? Why not just make spam a crime and let them get a warrent like any other enforcement agency? It seems, at the least, they should have to go before a judge. To give a commerce regulatory agency spying powers is absurd and smacks of a police state. Let them regulate commerce, but leave spying to law enforcement and national security.

Re:Make spam illegal!

[geekoid]

many elements of spam ARE illegal.
A lot of SPAM is fraud, in some states forged email headers are illegal, etc...
In California SPAM any unsolicited email that is an advertisment for a product its spam, and its illegal.

Reporter Drama?

[ambisinistral]

Uhh... aren't most criminal investigations confidential while they're being conducted? The "Secret Investigation" bit seems like a bit of over the top nonsense for a newspaper story lead.

Yea, let the FCC investigate then prosecute the scum. Fine by me.

Bad phraseology from Washington Post?

[Zocalo]

Actually, given the article doesn't go into specifics, this is probably nothing more than a request for the FTC to acquire the right to wire tap a suspected spammer's phone/internet connections etc. As long as they have to get a warrant from a judge like everyone else is supposed to, I can't see *anyone* except spammers having a problem with this.

Go FTC I say - and you all are forwarding your spam to "uce@ftc.gov" and 419s to "419.fcd@usss.treas.gov", yes?

Word to non-idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just another attempt by a bureacracy to make inroads into control of the internet. The chief aim of a bureaucracy to grow ever larger and prolong its lifetime indefinitely. If the WoT gives them an excuse to more zealously protect people from themselves, it's a golden opportunity for them. Inevitably, there's some vocal cheerleader for government intervention "in this particular case". And the band plays on...

Might be a good thing, or . . .

[LordKaT]

On one hand, this may be a good thing. spammers are known to be some very crafty thieves. They can hide their trails very well; however, once there the slightest inkling that there is something wrong, they can very easily hide their tracks.

This may be a good thing, since it may give the FTC power to actually enforce regulations on spam.

On the other hand, this may be just a way for the FTC to say "hey, we're doing something about it, but it's a secret," and leave it as no more than a simple PR stunt.

--LordKaT

Yep

[md81544]

I'm comfortable with this... in fact I'm hoping this is what the alleged death chamber at Guantanamo Bay is earmarked for.

How is this Privacy?

[oaf357]

The FTC wants more power to stop spammers. GREAT! Let them have it. If the size of my inbox goes down and I don't have to implement as many spam filters then it will be great.

The FTC is involved because the Internet has become a way to trade. The Internet though isn't solely a money venture, it's a library containing a great deal of information (among other things). The only reason this is a "privacy" issue is because of this information. If the sole purpose of the Internet was to make money it might not even be an issue of privacy.

The ability to keep criminal investigations private isn't a new thing. There is no reason that the FTC should have to divulge information about on going investigations regarding spammers. The FTC should have the ability to say, "Yes, we're investigating a number of spammers." and not have to tell Congress and the public who.

The only thing that really concerns me is this:

"The FTC also said Congress should revoke an exemption in the law that restricts its authority over telecommunications firms and other 'common carriers'."

If Congress decides to let the FTC do as it wishes with common carriers that might unknowingly harbor spammers it could be very, very bad for Internet users and ISPs. The FTC should not become the RIAA/MPAA. The FTC should go after the people generating the spam, not the networks the spam traverses.

Comparisons

[cethiesus]

Is it just me, or is the government becoming that annoying 12-year-old at your weekly D&D game?

NSA: I want INVISIBILITY AMULETS!!!
Homeland: Then I want a +5 Ring of DOOM!!
FTC: If they get that then I want a secret +8 Sword of SLICING!
GM: *Moves to Canada*

IF

[geekoid]

they need to get a court order, and go through due process, fine.
If they want a blanket policy that they get to secretly pursie whomever they want, then NO WAY!

The devil is in the details.

[twitter]

What exactly are they asking for? I did not see anything about hacking into boxes, but that sounds about right. What "extra powers" are they really asking for?

I'm suspicious about any additional powers being granted. The same arguments can be made for any crime in the public eye, "We must violate your rights in order to combat this_daterdly_deed" All criminals hide their assets. That does not make me want my tax money paying government clerks to read my email.

