Slashdot Mirror
New York Spam Ring Lawsuits
Iphtashu Fitz writes "Microsoft and the Attorney General of New York have announced multiple lawsuits against what they term as a spam ring operating throughout New York and responsible for sending billions of illegal junk e-mail. According to articles at ABCNews.com, CNet News.com and elsewhere the state of New York has filed 6 lawsuits against alleged notoriuous spammer Scotty Richter and accomplices. Richter is well known among the anti-spam community, holding the dubious distinction of being ranked number 3 on the Spamhaus Registry of Known Spam Offenders. Microsoft has seperately filed 5 other lawsuits."
Are they just trying to get their case backlog totally out of the way before the CANSPAM act goes into effect, or what?
Spammers send the spam.. Someone else takes the orders and the money from people who reply to the spam. Is anyone going after them?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What makes you think that spammers aren't already RICO-influenced already?
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
...that way I can just block them at the firewall.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
of course not :)
suing spammers, though, is probably the best course of action open to ms, though. they have has some notorious security flaws that have allowed spammers to set up open relays on ms boxes. their popular email reader has in the past also had some dramatic bugs that have contributed to virus transmission traffic (in the public eye, all nuisance email can get lumped together whether it's "i love you" or "buy viagra").
for ms to make a serious contribution to fighting spam they would either a) have to plug current and potential holes that help propogate "bad" email (malmail?) b) do something else.
while there is the new "security committment" thang going on in redmond and it is probably a good start, doing something in the "something else" category (ie suing spammers) is a lot faster and easier.
2 1337 4 u!
not saying at all that this is not a good initiative in absolute terms.
But I guess that, if ever it improves to reduce the overall amount of mail, Microsoft will use it as another hoax for testifying the usefulness of their brand-new security-policy.
Regards,
jdif
Let's overcome our weakness.
Heck, the first time I saw their site I was amazed at how long and how much work they must have put into it. Now its can all be readily be used as evidence against the spamhauses!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
If we all to 30 minutes per day to fight spam, I think we would be far better off.
I don't know if there are communities of SPAMN fighters but it is obvious that if a small percentage of the population did this, the spam cost effectiveness would disappear.
Some companies out there are frightful with their attitude. For instance, yesterday I got a mortgage offer which forwarded me to a web site which I entered mostly truthful information except the name was different. The offer came with an "exclusive" security system. Double whammy ...
I was called back within minutes by a company in Austin TX and when I asked them about their SPAM policy I got a really rude response. I suspect if they get a few more of these phone calls they'll stop doing this. I also found that a large US bank has web pages that refer to this company. Calling the bank and getting a cogent response about spam was engligtening. No one there can help. I suspect a few phone calls from customers could also help this situation.
Unfortunately, the spammers are pretty astute at making life hell on-line so I think this is only going to work through large numbers of small community groups.
So a question for the slashdot community. Are there any of you interested in organizing ?
I'll back up my (admittedly somewhat bizarre) assertion that fighting spam with legal means is going to be counter-productive.
First, I agree of course that no-one wants spam in the same way as people want drugs.
But. The war on drugs fails not only because people want drugs. Few people want international trafficking in women, nor trade in arms, nor trade in near-extinct animals... Yet none of these prohibited businesses do badly at all. In fact, they do very well.
The principle questions I've asked myself are (a) is it possible to stop spam through law enforcement, and (b) if not, what will the consequence be?
The answer to (a) is clearly "no" for several reasons. Spammers have developed techniques that allow them to work almost untraceably. Forget open relays, that is very 20th Century. Today's spammers use pirated PCs, of which there are probably millions in undetected active use.
The answer to (b) is somewhat more worrying. When spammers operate semi-legitimately, however evil and bestial they may be, they will take some concern to avoid breaking other laws. You will not find snuff videos advertised in spam, nor illegal drugs, nor prostitutes,... Penis extenders and Viagra are annoying, but legal AFAIK.
When spammers are already breaking laws that can land them in jail, why will they stop with a few more felonies. Has the pirated PC be detected and shut down? OK, destroy all data on it, to avoid detection. Sorry, Joe Shmoe. Is there someone blocking your spams through black lists and other means? Perhaps a few bombs in the mail, or even a knock on the door some foggy morning.
The solution to spam lies not in new laws and new criminal offenses. It lies in the protocols and gateways that allow malware to propagate. It lies in that abominable monoculture that leaves tens of millions of people vulnerable. It lies in the definition of new email protocols that are cynical enough for the 21st century.
I believe time will show the legal approach to be woefully misplaced. Jail all the American spammers and watch the problem just keep on getting worse.
Gentlemen, I respectfully rest my case and will now return to my work.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Almost correct, but while I think you understand the fundimental truth here, you are misapplying it.
The fundimental truth is "Where there is demand, there will be supply." All laws can do is change the supply vs. price curve - society sets the demand vs. price curve.
The problem is that it is NOT we-who-receive-the-spam who demand spam - it is the scummy bastards who wish to hawk their wares (or warez) or simply to rip us off who demand spam.
In that regard, banning spam will only raise the price vs. supply curve - the demand vs. price curve will be unchanged.
However, the difference between spam and booze is that the demand vs. price curve for booze remains fairly constant until the price gets very large, while the demand vs. price curve for spam rolls off VERY rapidly as soon as the cost of spamming rises (at least, I *HOPE* that to be the case!)
And upon this rests the success of any anti-spam legislation: does it raise the price vs supply curve enough to shift the intersection with the demand vs price curve to a point of enough lower volume to make a difference?
This is also why "Just Hit Delete" is such TERRIBLE advice - JHD does NOT alter the demand vs. price curve. Giving holy hell to any remotely respectable businessman who uses spam can shift that curve. That is why I keep nailing Sears any time I get a spam from one of their affiliates advertising siding.
www.eFax.com are spammers
If the spammers are using Microsoft software to send the spams then are not Microsoft contributing to the problm and be in the dock with the spammers?
This is not a troll. I am posting this anonymously because I do not wish to get a bunch of hatemail from those of you who have already made up your minds in this case.
However, I know (from first hand experience) that Scott runs a pretty legitimate business. He respects opt-outs. In fact, even if you just reply to his mail he removes your address from his list. The messages he sends do not contain forged headers or forged From lines. The domain names of the servers used to send mail actually do exist.
In my opinion, the real people we need to shut down are those mailing from trojaned computers, or dropping off loads of email from open relays in Korea. These are the people who are abusing the email system the most, and eliminating folks like Scott will have no impact on the messages these types of people send.
The moral of all this is to actually READ the privacy policy at the sites you give your email address to. Make sure that they aren't opting you in to lists you don't want to join. (This is especially true with opt-ins for "general preferences" like shopping, pets, finance, etc.) Make sure that the companies you opt-in with do not own your email address and that they don't share your information with their "marketing partners", BEFORE you sign up. When in doubt, just use some throwaway hotmail or yahoo address to sign up if you really want the mail that bad.
The point is to make spam as expensive as other means of marketing such as direct-mail, telemarketing, and fax blasting. Lawsuits can go a long way towards this.
I would even go further. Even if lawsuits aren't successful in preventing nearly free sending of bulk mails because there are still offshore servers in some countries, where there is no significant risk of being caught, fined or jailed, lawsuits are still helpful. In that case, they improve the efficiency of source-based filters, which work quite well already and are adopted by an increasing number of mainstream e-mail providers. There is a tendency that those mail sources from which legitimate mail is expected are more risky for spammers (provided there are good laws).