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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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).

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?

[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..

[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..

[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,

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[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.

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: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

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?

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....

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.

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: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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.)

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..."