I'm waiting for the big sting that shows that most spam is comming from MSNBC, AOL, Earthlink and others who advertise "spam fighting email service". I doubt I have to give up any more for this than I gave up when "Steven Barkto" got nailed. Spam, not everloving, astroturfing Microsoft!

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

[blakestah]

Number 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Number 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

See essay here

how do they intend to investigate

[moocat2]

I don't have a problem with secret investigations provided the law is not broken in order to carry it out. For example, if they wish to purchase the advertised service to check whether the claims about it are correct, I see no problem in doing that without informing the person who they are looking into. On the other hand, if they start doing phone or data taps, they had better get a warrant first.

And another question is what happens once the investigation is done. If punishment can be handed down with due process, then that is seriously troubling. But if after the investigation, an open court proceeding is still required, then I don't see this taking us down an Orwellian path.

Re:how do they intend to investigate

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, if they wish to purchase the advertised service to check whether the claims about it are correct

You mean, they would buy penis pills to see if they work?

bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

SOCKS proxy, proxy chaines, SMTP server.... Diff country.. SO what can they do? are they planning to knock on the door of some poor outter mongolian monk?

Hey, a good use for RICO!

[Tackhead]

> RICO will only be used against drug dealers

Speaking of which, why can't RICO be used against spammers?

I mean, there's plenty of police departments and schools in every county that could use a fresh set of computers.

In impoverished states like Floriduh (which seem to have higher concentrations of con artists of all stripes, including spammers), there's probably even more need at the local level for a reliable source of "used" hardware.

(Just make damn sure to wipe the disks. And use some lysol on the keyboards. Imagine giving your school 30 computers that had Spammer on 'em. Eew :-)

Protection

[guibaby]

Everybody deserves protection. Even spammers. Government should be as open as possible, even if it makes the governments job more difficult.

Quick...

[rune2]

Where are those aerial pics of that guy's house?

"as long as its the other guy"

[nurb432]

If you even have to ask, then there is something wrong.

OF COURSE its a slippery slope.. any time you give the goverment more power.. ' as long as its not me'.. it will be you the next time and who is going to stand up and say no for you?

Secretly, why secretly?

[Anonymous Coward]

A public investigation of SPAMers would be just as effective.

What is it with America and secrecy?

Yes, I KNOW, its a secret.

Secrets lead to abuse

[Weasel Boy]

The problem with secrets is, it makes it too easy for someone with power to screw someone without it. History has shown, over and over again, that secrecy inevitably leads to abuse. Transparency is the key to honesty. The only way to protect the rights of individuals from being trampled is to forbid the government to keep secrets except in matters of extremest urgency. The end does not justify the means.

Hellllllo...how can we help you?

[djupedal]

ring....ring.....

Hello...this is Anxious Arnie's Aircraft Painting and Renovation Service. Arnie speaking. How can we help you today?

Hi....thanks...this is um....Bob, from the FTC. Do you guys paint...say...helicopters?

Why yes, we do. In fact we have a special running this month. One free with every six orders. How many helicopters do you have and what color did you want?

We have ten helicopters and we want them painted all black.

Oh...I see. Well, we're all out of black right now, sorry...the new Homeland Security Department just had us do a dozen choppers for them. Paint's still wet, as a matter of fact. If you can wait a week, we can do them for you then.

Ok, I understand...let me check with my boss and someone will call you right back, thanks! [click...bzzzzzz]

Re:I WOULD LIKE A HUGE PENIS, AND BIGGER TITS FOR

[Anonymous Coward]

Arkansas, right?

Though it may just be Norwich...

Spammers have rights too

[kwiqsilver]

Unless convicted, they have the same right to privacy that any suspected murderer has. After all, the spam suspect could be innocent. The Feds have been known to make a mistake or two.
If convicted though...time to push the limits of the 8th Amendment.

I am cornfused

[GnuPengwyn]

if it's supposed to be secret, then why did they tell us? Makes you think don't it.

Let them get a warrant

[cyberformer]

Spamming should be treated like any other crime. There need to be the usual safeguards, but there's no need for either special protection for spammers or special powers for the cops investigating them. The most important rules are:

• FTC should get a warrant, just as the cops do when investigating other crimes.
• Alleged spammers should get their day in court, in front of a judge and jury. Even spammers are innocent until proven guilty, and entitled to the same (rapidly diminishing) constitutional rights as everyone else.

