Slashdot Mirror
First Four People Charged Under CAN-SPAM Act
friedo writes "Four people in Detroit have been charged with emailing fraudulent sales pitches under the new federal CAN-SPAM Law. 'They were accused of disguising their identities in hundreds of thousands of sales pitches and delivering e-mails by bouncing messages through unprotected relay computers on the Internet.'"
Sadly, I doubt this will make any difference - they'll just forge more headers.
That won't even dent the problem. At least they're proving that their serious though, but unfortunately, I don't believe in every little helps in the case.
Aw, who am I kidding. Prosecuting people has never been a deterent to the crime.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
"No one's done this before," Feinberg said. "It will be fun -- not for my client but for me professionally." I wonder whose side the Attourney really is on.
je suis parce que j'aime
Now we just need four convicted.
Can't they be charged under 18 USC 1030 for illegal access to systems? If they were relaying messages through machines, odds are the machines were trojaned, and that's considered illegal access.
e w. html
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_n
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
The Lins and Chung could not be located at any of the addresses or telephone numbers listed in the court documents.
...all one hundred thousand of them.
toresbe
just curious how much they could be potentially sentanced for?
any chance they would see the inside of a jail cell over this?
or is it just a monetary fine (i.e. slap on the wrist)
people who do this should be banned from technology a-la Kevin Mitnick
I mean we arrest people for soliciting sex right? [Despite the fact that both sex and commerce are legal... :-)].
So why not make it illegal to buy wares from spammers who don't identify themselves [which keeps the door open for free speech by allowing people who do identify themselves a way out]?
E.g. buy V1c0din from "HornyToad@hotmail.com" and get a 2000$ fine. Sadly the only way to really enforce this would be to send out spam themselves....
Or what they could do is when they catch a spam operation keep the website/email live and catch the people trying to buy the stuff.
Anyways, if you make people who are already leary about buying X.@.n.4.x from people off the net even more leary it hurt their business that much more.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I guess they're wondering if the criminal charges have an 'opt-out' list....
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Who will be the first to blame the owners of said unprotected relays for our spam woes, as opposed to the spammers themselves?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
While the CAN-SPAM act does not prohibit spam per se, it might manage to separate spam into:
* "legal", clearly labeled spam: instant filter-fodder
* clearly illegal spam, where the feds might use their investigative muscle and send the perp to club fed.
While not perfect, I could live with that outcome.
Can we beat a spam by finding and disabling all the open SMTP servers ?
Visit Tutorials & guides collection
How's about opening up a new e-mail account, and hooking them up to an electric chair that delivers 1 volt per spam mail it gets...
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Officials at the Federal Trade Commission, who planned to announce the arrests in Washington on Thursday, told U.S. postal investigators they had received more than 10,000 complaints about unwanted e-mails sent by the company. So they only waited a half hour before signing a warrant?
I don't think this will affect the situation in the short run. I do think that it is a step in the right direction. Perhaps new laws wont be too far off when its noticed that overall CAN-SPAM doesnt have a significant effect on the amount of SPAM; although it will have an effect on where its sent from.
"Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
Only four pieces of canned spammers?
Looking in my today's inbox, that's no big difference...
There you are, staring at me again.
Hangin's too good for 'em.
Burrrnin's too good for 'em...
(T)He(y) should be torn into little pieces and buried ALIVE!!!!
I'LL KILL HIIM! KILL!! STERRRRNNNNN!!!
they can't find three of them.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
What is this going to do to stem the tide of the other 3800 spams I have received in the last 18 hours?
CAN-SPAM is simply an enabling law.
First Four People Charged Under CAN-SPAM Act
You're giving the spammers too much credit.
If they are found guilty, then this is a victory for all free, law-abiding Internet users everywhere.
This sends a message to not abuse the system and violate the laws of this great land. I'm proud of the US Government for enforcing the laws and standing up for all people everywhere.
Here's an article from the tech writer at the Detroit Free Press. He focuses more on the big companies whose relays were abused.
----
WWJD...For a Klondike Bar?
So they do act. Everybody, remember to forward a copy of all your spam to uce@ftc.gov as well as the usual post to nanas and LART to abuse@wherever. It seems that if the FTC build enough info on a spammer then they really will do something about it!
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Sweet!
As long as they don't have to send everyone an apology...
And make sure everybody sees it.
Put aside the bleeding heart prejudice against cruel
and unusual punishments.
I just hope the penalty is severe enough to make CAN Spam economically unviable. Either way, I doubt it will stem the flow of Spam from China and Africa.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
If they're going to go after someone in the Detroit area why not Alan Ralsky?
By just clicking on the link below, and entering your credit card details in the form provided, you too can get instant legal protection from a CAN-SPAM lawsuit. This is a one time only offer.
Click [here] if you do not wish to hear from any of our exclusive offers in the future.
This simply a case for the Federal Trade Commission. The inclusion of CAN-SPAM law into the criminal charges is merely an after thought (as I mentioned before):
From the Article:
By this, as well as the FTC's involvement (see FTC link above), this is a simple case of fraud. The CAN SPAM sentancing guidelines provide for tacking an extra couple of years to the sentance in such a case.
The addition to CAN-SPAM in this case will only serve to attract more attention to the problem of E-mail fraud. My previous statement remains, "an extra 1 to 3 years tacked onto a felony conviction is nothing compared to the sentance that is already being faced."
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
...if the judge calls them SOBs and orders a pineapple shoved up their hind quarters in front of the jury.
looking in todays in box, 25 new spam emails. Way to go goverenment. That will teach them.
So all these Chinese servers sending out spam turn out to be a three Chinese guys in Detroit. :-)
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
How will I receive info on how to make my manhood bigger now?