RTFA?

[CracktownHts]

Or maybe I just can't figure out what they mean by "secret investigation". The article isn't too clear on that. For example, cops often pretend to be drug buyers or 12 year old girls, because it's hard to investigate certain kinds of criminals any other way. However, the cop has to later testify in court and answer for the results of his/her investigation. So it's only a secret until someone gets arrested.

It looks like they're just asking to be granted law enforcement powers ("you're under arrest for fraud") instead of just regulatory powers ("stop doing that or we might send you a nasty letter").

I don't see what that has to do with YRO. The article says the FTC wants to go after people who send "deceptive emails", not necessarily spammers in general, even though in practice they're really the same group. I could argue that there exists a right to send bulk emails, but I would never argue that there exists a right to commit fraud.

They seem to be required to do more than a citizen

[silas_moeckel]

It would seem that currently they have to notify somebody if they are going to investigate them unlike a normal citizen. Granted I'm sure they will make a power grab for a lot more than just using this for spammers.

BY GOD I WANT A STARCHAMBER

[Crashmarik]

BY GOD I WANT A STARCHAMBER

The FTC should have the ability to slap these people in irons and flog them. If theyre in foreign countries send in the marines, remember Nooriega.

Ashcroft

[BigBadBri]

It's them spammers!

Their porn saps American manhood!

Their adverts for 9-inch dicks make the average American feel inadequate by 50%!

Their 419 scams are designed to exploit American stupidity!

Damn - their natural Viagra doesn't even work! Why, I jumped on Mrs Ashcroft the other night, after a whole packet of herbal Viagra, and never even touched the sides!

Re:Ashcroft

[Anonymous Coward]

Those giving up liberty to obtain temporary spam-safety deserve neither liberty nor 9 inches!!

To what end?

[fdawg]

From reading part of the article, I gather that this is all in an effort to stop fraud. I was under the impression that fraud already had more than enough legislation to find the authors of such emails and take them to court.

Laws like this, being secretive, make me worry quite a bit as to how far legislators are willing to go. There is no need to be secret. Secrets can be abused.

Too late...

[sik puppy]

If a secure authentication type system of email was to be implemented, the time to do it is past. Spam has become such a major problem that the US government has taken notice. The proverbial camel has its nose in the tent. Look forward to having Uncle Sam sticking his nose all over the place on the internet now.

The only plus side might be that a few of those foaming-at-the-mouth ultra conservatives might give themselves a heart attack when they see some of the sites that are spamvertised.

Why investigate secretly?

[asscroft]

I don't see why they need to be more secret than they can already be legally. Spammers are a pretty blazen bunch doing MASSIVE mailing. That shuold be easy to detect without special powers.

A technological solution first

[jafac]

Despite how much I detest spam, and would like to see every dirty rotten spammer strangled by his or her own entrails on Pay Per View, I see this as just the absolute worst wrong approach.

Especially in light of how badly the US's system of checks and balances has been skewed and manipulated in recent years.

This is something that needs to be very carefully considered. We need to tread lightly here, and our rights should not be traded for political grandstanding. (gee, wouldn't YOU like to be the senator who can claim he "defeated spam"?).

I think that first of all, we need to be honest here and admit that the email protocol, as a standard, is simply weak. In that it so easily allows spoofing of sent-from addresses.

I'm not proposing that the current email standard be eliminated. There are a lot of great reasons why we need to keep it, including the very real NEED for people to be able to send email anonymously.

But I think that there is a real need in the marketplace for either a new email standard protocol, or a revision to the existing one, which:
1. Forbids anonymous access - anyone who sends must be verified and accountable for what he or she sends.
2. Secure - Does not permit spoofing, etc.
3. Is cross platform, free, open, all that good stuff.

Then build laws around THIS system, which forbid unsolicited commercial use.

What could this be used for that regular email cannot currently be used for? How about communication between geographically separated parents and children? Right now, I can't give my kids email access for fear of them opening a spam with a picture of mr. goatse.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and "protect the children" is the "killer app" of that necessity. The person who comes up with a viable solution, and gets it to the right marketing channel will become rich.

But what part of spamming is illegal?

[macrealist]

Yes, sending paedophilic pictures to anybody and everybody is not legal, but that is an extreme, and as far as I can tell, rare.

What do spammers do that is illegal? Not too much. Nearly everything spammers do is annoying, but not illegal. The article mentioned "criminal penalties should be explored for those who falsify their return addresses." Making spoofing addresses a crime (for anyone, spammer or not) criminal would be good.

The FCC is a regulatory commision not a law enforcement branch of government. Let the FCC regulate email marketers like it regulates other phone marketers, and approriate law enforcement authorities go after individuals that break the law.

i want secret powers too!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

what the fuck, they CANT do this!!!!

i want super secret hero powers to.

super secret powers to kick them asses.

this world is so sick. wonder if the aliens really consider to visit us some day.

if they do, i think their just as sick as us.

oh, and btw, dont forget to feed your ultra mutant turtle ninja tubbiez.

no way

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I hate spammers there is no way they need to investigate in secret. Givem an inch they take the whole thing.

George W. Bush is a patriot

[Anonymous Coward]

I think think that Mr. George W. Bush is a patriot. He is reading books. He is bombing contries which are dangerous to America. He makes people talk what they are decided to talk.

He is an extrea-ordinar good presidend.

when you see headlines like these...

[73939133]

When you see headlines like these:

• FTC Wants Secret Spam Investigation Powers
  
• Baldness hope as birds get teeth
  

you just know the third millenium has arrived.

Investigate? Okay...

[geekwench]

...but I would be a lot happier if I knew that the results of the investigation were going to be turned over to an agency like the FBI. Happier still if the intent were to work with local and federal law enforcement agencies to prosecute fraud. (Spam, while incredibly annoying, isn't a crime. Fraud certainly is. And if it can be proved that any of the pr0n spams that regularly befoul my in-box also went to a minor child, that's a whole other legal can of worms.)

From the article, it seems as though the FTC is asking for powers beyond its regulatory charter, and that makes me a more than a little nervous. No government agency has ever relinquished a power that has come into its possession, at least not any that I know of.

Hell, I've got a much better solution. Rather than turning spammer's PII over to law enforcement, it should be posted on a public forum, as some of the hackers have resorted to doing with one or two of the worst offenders. How many Fingerhut and Lillian Vernon catalogues do you think it'll take before the spammers collectively yell "Uncle"??

Isn't this the way it's supposed to work?

[LostCluster]

Last I checked, going back as far as our system goes, the way things worked is that investigations were conducted as quietly as possible by the police, who quietly ask the permission of judges for warrants when they have a good reason to violate somebody's privacy. When the police have a suspect that they're sure about, they make an arrest.

At that point, the suspect are quickly told what they are being accused of, shown what evidence has been collected, and given the chance to challenge any evidence that may have been improperly gathered, and if evidence is found to be improper it is ignored. Any witnesses that are brought forward to accuse them are made available to be questioned by those representing the suspect, and those representing the suspect's side also get the same ability to force a witness to testify as the government for use in their defense.

Investigations secret, accusations public... seems to be working well enough so far.

Re:Isn't this the way it's supposed to work?

[buss_error]

And the FTC needs secret powers exactly why? They don't have to go around the block beating a drum and tooting a horn during an investigation. They can keep their mouths shut exactly to the extent allowed by current law (which is plenty, during an investigation by law enforcement).

And go look at the FSA courts. Even the FSA judges were saying (before being ordered to shut up) that the abuse of power in that secret court was wide spread and shocking.

Re:Isn't this the way it's supposed to work?

[Ioldanach]

And the FTC needs secret powers exactly why? They don't have to go around the block beating a drum and tooting a horn during an investigation.

Because they pretty much do have to go around the block beating a drum and tooting a horn during their investigation. They don't have the right to perform an investigation with anywhere near the same level of secrecy as the police. Provided that's precisely what they get, I'm good with that.

As much as I hate spammers...

[Dogun]

Secret investigations are a big no no.

FTC, just do it the old way.

Huh?

[Kjella]

If they use every dirty trick in the book and think nothing of emailing paedophilic pictures to anybody and everybody, don't spammers deserve the same level of attention as other criminals? Why should they be any different from other people who openly break the law for personal profit?

What the fsck are you talking about? Let me know which spammers send out kiddie porn, and I'll find you a lot of people that would love to recieve it and blame it on SPAM.