I think it's time that we all realized that SPAM like other internet annoyences can't really be legislated. They are too distributed a problem. You can't get them all. I doubt you can get enough to make a dent.
Let's hope they're inundated with "get out of jail free" emails for their eternity.
DJ245 writes "Two people at Slashdot have been charged with writing bad slashdot stories under the new Slashdot story guidelines. 'They are accused of using improper verb tense and not putting in a final conspiracy or troll wibble at the conclusion.'"
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
in the prisoner hierarchy. While I don't know first hand, I've heard that depending on your crime, you basically have a rank in the big house. Murders are high while pedophiles are low. While the spammers crime is no where near as bad as the two afore mentioned criminals, everyone except other spammers and this guy hate spammers. So where would a spammer fall on the prison's hierarchy?
If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.
But at least we now know the scum bags names.
Say a rally, a anti-spam rally. Show up at their homes and 50,000 people throw a rock. I don't much believe in violence but this is what spammers do - a stone at a time.
I hope that they sentence the guilty to eat a can of Spam
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Here's hoping that he sees this as his big chance to try the "insult the judge to his face every fifteen seconds" strategy he daydreamed about in law school.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
that hurt you. When you rub your feet on the carpet and go touch someone, that's several kilovolts, but it doen't really hurt. It's the amps that you need. We should start sending him 1 nA for each spam delivered. Even at that rate, he might be dead within a day.
If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.
I would think a lot would have to do with the content of the emails, we're they offering legitimate deals or not? If they were looking to scam people, then I think possibly they could be charged under 18 USC 1030 (a)(4) which is is more than the "mere hack" required in (a)(2).
Usually people are charged under (a)(5) which pertains to outsiders 'hacking' in and causing damage. The damage part is essential and I believe the minimum amount of actual damages required is $5k (forgive me if that's wrong, i'm doing this from memory). Although to be honest with you, as most slashdotters know, the damages are always trumped up in these cases - a company can go out and basically buy a bunch of routers or whatever and say it was to "Re-secure" their network and that will be considered damages. See United States v. Middeleton 231 F.3d 1207 (2000).
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Seems only fair that the convicted felons have to do serious time.
..
Perhaps we could have them write:
"I am sorry for wasting people's time and resourses." Maybe 10 to the power of # spams sent.
--
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
Investigators said they consulted Dr. Michael D. Jensen, a medical professor at the Mayo Medical School, who confirmed that ingredients in the weight-loss product sold in the disputed e-mails wouldn't work.
Remarks about spamming itself aside... one has to question the means they are using to charge these guys. How ambigious is this law if the only evidence they needed was, not that they were spamming, but whether the product they were spamming was legitamite.
This proves that politicans don't really care about technology. If this idea were applied to drug law, dealers would get arrested for selling sitty coke instead of getting hit for just selling coke.
but then of course, all these guys are on crack anyways...
-B
they pollute?
have the judge sentence them to a cleanup job for a few years. preferably something really stinky and disgusting.
slave labor, i know. but it should teach them a lesson, more so than being someone's b!tch in a federal PMITA prison.
A joint project of consumer protection agencies from 17 nations:
http://www.econsumer.gov/english/
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
At least we have the names of the 4.. I hope for them we never meet..
This is a very difficult problem. As long as the web is so open and allows anyone to e-mail, this will keept happening. What we need is someone to build a new e-mail system, only run by certified players. That is secure, and all the e-mail is fully encrypted on the servers. Now should this not be a national concern? We already have the law makers on our side. So, techno geeks, have the patience to phone or actually! mail! That way we can no longer keept getting ignored. I bet you if all of us here at slashdot wrote to out government, we would make the news!! Come on people !! Lead the charge!! All we need is to get noticed, and to make bush and kerry realize they need to talk about these issues in public! Just because we don't watch TV doesn't mean we should get punished!
s/sentance/sentence Please?
will there be a public execution?
...I live in detroit...
oh, just a second, someones at the door...
The Soviet Union is the most extreme example in recent history. Their philosophy was the same as that of other nations based on deterence: if the punishment is harsh enough people will be detered from committing the crime. It didn't work, they kept instituting increasingly harsh punishments and crimes continued to be committed. Many people simply do not believe that they will be caught. Talk to people in prison and you will find that they generally break into two categories: those who say they are innocent, and those who say they didn't think they'd get caught. If you don't think you are going to get caught, it doesn't really matter what the punishment is. Its related to the success of the lottery: logically people know that their chances of winning are virtually non-existant. Less logically, people assume that *they* are the special one who is the exception to the rule.
Arond 230 BC, the Ch'in dynasty in China also followed the deterence approach, and it directly lead to their downfall. In the army the penalty for being late was death, and the penalty for mutany was death. A group of conscripts wound up late one day and decided that they might was well mutany since it came to the same thing in the end. England ran into the same problem when they decided to "git tuff" on crime back around 1500 and they made punishments incredibly harsh in hopes of deterring criminals. That's where we got the phrase "as well to be hanged for a sheep as a lamb", since the punishment for both was the same.
Obvously some people, a rather small minority it appears, are motivated by reason on these subjects. I don't play the lottory and I think that the fear of punishment is a factor in my own decision not to commit crimes. But I recognize that I'm not the norm here. Most people just don't think that way, as evidenced by the millions who play lotteries, and the millions in prison.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
He is a federal prosecutor based in Chicago and they have a wide latitude to pursue cases as they see fit. They set up hundreds of email honeypots and pursue any scams, false claims or in this case bunk medical products that are being peddled in spam. He didn't give me any details but he said - "Wednesday we are nabbing some perps..." and sure enough! Another thing he indicated to me was that they can choose their own path of pursuit... he personally likes to go after the 'Award Notifiation' scam - Send us $25 for your reward up to $10,000. That kind of thing. He is currently closing in on one of these individuals... bank accounts all over the world etc. Cellphone spam is another one of his pet peeves because a lot of carriers charge two cents or something per message received - so I forward all of my spam (10,000 pieces a day at least) into one of his honeypots to help his pursuit. Be warned spammers and scammers, there are very smart people who go to work everyday to catch you and they can subpoena server logs all along the way to find you. [+] sniper scope.
Point of clarification. These bozos live or are operating out of a wealthy suburb of Detroit called "Bloomfield Hills." Where your average automotive executive calls home. Not us working class folk.
Why does free speech ALWAYS get brought into this. Spam has NOTHING to do with free speech. The Internet is not free. I pay for MY connection. I pay for my servers. People PAY me to use them. You see this is how I eat!!!! Every site or service you use is paid for my someone. They may allow you "to use" the site for free but it is not free. The person that owns the site can cut it off at anytime. If the person that has the site doesn't pay his ISP then they cut it off. Spammers pay me nothing. They do nothing but cost me money
Free speech is being able to express yourself in public, which I am totally for. If these Spammers want to stand on the side of the road and hawk their wares then fine, but when it comes into this box without expressed permission from me then this is theft of services.
Come on people learn this the Internet is built out of PRIVATE networks that ALLOW public access. Not free networks owned my the public.
Personally I feel jail is wrong in this case. I will be happy to skin them alive with a dull knife would be better. I'll be happy to do the carving for FREE!!!!
Let's get one thing straight right now: These people are not being charged with spamming. They are being charged with spamming in a manner not in compliance with the CAN-SPAM act. Dell, General Electric, and Microsoft (for example) will all be able to comply with the CAN-SPAM act -- it was written for their ilk. Big corporations don't have to worry about some anti-spam vigilante threatening them or their family. They don't have to be concerned that their credit will be destroyed. Then don't have to worry about their phones ringing all night long. The won't be particularly upset if pictures of their headquarters and their contact information appear on Slashdot. They can afford to hire operators to man the phones and deal with angry spam recipients.
These charges are just part of clearing out the small-time operators in order to make room for the big boys. Our fine friends in government want to get rid of the sleaziest stuff so the Fords, Walmarts, and Panasonics of the world can spam without being associated with the Internet porn and snake-oil spams. When the penis enlarger and herbal viagra spams end, then you can expect to see your mailbox filled with spam from major corporations -- all of whom can afford Internet pipes that would make the small-time spammers weak in the knees.
CAN-SPAM is not the last word. Call your Congressional representatives and tell them that you want legislation with teeth that makes all spam (usolicited bulk e-mail) illegal. Make it illegal to send it, illegal to pay someone else to send it, illegal to relay it, and illegal for ISPs to knowingly provide safe havens for spammers. Require that ISPs act within 24 hours of getting notification of spam activity and that they not "warn" spammers. Pressure other countries to pass similar legislation. Don't tell me that it can't be done -- just look at the DMCA-like laws being enacted everywhere and how the draconian laws favored by the RIAA and MPAA are being passed throughout the world due to U.S. pressure.
Not all of the 'internet' is private, a percentage of it is funded by government monies, so that part of it IS public...
But you are correct, its my PC, and there is a cost incurred to me for them to send me their garbage. This is the same as with fax-spam ( also illegal )
Now if they had to reimburse me for receipt of the garbage, then the case might be able to be made.. ( lets hope they never try that )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Or at least have some kind of organization that manages mails/adresses and makes people pay to send a mail to their domain. Then use the money to keep this domain clean.
int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
The CNN article is light on details, but I suspect these stories are related.
My wife is a bakruptcy attorney (in the Detroit area), which means she deals with the federal bar and federal courts, instead of local district courts. Anyway, one of her counterparts across town had an Exchange server zombied. Somehow I think having a pissed-off federal lawyer probably caused more action than the "10,000 complaints" from regular joes cited in the article.
I guess the morale is: If you're going to commit cybercrime, don't do it against a lawyer.
{ - Generic Guy - }
extra 1 to 3 years tacked onto a felony conviction is nothing
Oh yes it is, while you go in thinking it's nothing usualy because it's served concurrently with the primary sentence; I can guarentee that the Parole board will look at it differently. In fact if you cop a plea, you generaly have waived your right to be presumed inocent. The means you did, what you were charged with, not just what you were convicted of. Another Gotcha is these guys now have two felonies, after they do say 7 years of a 7-12 federal sentence, they get out on parole and blow a stop light, in Michigan they are now 3 time lossers and get 1-3 in a MI prison as an habitual offender.
Being in prison is no joke either, think about this;
you're now working for 28 cents an hour, your wife divorces your sorry ass, and child-support leaves you with $7.00 a month disposeable income. If you get sick or injured, medicade has a $3.00 co-pay that's almost half a months income, He'll only tell you "take some asprin and see me in two weeks" so there goes the rest of the months income (don't no-show either, you'll get a ticket for disobeying a direct order, that the parole board won't like). No these guys are going to become four more kiss-ass punks in a world of hurt and are probably too stupid to realise it.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Hey, I work in West Bloomfield where they arrested the guys. I work at the West Bloomfield Public Library. We've had people come in here before to try to spam and have kicked them out. I wonder if it is the same people.
shouldn't it be CANT-SPAM?
No... it's "can" as in "put spam in cans, where it can't hurt people unless they choose to free it themselves".
Kind of makes ou feel bad for Hormel foods, though.
I have seen websites in the past that one could enter their address and stuff and it would send a letter to their legislators. Anyone want to write up a nice little letter that either people could copy and email, or make a page that would automate this process?