Or are you referring to all those "Barely legal" "Underage" pr0n where it says in fine print "All models actually 18+"? Spamming in general isn't illegal in large parts of the world either.

Of course, here in Norway both are illegal. Both to SPAM and to pretend you're underage (yes, really! anyone sending an "Underage" spam pretending to be less than 16 could technically be sued for distributing kiddie porn, even the models are of legal age). I remember some telesex companies had to drop a few fantasies...

Anyway, back to the point I think the FTC could find more than enough spammers as it is if they only tried a little. It's not like there's few to take from, or that most are good at hiding their tracks....

Kjella

Re:Huh?

[fenix down]

(yes, really! anyone sending an "Underage" spam pretending to be less than 16 could technically be sued for distributing kiddie porn, even the models are of legal age)

Most places work that way. I don't think the US has a federal law about that, but most states see no difference between a 30-year-old represented as 16 and an actual 5-year-old. That's the whole reason for the 18+ disclaimer. Maybe Norway works with a stricter interpretation, since most of the US can get away with those creepy-ass shoots of tits-the-size-of-Ohio porn stars in pigtails, fake freckles, and schoolgirl plaid, so long as they put a *18 somewhere.

And why don't providers implement proper filters?

[TyrranzzX]

No, seriously, bayesian filtering works, as does blacklisting addresses and implementing anti-account harvesting systems. And it isn't like the tech is difficult to get your hands on either.

The solution to spam isn't going to be in letting big brother take care of it for us, I'm sorry. The solution is in the use and proliferation of the proper technologies that are designed to block spam and the creation of a community throughout humanity that can coordinate to stop the problem. Yes, spammers will find a way around them eventually, but making it much harder to do something means that less people are going to try, and one guy in nigeria spending 24/7 to figure out a way to get past a bayesian filter isn't going to defeat a hundred or so fathers who are good programmers who also don't like their kids getting porn and other junk.

The only kind of law I would like is a law that punishes companies who hire spammers, the threshold of proof being at least X number of e-mail advertising the company in question and no proof on the part of the advertising company that they didn't hire anyone. The fine being around to the tune of $50 a e-mail. It doesn't leave the term spam out in the open, and it doesn't keep protesters and free media places from spreading their word.

This kind of legislation is obviously brought up by worried companies who think this will help or solve the problem, and offset some of the the cost of blocking spam onto citizens. Kind of sad really, I'd rather see them targeting telemarketers.

"Before it gets out of hand"

[m0rphm0nkey]

"Dealing with the emotional reaction of spam by millions of users requires our immediate attention before it gets out of hand," Swindle said.

Before?!

Spam TIA?

[wytcld]

Personally, while I'm totally against informing on random contacts who might be "suspicious," I'm totally for mobilizing the citizenry to jail spammers. The difference is: spammers are not random contacts - we wouldn't even notice them if they weren't in fact doing evil. So don't waste government employee resources, just set up a system where citizen leads are entered into an intelligent database that then is directly used by special prosecutors whose budget is financed by total confiscation of any home, building, vehicle, computers or other property used in conjunction with the crime of spamming.

This is a case where abundantly redundant evidence can easily be gathered if hundreds of thousands of pissed off citizens can report. Set a threshold of, say 1,000 complaints to jail any particular spammer, and employ people who know how to analyze e-mail headers, and the chance of frameups will closely approach zero. At that threshold, set a minimum sentence equal to first time sales of crack cocaine, and impose a three strikes=life penalty beyond that. Make some exception for minors, but impose the death penalty for employing minors in the act of spamming. Provide the same penalties as for spamming to those who knowingly sell network resources directly to a spammer (with a threshold for "knowingly" that also reflects a certain number of citizen reports - say 100).

Technology and citizen vigilance can make this the most fairly enforce set of laws in history. We need to free ourselves from this climate of anything-goes commercial abuse of honesty and business standards. Criminal law belongs here as much as anywhere - but unlike most of criminal law, citizen vigilance can be particularly effective, cost-saving, and preclusive of a government agency itself achieving too much power or secret police status. Because the crime is computer- and internet-enabled, so can be the solution, using the strengths of our systems and online community to put these bastards beyond all access to the net and the streets.

Definately Not!