Better to throw them in "court" based on a few million pieces of prima-facie evidence called "their spam."
Let's stop trying to make excuses; the government has utterly failed in its duty to prosecute blatant, obvious cases of egregious fraud (and many other kinds of criminal activity; pump & dump, illegal drugs, younameit) - that were broadcast to millions of Americans and reached more people than many TV shows.
And if they proceed in prosecuting people at this puny rate, I would say they are continuing to fail.
Yeah, sure, if we lock up all the domestic spammers, we'll still get spam from Africa and China, but let's actually get to that point first, and deal with it then.
I don't know about anyone else, but for many orgs I know spam is reaching a kind of crisis point, where anyone who has to publish their address is, within a matter of months, getting hundreds of spam for every few legitimate messages. It is rendering email useless.
A minor economic setback, I guess? Too trivial for the feds to bestir themselves?
CAN SPAM is a sad joke, but the punch line is that someone may have actually waited for it to go after these guys...
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
1T"S A*B*O*U*T F_C_KING T!ME smoenoe got a rest ed 4 ths!!!
At first glance the knee-jerk reaction is to cheer the Good Guys and jeer the Bad Guys and feel that everything is working correctly. After a few moments reading the predictable posts on /. I have to wonder about a few things.
My first thought is,"What competent net-admin leaves their mail proxies wide open?" Then I happened across a post from a fellow who claimed that he was one of the victims of the spammers. The post indicated that the spammers had targeted spam-filters and anti-virus software running on his system to relay their material. Has he reported the vulnerabilities in this software? Is there a legitimate case for fraud against anti-virus and anti-spam software producers if their products open up just as many vulnerabilities as they fix? I'm not suggesting that we start feeding the lawyers like we feed trolls but perhaps, rather than laying off thousands of workers, upper management should start taking a more critical approach to the FUD they believe and the software that they buy to soothe their conscience while they're on the golf course.
Next I have to wonder about the 10,000 complaints received by the FTC. I find it hard to believe that most of the complaints were sent by private citizens. I don't know anyone that makes a practice out of e-mailing the FTC every time they receive an unwanted piece of mail. They're either hooked by the scam or they delete the spam. Some of the less educated will click the "remove me" link but I think most of us have learned better than to do that. The same fellow that claimed that he was part of one of the helplessly victimized corporations claimed that he had been sending some of the complaints to the FTC. If he was competent enough to track the spam and send complaints why could he have not simply closed the security holes in his system? Maybe there's no law defining it but this situation seems awfully similar to entrapment--the kind that catches a 12-year old that thinks they're getting away with the cookie jar.
Finally I have to wonder about the FTC and the types of spam you receive. I have a number of e-mail addresses and only one of them receives any spam on a regular basis. It's on hotmail and I've used it for more than seven years. That e-mail address saw my foolish college years and made its way to every mailing list possible when drinking commenced the Friday after final exams or in the extreme boredom of poverty embellished vacation time. Even after making it through those years, my hotmail address receives no kiddie porn, no animal porn, only select adult porn, and mostly just advertisements for home mortgages, debt reduction, escorts, or herbal medicines for weight loss or physical enhancement. So the question is: What mailing lists have people been getting involved in where they're plagued by all of the ultra-filthy, ultra-evil spam? Could the FTC use spam complaints as a method of profiling the alleged spam victim? It would be easy enough to correlate the type of spam that you receive with the places that you frequent on the 'net. Getting people hooked on finching on their neighbor may help them land themselves under surveillance or in hot water. While this is a Good Thing if we feel morally righteous enough to police each citizen as a potential criminal it doesn't help society as a whole to become a paranoid, frightened, distrustful police state. Well, maybe it helps some people. It helps to own the jail contract, the surveillance contract, or be the head of the Clerk of Court office.
While I'm glad to see that something is being done about spam it seems to me that the real solution to the problem lies not in catching the spam senders but rather in reforming the systems which aid them such as fraudulent or excessively marketed "catch-all" security programs, default holes in MS operating systems, less than qualified network administrators that leave their mail proxy open, and opportunistic federal agents that don't act until people band together to bait some dumb sucker and drop him in the lap of the prosecutor.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Obviously someone here has more experience in buying spam than his parent.
I litterly get about 200 spams day now. I'd say 99.99% of them are illegal under the CAN-SPAM act. If the only spam I got was legal spam under this law, spam wouldn't be a problem at all, I can handle 2-3 emails a week from businesses I've had recent dealing with. I hate having to bother with filters for the rest.
There is a Christopher Chung in Detroit in this story.
He looks a bit like a spammer, but let's not assume anyone is guilty until they are proven so. Anyone in the area care to swing by his antique store and see if they also sell "nutritional supplements"?
Note: there is no parole from federal prison.
Here are 20 of the 194 spams I've gotten on ONE ACCOUNT since I last cleaned that mailbox 4 DAYS ago:
... ... ... ...
Ivan Carmichael; Visit our Internet pharmacy, b...
Tammi Vincent; ""get pro.tection incase of =?...
Wyatt Staton; bellyfull contribution father
Wyatt Staton; bellyfull contribution father
Wyatt Staton; bellyfull contribution father
Wyatt Staton; bellyfull contribution father
Sharon Darnell; Check it out
Sharon Darnell; Check it out
Sharon Darnell; Check it out
Sharon Darnell; Check it out
Tropes H. Listed; Design, best meds
Peggy Velazquez; albanian presumptuous dalhousi...
Stefanie Bowden; alex curry mitt nullstellensat...
Stefanie Bowden; alex curry mitt nullstellensat...
Peggy Velazquez; albanian presumptuous dalhousi...
Stefanie Bowden; alex curry mitt nullstellensat...
Peggy Velazquez; albanian presumptuous dalhousi...
Stefanie Bowden; alex curry mitt nullstellensat...
Peggy Velazquez; albanian presumptuous dalhousi...
Wilma Franks; Visit our Internet pharmacy, b...
See anything in there from Dell? GE? MS? No. I registered my Pavilion with HP when I bought it and I get, like, 1 message from them every 3 months. Myabe one message every 2 months from my ISP and my cell phone provider. Legitimate businesses are NOT the problem.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
>>but historic fact.
Agreed, but only when it comes to things like drug laws, prostitution, "vice," or the eventual political revolution.
Now starting a fraudulent business as entirely a different matter. If anti-fraud laws failed consistancy, then amazon would be shipping you the wrong book for a higher price, etc without you having much legal recourse.
The fact is that the US has a lot of tolerance for business (look at the "psychics," snake-oil, exagerrated claims, etc) but all-out fraud is actually pretty rare. Obviously, you don't want to police the crap out of every business, but there will always be real criminals out there who will be victimizing others through commerce and who deserve a smack-down.
Also, even in "vice" laws you have some deterent. How many people casually do illegal drugs but would never take the chance of selling them? Lots.
No really my email address has been stolen and is being used as the reply to and from in email and is being used to send spam. I am now getting mail that is bouncing either from spamassain filters or invalid email addresses. It is really pissing me the f*** off.
Spam is not free speech as nothing is spoken. It is s*** that clogs up the email system. We need an update into email that can eliminate spam.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Well, if the person send out bulk e-mail, under 3 different subject name, therefore broken 3 laws, and strike out?
I think it should be.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixels is it? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Does that mean that irritated spam recipient can start legal action against a spammer?
It's also worth mentioning that legitimate businesses provide legitimate "opt-out" policies.
Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it? I wrote:Now if you read that carefully, you will note that I said that the major corporations would begin spamming once the sleaziest stuff was basically quashed -- once their spam would not be "associated with the Internet porn and snake-oil spams." I did not say that they were already spamming and even explained why (the negative associations) they would not do so yet.
And what the risk/reward is. For high reward crimes, like drug smuggling, you're right, it is highly ineffective. The payoff is so huge that people are willing to take the risk.
SPAM I think is a little different. One of the main reasons it is so previlant is because it is so little risk. You risk very little in capatial to try it, and stand to make a reasonable amount of money. Well, supposing they actually do keep after people under this law, that's now changed. There is substanital risk of both loss of money and loss of freedom if you get busted.
It won't stop SPAM, of course, there will always be idiots who will try it, but I think it can make a significant impact on it.
Some FuKWaD {probably a spammer} modded it troll. Mod it back up please.
Such a strategy might have worked a decade agim byt it's simply too late for that now. The associations "spam=scam" and "spam=porn" have become indelible.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
It's also worth mentioning that legitimate businesses provide legitimate "opt-out" policies.
According to the Small Business Administration, there are about 24 million small businesses in the United States. If only one 1% of those businesses sent you just one e-mail advertisement a year, you would get over 650 pieces of spam each day. That number doesn't even count large corporations or international businesses.
Why should I have to "opt-out" of spam that I never opted-in for? Why should my day, my server's hard drive, and my bandwidth be wasted for thousands of unwanted ads? Why should I have to opt-out over and over on each address that I own?
Okay, it looks like the offense has possible penalties of a fine and limited jail time. Based on the average spammer, the maximum imprisonment time would be 3 years for the first offense and 5 years for subsequent convictions. What I find more likely to have an impact is forfeiture. The convicted spammer will be ordered to forfeit any property traceable to proceeds from their spamming and any equipment, software or technology used therein. This is much more likely to have an impact than the fine and imprisonment, IF it is applied fully.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
Such a strategy might have worked a decade agim byt it's simply too late for that now. The associations "spam=scam" and "spam=porn" have become indelible.
Don't be so sure. Why do you think that major corporations pushed so hard against outright bans on spam. Who do you think came up with the ideas contained in CAN-SPAM, that it's not spam if there is an opt-out, a physical address, and it contains no forged headers? It sure wasn't penis enlargement pill spammers and it wasn't consumers, who overwhelmingly hate spam. It was big businesses who see a role for "direct e-mail advertising" in the future.
Click here</A>
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Pass legislation enabling anyone who buys a product as a result of receiving a spam to repudiate the charge on his credit card.
The card companies will start vetting their merchants more thoroughly PDQ. Money=muscle.
In terms of deterrence discouraging criminal behaviour, you are the norm, but if you think about this:
If only 5% of the population isn't deterred by punnishment, that's 300Million*5% = 15million people who ignore the law.
As for lotteries: I'd guess that well under half the population actually buys the things, but the reason why the numbers don't seem that small, is that I (and you, and most of the other people you know) don't usually go waltzing into work saying
You do, on the other hand hear the converse, just about every day, in TV and radio ads, so when the rare live person says it, it sounds so very familiar.Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
"A group of conscripts wound up late one day and decided that they might was well mutany [sic] since it came to the same thing in the end."
Well, then you are saying that they would have been deterred if the punishments had been different? So laws can be a deterrent.
You're looking at the issue backwards. You shouldn't look at people who are *not* deterred; instead, look at those who are and try to create the same circumstances. Unlike murder/assault, spam is not a crime of passion. There is time for contemplation.
A *minority* of everyone is (or has been) in jail. A minority plays the lottery regularly when the expected value is below 1 (i.e. when the jackpot is smaller than the chances of winning). Being deterred by risk is not a minority action but what happens with the *majority* of people.