[rossz]

As much as I hate spammers (slow torture is the proper punishment for them), I don't like the precedence it would make. Give the government a little "secret power" for one situation, and they'll start expanding it into everything.

The possibility for abuse is far too great. Every single extra bit of power given to the government has been abused. WITHOUT EXCEPTION!

Is anyone searching for this quote?

[Anonymous Coward]

"They came after the Jews, and I was not a Jew, so I did not object.

They came after the Catholics, and I was not a Catholic, so I did not object.

They came after the trade unionists, and I was not a trade unionists, so I did not object.

Then they came after me and there was nobody left to object."

Secret Investigations as Slippery Slope?

[cait56]

Unlike the Patriot Act, this proposal only allows temporary secrecy.

That's a vital constraint against government abuse.

If they want to secretly investigate you they have to claim you're a terrorist, and not just a spammer.

I just hope it doesn't inspire terrorist to start sending SPAM in order to get the better terms.

Quick and easy solution

[Jack Comics]

The quick and easy solution to the problem of spam is to declare Nigeria as a member of the Axis of Evil, and list it among the countries that need liberation. After Syria of course.

But what are they asking for?

[Halo-]

The article has very little information. The FTC is asking for the power to investigate "secretly". What does this mean? If it means they simply want the ability to setup email "stings" (e.g. email addresses like cutegirl123@hotmail.com instead of spamcop@ftc.gov) then I have no problem. If it means they want to start wiretapping without warrants, that's a different issue.

Indeed

[jefu]

In fact, corporations have legal protections that most (human) individuals do not. Corporations can not go to jail. This is a far reaching right indeed - for being charged with offenses far worse than most individuals are charged with, corporations do not even get jailed awaiting trial. This is in itself a serious punishment for individuals - you can end up in jail, unable to earn a living or even consult freely with your legal advisors - for periods of months or years. Even when bail is granted to individuals it is often in the form of bond which can be very expensive for most people.

Corporate officers can also be sheltered from legal repercussions in many cases.

And while it may not be a consideration for all, corporations have no ethical, moral or religious standards to uphold or be held to.

As is often said :
Corporations have no soul to damn nor body to kick.

... obligatory 1984 remark

[Synic]

double plus good!!

B.F.

[Paradise Pete]

They who would give up essential liberty for temporarily less spam deserve neither liberty nor less spam.

Worst offending spammers?

[SystematicPsycho]

Worst offending spammers? Is that the ones who sends 1,000,000 emails to get one reply instead of 100,000 to get one reply?

A question...

[Grymes]

Can someone perhaps more closely involved with an ISP explain why hasn't there been a more concerted effort to limit the number of emails that can originate from a particular email address. I would assume that very few individuals send a large number of emails and that any reputable organization would not mind the inconviniece of a more formal proccess, perhaps akin to the registration of domain names. This would allow oversight without uneccessary intrusion into most users privacy. Of course should an individual wish to send large numbers of emails he or she would have to weigh the advantage of this privilege against the potential intrusion posed by the registation proccess. Could someone point out to me the where a solution of this sort would break down?

Secret Investigation?

[autopr0n]

Well, seems reasonable. Most investigation is secret. As long as they publish the charges if they actually indict

Hey!

[ASayre8]

Hey! Don't tell them to spam me!

SLIPPERY SLOPE AHEAD!!!!!

[fruviad]

And just WHY do they need to be ultra-secret about investigating spammers? Spammers are just the odd, solitary weasel bulk-mailing you and me! The last thing the government needs is more uber-secrecy, especially over something as wide-ranging as spam.

Transparency. Let's have it in gov't for a change...we haven't seen much of it since Bu$h took office, and I'm really beginning to miss it.

follow your nose, toucan sam.

[moogla]

If you read a previous article about netblock hijacking, the methods by which spammers operate my themselves be illegal. These are the crimes which by investigating, the FTC may expose and leverage for the FBI to bring them to trial (wire fraud, etc.)

Why is this objectionable?

[stygar]

Normal law enforcement officials investigate people without notifying them all the time. Telling someone that you're going to investigate them for criminal activities (therefore giving them a chance to cover their tracks) is just silly. They can find out all they want about the investigation once their trial starts.

We should avoid this at all costs

[VaderPi]

Any kind of "secret" surveillance adds to the "slippery slope". Once it has been done one, it gives if those who want to do so again that much more power. I hate spam. And I feel that those who distribute it are pretty lousy people, but I will not stand silently by and let their right trampled on. Next time it might be my rights that are getting trampled on.

FTC Looses its mind

[jamej]

Secret spam investigations? The idea is fodder for SNL. Unfortunately, these idiots are serious! This insanity has to stop. I guess because FTC is ill equiped to conduct secret/covert investigations the Deparment of Homeland Security will have to do them for the FTC.

Huh?

[ChilyWily]

I read the article but came out feeling that the spam issue is being discussed only superfically and the real will to truely solve the issue is only half-hearted at best.

"E-mail marketers should be required to describe their products honestly and honor consumer requests to be taken off their contact lists, the commissioners said, while criminal penalties should be explored for those who falsify their return addresses."

• I thought false advertising was already disallowed?
• "...honor consumer requests to be taken off..." - hey we never signed up for this in the first place! Why is it so damn difficult to decree that the default preference be "opt-in" rather than "opt-out". How many bazillion times has this been brought up already?

"Because many spammers close up shop and hide their assets once they realize they are being targeted, FTC agents should be allowed to investigate them in secret for a limited period of time, commissioners said, or at least delay notification. FTC agents should be able to review spam complaints amassed by Internet providers and given greater latitude to go after spammers who hijack others' accounts, they said.

The new authority to go after spam should be modeled after the laws that give the FTC jurisdiction over telemarketers, the commissioners said."

• Investigations/warrants today require a court approval for a reason - mistakes are made and the whole idea of a warrant is to provide a check and balance so that innocent people are not squashed under the bulldozer of expediancy! This has worked for all sorts of crimes where law enforcement needs to be undercover...
• "The new authority to go after spam should be modeled after the laws that give the FTC jurisdiction over telemarketers... - And how many here believe that those laws have been so effective that even 10% of the telemarketers have been held at bay?

Sorry, my review is two thumbs down - seems like something else is being sought under the pretext of solving a real problem and that in itself damages the true efforts that are on going to deal with spam.

Secret Investigative, Hearing, and Punitive Powers

[Anonymous Coward]

In this post 9/11 era, the widescale granting of secret investigative and internment powers to various U.S. agencies has proven to be a terrible thing. There now exist documented instances where U.S. citizens have been taken away to military jails and held incommunicado for 8, 10, 12 months. Almost invariably, the granting of secret powers to any government entitity results in abuse and erosion of the civil rights of the people.

However, we're talking about spammers here, people. We're not talking about your terrorists, child rapists, mother stabbers, and those who get small animals addicted to heroin just so they can watch them writhe in withrawal agony - we're talking about the absolute worst of the worst, the most dispicable sociopathic sleazeball scumbags ever to have oozed across the surface of any planet. We're talking about spammers.

No one in their right mind would hesitate for even one second about granting the FTC powers to investigate, detain, execute, and bury in the desert in the dead of night in absolute secrecy these vermin.

Also, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a spammer.

This is bad.

[The AtomicPunk]

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

-Thomas Paine

Re:another mis-step ...

[The Fink]

it's like cutting your leg to save your finger...

~chop of axe through femur~ ~blood-curdling scream~
"There, isn't that better? I mean, at least you can't feel your finger any more..."

kristelnacht

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not a spammer then you have nothing to worry about.

Great!

[skinfitz]

Is this acceptable, or another mis-step down the slippery slope?"

Yes it's a step down the slope (you have to ask HOW "they" are going to investigate without email snooping powers), however like most things in life, there is an exception to every rule, and this is definitely a "fun" slip down that slope.

Next I want the death penalty for spammers. I'm available to flip the switch on the chair if needed. I've got my own mask and everything.

FTC's reason for this

[Andy_R]

"we can't see what Ralsky* is doing behind all those mailbags"

Seriously though, the problen is not that the FTC can't 'investigate' the spammers, it's that they don't/can't DO anything about them. Ralsky has stood up in public and admitted it, how much more information do they need?

*I'm referring to Alan M Ralsky of 5016 Patrick Rd. West Bloomfield, MI 48322 telephone number 248-661-3355 fax number 1-248-661-3054, just in case anyone finds that address useful.

A very slippery slop

[gad_zuki!]

Exactly, transparency in government in all things expect for those rare exceptions in which secrecy must be upheld. Making secrecy the de facto standard (Bush/Cheny and the energy industry's secret talks) is a horrible precedent. I'll take due process and spam over secrecy any day.

Unacceptable

[Wizord]

Government secrecy is simply unacceptable, no matter the "cause". Period.

No Big Deal

[Grue_Food]

So they want to "secretly investigate" spammers? Hmmm... seems to me that with "just cause" any police agency can do that now. I would think that if SPAM is illegal, they would need only "x" number of SPAM email from the same source to justify a warrant etc. Sounds like we're looking for an excuse to get on our soapbox and rant about our rights.

The slope thing...

[gr8_phk]

First, are the spammers actually commiting a crime? Assuming so. Do the cops or feds always notify someone when they're doing an investigation? No. So what exactly are they seeking? More power? What exactly is it they are unable to acheive that would require this? Sounds like it might be a step down the slope to me.

No Thank You Ma'am I'll take the Spam...

[siasl]

With the knee jerk increasing surveillance powers and fast degrading civil liberties in the US these days the corp-gov scares me much more than the spam annoys me.

Mis-Step. Slope. Yep.

[valkraider]

Even scumbags and arseholes have rights. Because the definition of scumbags and arseholes is fluid, and could someday include *you*.

Here...

[Pendersempai]

Oh? Show me where it says in the (US) Constitution you are entitled to unconditional privacy?

I wouldn't dream of showing you, since nine of the best legal minds in the nation have already created a detailed document doing exactly that. I couldn't hope to compete.

It's not unconditional privacy (nothing in law is "unconditional"), but I think it's what you're looking for.

The case is Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and it unambiguously establishes a Constitutional right to privacy. It figured prominently in the much more famous Roe v. Wade decision. Read it; it might make you smarter.

Re:And why don't providers implement proper filter

[poot_rootbeer]

The solution to spam isn't going to be in letting big brother take care of it for us

The solution to crime isn't going to be in letting big brother take care of it for us. Let's take the power back, vigilante justice and lynchings!

I'll save my breath and not explain why spam needs to be prevented at the source rather than discreetly filed to /dev/null after the damage has already been done -- all the arguments have been rehashed forever here. Bayesian filters treat the symptoms of the problem; they are not preventative medicine.

FTC Commisioner Orson Swindle

[Carbon Unit 549]

What's up with that sir name? Kind of ironic.

Swindle Swin"dle, v. t. imp. & p. p. Swindled; p. pr. & vb.
n. Swindling. See Swindler.
To cheat defraud grossly, or with deliberate artifice; as, to
swindle a man out of his property.

Re:Mis-Step. Slope. Yep.

[JuggleGeek]

Even scumbags and arseholes have rights. Because the definition of scumbags and arseholes is fluid, and could someday include *you*.

Shoot, it probably already includes me.

This is about fraud, not spam.

[JuggleGeek]

Their goal isn't to stop spammers. It's to stop fraud.

I'm not convinced that they need any additional powers. They can already arrest people for fraud. On the other hand, maybe they have too much red tape to do so effectively.

Another article on the subject (with better info, IMO) is at ZDNet.

Re:Special powers? Yeah, right.

[nocarborundum]

There is a recent rash of radical laws that prohibit an intermediary (i.e., an ISP, a library, etc.) to disclose to a person that said person has had information handed over to the gov't.

So far as I am aware, however, there is no prohibition against informing someone who is not being investigated that he is not being investigated. (To even suggest otherwise would border on the absurd, n'est ce pas?)

I would not mind receiving a periodical notice from my ISP that I am not being investigated. I doubt *anyone* would mind receiving such presumably legal traffic.

If everyone starts doing it, the entire orwellian superstructure (well, at least the part under discussion) would fall of its own weight.

Die Spammer SCUM!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Spammers are scum and need to be punished. END OF STORY! I dont have kids, but if i did, they wouldnt be allowed to have email because of all the spam. I dont even want to hear the BS about parenting, you shouldnt have to scan every email your child gets just so they dont get enlarge your penis ads. If i scan im being a bad parent for invading their privacy, if i dont im being a bad parent for not monitoring what they do.