Note that the main reason to relay is not to evade the law but to evade blacklists. It's quite possible that these people do not find what they are doing to be likely to get the law on them. Historically, they were correct. Now they aren't.
Anti-spam laws accomplish the following:
1. They deter those who can be deterred. Even if this is only two thirds of spammers, that's still *two thirds* of spammers.
2. Incarcerate those do not think that they will be caught. This can keep them from spamming during the period of incarceration.
3. Deter people from hiring spammers. Since someone who hires a spammer advertises their actual business, catching them *can* be consistent. They have no reason to think that they won't get caught.
4. Prevent suppliers from doing business with spammers. Spam doesn't happen in a vacuum. One needs bandwidth, computer equipment, a product (unless it's an out and out scam), a means of collecting payment, etc. If a company has the choice between operating 100% legally or 90% legally, it will usually choose 100% legally.
5. They can also make it easier for suppliers to explain why they won't do business with the spammer. Many don't want to do so. A law allows them to push the blame onto someone else.
Why do people who cannot read insist on writing? The post you replied to said that big corporations would move in *after* the little guys selling pr0n and viagra were shut down. Which part of 'after' threw you for a loop? JFC!
No need to bring rocks, just have all the spam-conscious citzens in town "donate" a penny. Give until it hurts.
There are only a hundred spammers. No need to put 10,000 in jail, just 100 (or a 1000 if each spammer has 9 employees). I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that your numbers are actually very generous.
Okay, you've got a point.
Thanks. I have no problem with true opt-in (with confirmation) e-mail. I don't mind a company sending me ads via e-mail if they get my permission first. In fact, I get several such mailings already. They advertise. I'm interested in their products. They get sales. I buy cool stuff. It's all good.
So what? Any spammer who complies with the CAN-SPAM act has to put "ADV" in the subject line, so they will find that my mail server bounces their crap immediately when they attempt to deliver it. So "merely" getting spammers to comply with the act is perfectly fine by me.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Or we could just start using the existing system. SPF ( http://spf.pobox.com ) allows for verification of the sender's ability to properly send mail for that domain. Heck, all mail senders are supposed to maintain PTR records (this IP belongs to machine.domain.com), but this is rarely enforced. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater; just use the drain to empty out the water. Enforce what is there first before pursuing new measures.
The strength of SPF is that it down scales well. It helps even when not everyone is using it and can be transitioned. Further, it is an add on to the existing system rather than a replacement. It doesn't require companies to abandon their existing infrastructure.
It's noteworthy that this story is about people who broke the laws that existed *prior* to CAN SPAM. CAN SPAM just adds to their jail term. Personally I am less concerned about the length of the jail term and more concerned about its inevitability. If relay spamming is a guaranteed jail term, then the *old* laws would be effective. Enforcement is what is needed.
"We already have the law makers on our side."
What makes you think that? CAN SPAM pushed out more stringent state laws. If anything, the law maker tide may be running the other way (in support of spammers).
There are government funded portion of the public backbone. As are there G-funded tie-ins as well. ( such as public libraries, and schools ) You can check with your local state government records if you doubt me.
Much in the same way as there are government funded public roads, and restricted access roads ( ie, military bases ).
I do agree a *lot* of the government funded circuits/servers ( funded with my tax dollars ) are restricted, but not *all*.
Not by a long shot.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You obviously have not read the act. The CAN-SPAM act only requires that there be a "clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation". That could be in the subject or the body. It could be a line saying "this is an ad." It could be a subject that says "Viagra for sale."
The CAN-SPAM act also has the following: It may be ADV. It may be something else. Or it may be a recommendation against any such identifier.
so they will find that my mail server bounces their crap immediately when they attempt to deliver it. So "merely" getting spammers to comply with the act is perfectly fine by me.
Yeah, to hell with everyone who doesn't have an e-mail address on your server. Who cares if your ISP gets hit by thousands of spams per second? They'll just pass the cost on to their customers -- like you, for example. How about if I DDOS your mail server with spams that all start off with ADV in the subject line? You don't care about your connection being saturated? You don't care if your packets are getting dropped because some spammer is using your ISP's bandwidth for messages that are being rejected? You have an interesting outlook on all of this.
> It was big businesses who see a role for "direct e-mail advertising" in the future.
That may be true, but I guarantee you that it'll only happen once. Some major company is going to decide that the time is right to "spam legally," and the firestorm of bad publicity, lost sales, and vandalism of their retail stores that follows will make the corporate world finally realise once and for all that spam - legal or not - is a suicidal way to advertise.
You're fucking paranoid.
That situation is still worlds better than the status quo. CAN-SPAM is clearly a step in the right direction.
You're right, I missed that. However, I believe that really bad, fill-your-inbox spam won't ever become common with "real" companies--they will have (mostly) real, working opt-out options, because they are big, established companies, not little scurry-around-in-the-dark spammers. They won't be hiding behind forged addresses and changing mail servers and ISPs every 5 minutes. Same with "street spam" (http://www.causs.org/)--those shitty signs are all offering to buy my home for cash, or work from home, or lose weight, etc. I've never seen one saying "There's a McDonalds 2 blocks away!" Real businesses don't do that.
And as far as bandwidth goes, 10,000 zombie Windows boxes are comparable to any number of T3s coming out of WalMart. Yes, there will always be idiots who answer spam, and yes, companies will do a lot of sleazy things, but I think, and I think WalMart knows, that 50 messages per day will do more harm than good.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
That situation is still worlds better than the status quo. CAN-SPAM is clearly a step in the right direction.
I disagree. CAN-SPAM legalizes some forms of spam that used to be in a gray area. It overrode tougher state laws: For example, Virginia's anti-spam law, which allowed private lawsuits against spammers has been overridden by CAN-SPAM, which has no private right of action.
I have trouble viewing this in a positive light. Many of those who previously sent out illegal spam continue to do so under CAN-SPAM and the only big difference is that I can't sue them unless I am an ISP. Others decided to "go legit" by abiding by the rules in CAN-SPAM, meaning that I still get their spam and they are now above prosecution. Those who previously did not spam for fear of legal problems now have a clear set of guidelines that enable them to spam with confidence. How that's an improvement escapes me.
You're fucking paranoid.
No, I know someone who consults for an opt-in bulk mailer. After CAN-SPAM, the bulk mailer started receiving inquiries from large corporations that were interested in advertising that complied with CAN-SPAM.
Convicted felons also have a hell of a time getting jobs and lose their right to vote. (For a period?) Which I think is stupid, cause how can you exercise your opinion that certain laws need to be changed?
That may be true, but I guarantee you that it'll only happen once.
It's already happened more than once. Big businesses and even politicians have spammed people.
Some major company is going to decide that the time is right to "spam legally," and the firestorm of bad publicity, lost sales, and vandalism of their retail stores that follows will make the corporate world finally realise once and for all that spam - legal or not - is a suicidal way to advertise.
Outside of a handful of anti-spam activists, most people don't give a rat's ass unless the spam shows someone's genitals or implies that the recipient's pecker is too small. If Sears spammed the net today, they would probably gain more business than they lost.
and vandalism of their retail stores
I am an ardent anti-spam activist and I'm not about to end up doing jail time for vandalizing a retail store. Are you serious (or are you just 14)?
was great!! :)
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
You're right, I missed that.
You're a bigger man than most to admit your errors. Thanks.
However, I believe that really bad, fill-your-inbox spam won't ever become common with "real" companies--they will have (mostly) real, working opt-out options, because they are big, established companies, not little scurry-around-in-the-dark spammers.
How many thousands of times will you have to opt out before all of the big companies are done with you?
And as far as bandwidth goes, 10,000 zombie Windows boxes are comparable to any number of T3s coming out of WalMart.
And most of them are behind ISPs that have finally gotten a clue and stopped leaving port 25 open.
Yes, there will always be idiots who answer spam
Fine them and, for repeat offenses, jail them.
, and yes, companies will do a lot of sleazy things, but I think, and I think WalMart knows, that 50 messages per day will do more harm than good.
Yes, Walmart knows that. So they won't send more than one per week. Same with Home Depot, Kroger, Target, Sears, Costco, Albertson's, Safeway, JCPenney, Kmart, Walgreen, Lowe's, CVS, Best Buy, Publix, Rite Aid, Federated Dept. Stores, Gap, May Department Stores, Winn-Dixie, TJX, Staples, Office Depot, Toys "R" Us, A&P, 7-Eleven, Circuit City, SuperValu Retail, Kohl's, Limited Brands, Dillard's, Dollar General, Nordstrom, Saks, BJ's Wholesale Club, Blockbuster, AutoZone, Barnes & Noble, CompUSA, OfficeMax, RadioShack, Foot Locker, Longs Drug, QVC, Family Dollar, Pathmark, Amazon.com, Big Lots, Bed Bath & Beyond, Ross Stores, Borders Group, Sherwin Williams, Advance Auto Parts, ShopKo, Wegman's, Neiman Marcus Group, Payless ShoeSource, Michaels, PETsMART, Whole Foods Markets, Stater Bros., Spiegel, Burlington Coat Factory, The Pantry, Value City, Price Chopper, Ames, Williams-Sonoma, Harris Teeter, Dollar Tree, Zale, Linens 'n Things, Pep Boys, Casey's General Stores, Berkshire-Hathaway Retail, Lenscrafters-Sunglasses Hut, Weis Markets, 84 Lumber, Pier 1 Imports, K-B Toys, Tiffany, etc. Yeah, you don't have to worry about fifty messages per day. Sure...
Just as a minor point, the bandwidth used by rejecting spam during the SMTP handshake or part-way through the header is pretty minimal. Most sensible ISPs are already doing rate limiting on incoming SMTP connections to prevent DoS.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
a couple of years ago I would have agreed with you about smart enough to filter smart enough to not buy from spam. ...but now with yahoo mail hotmail and even earthlink mail running server side spam filters, to even reach the small population of stupid people with small limp penises (penii?) the spammers have to first out wit the growing gauntlet of the anti spammers.
I'm afraid at this point we just need to start hunting down the spammers and their children, and their siblings, and their parents, and their friends, and their friends parents siblings
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
extra 1 to 3 years tacked onto a felony conviction is nothing
Oh yes it is, while you go in thinking it's nothing usualy because it's served concurrently with the primary sentence; I can guarentee that the Parole board will look at it differently.
Huh? WHAT parole board? This is a federal offense, prosecuted in a federal court.
I was under the impression that all this stuff was strictly a state thing, and that the Fed had no parole, no time-off for good behavior, no concurrent sentencing, etc. That when you got convicted in the Federal system you really rotted away for the full sentence in some rockpile unless you somehow managed to get pardoned or get your convecion reversed on appeal. (That's why "a federal offense" is such a big deal.)
Am I mistaken?
(Not being a lawyer OR a criminal I don't have direct experience to go on. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Which I think is stupid, cause how can you exercise your opinion that certain laws need to be changed?
that's the fucking point, do you think politicians want hoards of ex-Cons voting them out for draconian laws, it's called CYA (Cover your Ass). Until The rest of the population can be convinced that it is an injustice there will be no change.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Most telco connections even within the goverment are outsourced through companies and run by private companies.
DavidT is right even a lot of so called "publicly owned" networks you don't want to go poking around. Poke around a .mil site and soon men in dark sunglasses and things growing out of one ear will come see you and send you away on one of those special trains! ;)
Think about all the sites you visit its suppose to be (but that all the time) any domain with .com or .net are private networks. Unless your a student and getting Internet access through the school you are on a private network. Earthlink, aolhell, bellsouth none of these people get public funds, and the backbones they run on are privately owned. They have phone bills too!
When someone uses one of these networks without permission especially for personal gain then it is theft and breaking & entering. A crime. That is what spammers do.
Just as a minor point, the bandwidth used by rejecting spam during the SMTP handshake or part-way through the header is pretty minimal.
I agree with you -- I run and host my own domain. Nonetheless, when you look at an ISP being bombarded by spam from multiple sources, some of which are trying to pump through thousands of messages, or you consider someone running a domain on a low-speed DSL connection, the bandwidth isn't free. Neither is the storage for logging (though I admit that it's cheap).
I guess I look at it as an aggregate cost. Add up all of the spam going through a given pipe and it's usually significant -- even with rejected connections.
The consensus in various online-auction type
chatrooms is that "Internet Taxing" will really
lower the pleasure of both connecting, and for
auction people, collecting stuff for fun and
profit.
Draconian laws, though, that's how that Roman
Empire strode uh, astride the world! Yay!
Cheers.
If the gov't did that, I would be very interested in reading news articles about it, especially news articles that prominently feature the e-mail address.
And dupe articles? No longer a bug, but a feature!
Four of these F*%&ing A$$H0735 are now facing being cornholed daily for a couple of years. How can this not make you jump for joy?!?!? Sure, John Law can't get them all, and won't end the problem, but look at it this way: if the govmnt. does nothing, no spammers suffer -- if the govmt. does even a little, at least some of these bastards will pay. Isn't that better than nothing?
I am not left-handed, either!
-
Arrest warrants are outstanding for defendants James Lin and Daniel J. Lin. In a criminal complaint issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office, these individuals have been charged with violations of the federal mail fraud laws as well as with criminal violations of the CAN-SPAM Act.
So if you know the whereabouts of those spammers, please contact the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.The FTC also credits Spamhaus in assisting with the investigation.
You can structure things so that you the otherwise-obvious spammer aren't doing anything illegal - e.g. some foreign corporation is hiring you to mail out products to their customers, or whatever details it takes not to be guilty of that half of the business, and of course it's those nasty foreigner corporations who own (or usually rent) the foreign web hosting system that's sending all the spam. You can usually disassociate yourselves from most of the other parts of the business also. It does cost you a bit extra to use a hosting center instead of getting DSL run into your trailer park, but you can probably find a trailer park in Korea that'll outsource it for you cheap. If you're careful about structure, and your operation gets busted, you don't go to jail, you just get bounced off your ISP, and maybe your corporate charter gets revoked and you have to spend another $500-$1000 to rebuild the missing pieces for your next spam run. That's 10-20 bottles of Fake Herbal Viagra, or 25-50 How To Make Money By Annoying People books. If you can structure it correctly using US corporations, you're probably only out $100 (2 bottles / 4 books) and you may get to watch John Ashcroft burn your corporate charter at the stake at high noon but you still don't go to jail - might be a little more work to get the details right.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You're just making this up as you go, aren't you... The CAN SPAM law doesn't say what you think it says.
It's now possible to send email that violates US laws because of the form of the email transaction, though those laws are badly thought out, ill-defined, and easily evaded (they didn't name it "CAN SPAM" for nothing.) Some of the methods for propagating spam still violate the law even if they use servers outside the US (whether hijacked or simply rented.) But it's also pretty easy to work around many of those laws, by carefully observing the letter of the law and not doing the specific things it bans.
One set of techniques for avoiding it is to be careful about jurisdiction - you probably can't hire a foreign corporation to send spam for your US products, but a foreign corporation might be able to hire you to ship products to its legitimate customers without you violating US laws, if you're careful to observe all the rules (After all, you don't know why those customers visited that company's web site - you found it on Google yourself when _you_ looked up "impotent loser job opportunities".) And it's certainly legal to buy a bunch of stock for a low price and sell it for a higher price, as long as you're not illegally exploiting inside information, and the mere fact that some foreign corporation decided to start promoting that stock in its email stock advice newsletter isn't *your* fault - why that might even be how you found out about this Great Opportunity! Setting up foreign corporations is pretty cheap, depending on the jurisdiction, and as long as they avoid violating local laws, the semi-worst case is that John Ashcroft sends them a nasty letter telling them to stop spamming, and the slightly worse case is that your foreign corporation gets burned and you need to start a new one for your next scam (that'll set you back about $500-1000, which is 10-20 bottles of Fake Herbal Male Nutritional Supplement Powder.)
And "breaking into computers in other countries" might be illegal, depending on the laws of the country where the computer is, but buying hosting service there usually doesn't violate their laws, and that country probably doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US that can get you hauled off to Korea in handcuffs by bounty hunters, and if you weren't planning to visit the place and don't have any assets there, you're probably pretty safe even if you do violate their laws.
So basically, if you don't mind doing your homework, you can annoy millions of people a day, waste lots of ISP bandwidth, endanger thousands of unsatisfied customers' health, and 4.PROFIT! without the sheriff showing up at your trailer park with a warrant. Because it's only "illegal" if it's strictly against the badly-written laws. Spammer Rule 2 says that "Spammers are stupid", but they don't have to be smarter than the average Slashdot reader, they just have to be smarter than the average politician, and it only takes a few spammers with too much time on their hands to find the holes in the law and the secrets will leak to the rest of them (or at least, to the rest of the ~200 who send 90% of the spam.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's a really important issue, and A.C. makes a good point here.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks