FBI Plans Spammer Smackdown

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet News reports: '...the FBI told Congress on Thursday that it has 'identified over 100 significant spammers' so far and is targeting 50 of the most noxious for potential prosecution later this year.' and that '...an 'initiative is being projected for later this year in which it is anticipated that criminal and civil actions under the Can-Spam Act of 2003 will be included.'"

Comments

Same old...

[bendelo]

Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (*) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(*) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(*) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(*) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(*) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(*) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(*) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(*) Asshats
(*) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(*) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(*) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(*) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(*) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
(*) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(*) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(*) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(*) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

Re:Same old...

[bendelo]

It was not intended as a troll, it was meant to be humourous. The usual response to a spam fighting technique.

Re:Same old...

[Thorin_]

Mods, mod grandparent up.

Every time there is an article on spam there are always 500 people saying why that method won't work. Bendelo has laid out the argument options and selected those that apply so that the other 499 people won't have to waist their time and ours.

Re:Same old...

[mrwonton]

I just like that perticular form because:
(*) It has the term Asshats
(*) Due to the nature of Asshats, they're always a part of the problem.

Re:Same old...

[Cooke]

Its just showing that there is no simple solution to the spam problem. IIRC they had a simular automated response when people were trying to solve Fermat's Last Theorem.

Re:Same old...

[MillionthMonkey]

When I originally wrote that form months ago it took me several hours. Thinking of all the proposed solutions I've ever seen, and the obvious problems with them, was what took a long time. Typing is easy. But in every thread on spam I would see some joker come up with a nightmare "solution" that obviously wouldn't work. Every message will contain a hash. We keep a list of known valid senders in a central repository, so each email has to be authenticated by someone who knows your key, blah blah blah. I don't see any reason why this wouldn't work!

Anyway, I posted the form 2 or 3 times, then quit, figuring I made my point and it wore out its welcome. But I see the beast lives on! BWAhahaha! Although I wouldn't have filled out the same boxes that were filled out here.

Even if the CAN-SPAM act is a permissive piece of junk, I still like to see people going to jail for spam. It won't solve the problem, any more than putting pickpocketers in jail stops pickpocketing. But it's the least we should be doing. Jail is where these people belong.

Re:Same old...

[zero_offset]

Here's a better clue:
Since it's a multiple choice format, it's ONLY funny if people copy and paste it.

Re:Same old...

[JuggleGeek]

When I originally wrote that form months ago it took me several hours.

I call BS. That form, or one very similar to it, has been around for a long time - a lot longer than a few months. It used to get posted on NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email) fairly often several years ago.

Re:Same old...

[MillionthMonkey]

Nope, you're wrong. You may have seen ones that were similar, but this particular one is mine. I spent an evening writing it sometime within the past year.

It's not entirely original, since it has a similar format to a bunch that were around already. That's probably what you're thinking of. I remember seeing a "your post sucks because" form on USENET in 1994.

How long has the word "asshat" been in common usage anyway?

Re:Same old...

[BuckaBooBob]

Stop or fine the Finical model for Spamming... Make it Plain and flat Illegal to pay money to firms that do not adhere to Proper code of conduct rules (Opt out that works within 24 hours.. Users Rights for a request not to pass thier email address to other marketing firms.. They must Log the source of where the adress was obtained.. ect... and fines must be paid or CC accounts be suspended ect making it more difficult for companies to collect monies from customers... fines should be based on # of complaints like a 1$-5$ per complaint of UCE or something similar..) Effectivly there would be no US based spam any more.. Then all the spam that would come it would be from china and the like and as the black list gets built china will be cut off from the American market forcing them to secure Email access to the US).. Which there could be a business model for that aswell... have Email relay service in the US for countries that have been completely blacklisted because of the quanity of spam from their pipes.

Skeptical

[ralphb]

I'll believe that this stupid law is having a positive effect when I start getting less spam. Hasn't happened yet.

Re:Skeptical

[mog007]

Agreed. I got an average of one piece of spam a week prior to the CAN-SPAM act being created. Now anywhere from 20-50% of my daily email is spam. Whatever happened to Congress making laws to HELP the citizens that elect them into office.

Re:Skeptical

[Otter]

Geez, and people wonder why the government is prone to grandstanding and empty gestures, or to policies written for them by lobbyists. They pass a sensible, cautious law, monitor violations and prepare to bring legal action against violators. And all they get is complaints that the magic anti-spam fairies haven't been deployed yet.

Basically, what the crowd here seems to want is that:

• Spammers should be summarily shot.
• To accomplish that, Internet anonymity should be eliminated for spammers, while not affecting the rest of us.
• Any such policy must apply to the entire world. Instantly.
• Oh, and if anyone can think of a way by which a single spam might slip through, a proposal is obviously worthless and the person who proposed it is a techno-illiterate simpleton.

And then you wonder why the legislators and regulators don't listen to nerds.

Re:Skeptical

[not_a_product_id]

The most effective option would be if NOBODY EVER BOUGHT ANYTHING OF THESE SCUMBAGS! Sadly that's not going to happen - the government could pass a law against stupidity but enforcement is always the tricky part. ;-)

Re:Skeptical

[avdp]

You know, may people think that CAN-SPAM is useless (won't reduce the amount of spam). Nowhere have I read that it would make spam worse. I am gonna guess your increased volume of spam has nothing to do with CAN-SPAM, but rather, you managed to put yourself on a list.

Re:Skeptical

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Spammers should be summarily shot.

As satisfying as that might be (public executions, please!) I don't think anyone really wants such a law. However, they should face substantial penalties; I don't think a few years in prison and multimillion-dollar fines and/or lawsuit liability are unreasonable for the worst of the "spam kings."

To accomplish that, Internet anonymity should be eliminated for spammers, while not affecting the rest of us.

Spammers, as individuals, have the same right to anonymity as everyone else. But anyone who is trying to sell me something wants me to give them money at some point along the line. That requires that they reveal their identity. And if the spammers are acting as contractors for someone else who is selling something -- type "bulk e-mail service" into Google and see how many hits you get -- then it is not unreasonable to require that they, too, reveal who they are.

Any such policy must apply to the entire world. Instantly.

Would that it could be so! But the next best thing would be to make having an effective spam policy a condition of international trade treaties, and again, I don't think that's an unreasonable requirement.

Oh, and if anyone can think of a way by which a single spam might slip through, a proposal is obviously worthless and the person who proposed it is a techno-illiterate simpleton.

Many anti-spam proposals are techno-illiterate, and it's fair to point that out when such proposals are made. Others, like CAN-SPAM, are the result of legislative sell-outs to entrenched corporate interests. I don't think anyone realistically expects ever to see a solution that eliminates every single spam. But it would be nice to see one that achieves a 90%, or even 75%, or hell, even 50% reduction in the volume we see now -- and certainly we don't want to see "solutions" that actually give spammers more freedom to spam under certain circumstances, as CAN-SPAM does.

CAN-SPAM is not a "sensible, cautious law." It is a very nearly toothless law. If it puts one or two spam kings out of business, well, good. But it's not what we need to make a measurable difference in the total amount of spam now clogging the Net.

Re:Skeptical

[pyros]

Geez, and people wonder why the government is prone to grandstanding and empty gestures, or to policies written for them by lobbyists. They pass a sensible, cautious law, monitor violations and prepare to bring legal action against violators. And all they get is complaints that the magic anti-spam fairies haven't been deployed yet.

The CAN-SPAM Act was largely written by the Direct Marketing Association.

Re:Skeptical

[edp]

"Basically, what the crowd here seems to want is that:"

That is utter rubbish. It is ad hominem and is not consistent with comments I have generally observed in Slashdot.

"Spammers should be summarily shot."

Redress should be quick and effective, like the ability of recipients of unlawful telephone calls to sue in small claims court.

"To accomplish that, Internet anonymity should be eliminated for spammers, while not affecting the rest of us."

Anonymity should be preserved in web browsing, participating in discussion fora where the owners desire that, sending email where the recipients desires to allow sender anonymity, and in other communications where all parties consent to such arrangements. Anonymity should not be allowed in sending email if the recipient does not desire that.

"Oh, and if anyone can think of a way by which a single spam might slip through, a proposal is obviously worthless and the person who proposed it is a techno-illiterate simpleton."

The flaws of the CAN-SPAM act are many orders of magnitude greater than letting a single spam slip through. The CAN-SPAM legitimized spam that was illegal before, by overriding state laws. It provided no effective redress. It did not outlaw much, perhaps most, of the spam that people do not want, even within US jurisdiction.

Re:Skeptical

[anticypher]

The appearance of a law does nothing until there is enforcement action backing it up.

This is what I've been waiting for, positive action by a law enforcement agency against the worst criminal spammers. The pathetically few lawsuits by US States Attorneys General against a few spammers hasn't made much of a dent in the levels of spam. But I'm convinced that a handful of US based spammers account for 60% or more of all spam today.

When the NY Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, launched his attack against Opt-in Real Big, that flow dwindled to almost nothing. Since then, Richter has either sold off his spam lists, or just no longer up front admits to being ORB. The spams against some honeypot accounts that for the last year were exclusively getting ORB spam have started getting spam from a dozen different groups recently, all using chinese, comcast or wanadodo hijacked machines. At least for a few months there was a perceptible decrease in some spam.

Knowing the FBI, they will make a few headline grabbing busts, complete with news agencies being tipped off in advance so camera crews will be on hand to film the heavily armed agents swarming a trailer park in south Florida. With any luck, the spammers will make sudden, hostile moves towards something in their waistbands, resulting in a "lethal and appropriate" response from the LEOs. I would pay for a copy of that video.

The FBI may also be using these busts as a way of seizing computers which may hold leads to virus/worm writers who then sell botnets to spammers. The spammers machines may also hold leads to dozens of other criminal activities, which may impact US national security. Even if the spammers lose all their electronics until after the trial, they will still be offline. Especially if their bail conditions include a ban from using any computer or communication device.

The Federal prosecutors will lump dozens or hundreds of charges against the spammers, knowing they will eventually plea-bargain down to a few charges which will get them only a few years in prison. There will be much press coverage, and many other amateur spammers will decide for less risky fields of criminal enterprise. This action will never eliminate all spam, but it will put a big dent in it.

It will be interesting to see what level of participation the spam hunting community provides to the FBI. Although the FBI may go it alone, there are a lot of us with a strong technical background willing to put in some hours to provide forensic evidence which can hold up in court.

the AC

Re:Skeptical

[Otter]

With all due respect, both you and edp are missing my point. Of course you could draft an anti-spam law that you'd like much better -- I could draft one that I'd like much better. But both of us would wind up getting the same reaction from the geek chorus: "In case this moron doesn't know, there are other countries in the world!" "Oh, like all the spammers are suddenly going to become law-abiding!" "This law has been in effect for a month and there are still spammers!" -- and, needless to say, "What we REALLY need is to replace SMTP with my new protocol, which everybody will simultaneously start using because it's such a good idea!"

We have the political process we have, laws aren't imposed by angry nerd fiat and I'd much rather see a gradual process of legislation than either hasty crackdowns or sitting on our hands until World Government makes circa 1992 netiquette mandatory.

And, incidentally -- I'm less concerned about a law that fails to instantly halt spam than I'd be about one that actually did do that!

Re:Skeptical

[cardshark2001]

Spammers should be summarily shot.

Finally! A sensible solution! You, sir, are a genius! Can you get me an action plan on this by the end of the day? Don't forget the cover sheet!

Re:Skeptical

[Threni]

> Geez, and people wonder why the government is prone to grandstanding and empty
> gestures, or to policies written for them by lobbyists.

I don't - it's because most people are stupid and are easily led by government campaigns to keep the public at each other's throats, whether it's blacks, communists, drug users, russians, and now terrorists.

> Basically, what the crowd here seems to want is

Depends who you ask. You can't generalize. That's stupid.

> And then you wonder why the legislators and regulators don't listen to nerds.

No I don't - it's because they only listen to big business and professional lobbiests. What a few geeks want is neither here nor there.

Re:Skeptical

[red floyd]

The CAN-SPAM Act was largely written by the Direct Marketing Association.

Why do you think it has the name it does? It means that the spammers CAN SPAM you with impunity.

Re:Skeptical

[Dimensio]

As satisfying as that might be (public executions, please!) I don't think anyone really wants such a law.

Make that "I don't think that anyone except for at least one person wants such a law".

I favour death for email spammers. Yes, shooting them is a little too quick and painless, but I'll take what I can get.

Re:Skeptical

[H310iSe]

I'll believe that this stupid law is having a positive effect when I start getting less spam.

And I'll believe it's good when I don't get arrested. I run a small (5,500 subscribers) list for local adult clubs. It's all opt-in, we never bought (or sold) a list, we use a real, monitored reply-to address and our unsubscribe works. The list is generated from people signing up on the website explicitly for mailings and access to discount passes. However, we've only had confirmation since 2002, before that we simply asked people for their email and added them to our list (without a second email confirming they requested sign up.)

Every month we get 10+ spam complaints, all (literally 100%) from AOL users (using that little "check this box if it's spam") most are fully confirmed, meaning these idiots signed up, confirmed, then still turned us in for spamming! some, however, are from the old list, pre confirmation.

Are we sending "solicited" or "unsolicited" email?

It drives me nuts, I've been very careful to be both moral and legal, I send like 4 emails a month to an opt-in list and I'm scared some asshole will come after me after his wife catches him getting passes to strip clubs, honey, I never asked for those, and, at best, we get shut down for days and hauled into court to prove our innocence.

Anyone who has any info on how "solicited" and "sexually explicit" are defined please respond. Yes, I've already written the FTC.

Re:Skeptical

[iminplaya]

...knowing they will eventually plea-bargain down to a few charges which will get them only a few years in prison.

What? and lock them up with all those dangerous pot smokers? Just take their property and garnish their income for a few(many) years. That would be more productive all around, and be a net income for the state. Remember supporting a prison sentence costs us money, but would be a boom for the prison industry.

Re:Skeptical

[JuggleGeek]

Are we sending "solicited" or "unsolicited" email?

You are sending both. I would recommend that you seperate your list into two lists. One should contain the addresses that have confirmed they want to be on the list. The other should have the addresses which have not confirmed.

Then you should send one final message to the "unconfirmed" list. Tell them that they are going to be dropped from the list, and that they need to sign up again, and follow the confirmation step. Anyone that doesn't do that doesn't want to be on your list. Once you've sent this final message to them, throw away their email addresses - you have no need for them any more.

I don't expect you to do this - you want to pretend that everyone wants to be on your mailing list, despite the fact that you regularly get spam complaints.

But if you are truely worried about defending yourself, having confirmations for *every* email address in your list will help protect you.

And if you have any morals, you'll feel better once you quit spamming.

Re:Skeptical

[JuggleGeek]

Nowhere have I read that it would make spam worse.

Then let me be the first to tell you. CAN-SPAM is likely to make spam worse. It was written by the DMA, designed to legalize their spam runs. It specifically tells companies "It's OK to spam, as long as you do it this way".

However, I'm not the first to say this, by a long shot. Using google, I can find numerous articles to that effect. Here are a few.

http://www.mailutilities.com/news/archive/163/2378 .html
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/43363
http://www.vnunet.com/news/1151902
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/09/canspam_me ans_we_can_spam/
http://www.wordsoup.com/word/archives/001243.html

There are many more examples.

Re:Skeptical

[JuggleGeek]

Here is another example of how CAN-SPAM is making things worse. Spammers are using it as an excuse for their activities. Scott Richter has filed suit against Spamcop, arguing that he is CAN-SPAM compliant and they are therefore complanining about his spam without a valid reason.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5210518.html

Re:Skeptical

[mog007]

Exactly. Almost all of the spam I've been getting has the "Compliant with the CAN-SPAM act."

Re:Skeptical

[H310iSe]

lol i'm open about this b/c i really don't think i'm spamming. At all. Every single spam complaint we get, 100%, come from aol (we've had a single complaint in 4 years from anywhere else) and most are confirmed addresses. Therefore I conclude that most people who complain about us sending spam are simply not telling the truth. Just because they say it's spam doesn't make it spam.

That is an interesting question though, what does make spam? Anyway, since I've established as fact that most AOL users who say we're spamming are clearly lying about it, and since very few of the compaints from aol are from our original unconfirmed list, then the few who weren't confirmed and are saying we're spamming are most likely lying as well.

And with an opt-in list with a real reply to (it goes into a subflder of my main account, I check it daily!), a real, working unsubscibe link, listed phone numbers and addressess of the businesses we're representing, a send rate of less than 4 emails a month and having never shared their email address with anyone else, I can barely imagine a less spam-like thing. It's just because it's regarding adult clubs (read: strip clubs) that it automatically get's seen as spam.

*sigh*

Recently I was given another 4,000 names from a club the client bought, they were unconfirmed (same thing that we used to do years ago, the website just asked for the users' email address) so I sent one email to the list saying it was being discontinued and asked them to confirm on our new list. ... Maybe it's time to cull the older names ... not sure, it would elliminate the only possible line of accusation. but is seems so unnecessary, annoying thousands of our users, making them re-sign up, because there MAY be one person somewhere in the list who didn't sign themselves up at our website and have been suffering silently under our email yoke ever since. Something about that is just wrong... but I probably don't have a choice...

Re:Skeptical

[JuggleGeek]

lol i'm open about this b/c i really don't think i'm spamming.

Richter claims he isn't spamming. Rlasky claims he isn't spamming. Spammers pretty much always say that. You admit you get spam complaints on a regular basis, and that your list is not confirmed.

It's just because it's regarding adult clubs (read: strip clubs) that it automatically get's seen as spam.

No, that's not true. It's because there are people on your mailing list that do not *want* to be on your mailing list.

I tried to help. You want to continue using unconfirmed addresses and receiving spam complaints. I don't think I can do any good here. Best of luck.

Re:Skeptical

[H310iSe]

I get spam complaints on a regular basis from confirmed addresses, therefore there is no corellation between spam complaints and confirmation.

If someone signs up for a mailing list, then decides they don't want to be on the list, and an unsubscibe feature (a really easy one) is available but they don't avail themselves of it, then they're getting emails they don't want but those emails aren't spam.

I suppose the only thing to do is not send any emails out even when people request them and confirm their request since someone may decide they no longer want to get the emails and instead of unsubscribing will simply say "spam." in fact, in the past 60 days, precisely 12 people on our 5.5k member list have done exactly that. Nonetheless, having a record of confirmation protects us, legally, so we'll probably dump the older, unconfirmed names with an email asking them to resubscribe. The thing is, this won't appreciably reduce our spam complaints (since most come from confirmed addresses.) Seems silly but ...

spam spam spam spam and eggs.

On a side note, the spam museum (in some midwestern state in the US, they all kind of blur together) is one of the most amazing museums I've ever been in, at least in terms of production values. They even have a little corner setup like the diner in the monte python spam skit, tables, counter, walls, the works, and the skit is playing from suspended TVs above the diorama (is that the right word?) Muy slick.

One can wish

[mpost4]

I wish this would have an inpact on spam. And I hope these spammers get the max sentence the law allows for, but I don't think this will even put a dent in the amount of spam that is slowing the net down.

Re:One can wish

[kir]

. . .spam that is slowing the net down.

Yeah... that net thing is really slow.

Re:One can wish

[m2bord]

it has made an impact on my spam-filled box. i've watched my spam count drop by about half when they arrested those spammers up in michigan last month or the month before...i forget. but anyhow...it has helped.

Re:One can wish

[LnxAddct]

And I hope these spammers get the max sentence the law allows for,

You really think that spammers deserver to be locked up with rapists and murderers? I mean I hate spam as much as the next guy, I probably spend 20% of my day dealing with spam, last month my firm's total spam/ham ratio was 71/100 (71% spam). Yes its ridiculous, but jail time? Even I think thats rough, am I alone in this view and the rest of slashdot agrees with the parent?
Regards,
Steve

Re:One can wish

[leerpm]

According to some sources, there is really just a core group of about 200 people responsible for most of the spam. If even half of those people are thrown in jail, it will have a major effect on spam. And most of the remaining ones will get out of the business, simply out of fear of going to jail. It is true that spam is a money making business for some, but the level of profits would have be a lot higher to make it worthwhile for someone to take on a real increased risk of spending time in a federal prison.

Of course there will be some that set up shop in other countries, but they would have to physically move there to be beyond the reach of authorities here. I am willing to bet, most spammers are not willing to give up the good lifestyle that is provided for them in the US (or other Western developed countries), and will simply get out of the spam business and find other employment. Or maybe spam will simply get outsourced to India..

Re:One can wish

[rusty0101]

I would hate to put rapists and murders at the level of the spamers. As noted in the first response visable the punishment is not slow enough or painful enough to suit a large percentage of the population.

Calculation error, spam/ham ratio of 71/100 is a 42% spam volume. a 71% spam volume would be 71/29 spam/ham ratio. Considering the volume of spam I am getting, I would not be at all surprised if you were getting a 71/29 spam/ham ratio, which would support the 71% claim.

As for a punishment, I think that if the convicted spammer has not been counting the total number of messages they have sent (cc/bcc etc. counts as one message per address) then the feds should ask for a minimum of 1 us cent per e-mail address per day from the date of the earliest reported spam, through the date they pay the fine off. Thus if the spamer has a list of 10 million e-mail adresses, they will be fined aproximately $36.5 million per year. That should take care of the "profit" incentive.

-Rusty

Re:One can wish

[Gill Bates]

You really think that spammers deserver to be locked up with rapists and murderers?

Yes. Yes I do.

am I alone in this view

I, for one, certainly hope so.

You think because it's a white-collar crime, they don't deserve to be locked up? They're assholes, and deserve everything they get.

Re:One can wish

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think that spammers deserver to be locked up with rapists and murderers?

Honest spammers like Apple, Wallgreens, and Microsoft? No.

People sending spam using open relays, open proxies, forged headers, false domain records or fraud belong in jail.

99% of my spam falls into the second group. It's very bad for our country to tollerate these open violations of the law.

Re:One can wish

[MethylPhreak]

Does anyone here see a striking parallel to the international drug trade? Basically, people believed the same b.s. about the tough drug laws stopping the drug trade "because after half of the drug kingpins are sent to prison, the other half will get out of the business immediately to avoid prosecution." Yet, here we are, 2004, and we still have a flourishing drug trade on the black market.

Spam is no different. As long as there is a way to make EASY MONEY, it does not matter how illegal it is, someone will have the balls to do it.

Re:One can wish

[pyros]

You know, there's a reason the U.S. has the highest percentage of its population incarcerated. Putting criminals in prison is a means to protect the citizens from potential physical harm. Spammers shouldn't serve jail time any more than Tommy Chong or anyone in prison for smoking marijuana they grew in their own home. If there's no physical threat to the public, then don't put them in prison on my dime.

Re:One can wish

[leerpm]

There is one big difference. There is a lot more money involved in the drug trade. It is one thing to risk jail time, when you can rake in the cash by the billions. But it becomes a different story when you are only able to make a few million. Yes, there will always be somebody, but if you destroy the economic incentive enough for the majority then you will have made a major breakthru in the battle against spam.

Re:One can wish

[MethylPhreak]

I think you're living in a fantasy land if you think that these laws are going to make any real headway. The money is there, and I hate to break it to you but a few MILLION US Dollars is a LOT of money in some parts of the world.

I think people need to stop waiting for the government to solve all their problems for them. If you don't like spam, don't give out your email address to anyone but those you trust. Would you go around telling everyone in the world your real, physical address? Have to give out your email address on some b.s. site? Go get a hotmail account or something and let 'em send you all the crap they want. Setting up an email account is trivial for these purposes, doesn't cost you anything, and keeps you from getting nuisance emails at your primary addresses.

Re:One can wish

[cdrguru]

If you believe that email is useless unless you keep yourself isolated and "only give your address to those you trust", then the spammers have made email a marketing tool only. You obviously wouldn't use it for asking questions of some unknown person - they would block it, trash it or let it sit on some never-examined email system.

Would you go around telling everyone in the world your real, physical address?

Absolutely - it is called a phone book. Or an Internet listing of the same. Or about a hundred other such things. It is how we find people in the real world. What you are describing is limiting the usefulness of email to "friends and family". This means businesses can't use email and people can't use email to communicate outside of their circle of friends. This is clearly an anti-spammer goal, but it doesn't happen to be mine. I do not long for the days of receiving endless postal mail.

Re:One can wish

[Steve B]

The money is there, and I hate to break it to you but a few MILLION US Dollars is a LOT of money in some parts of the world.

First, a typical successful spammer doesn't make that much money (more likely the high four to low five digit range). Second, it's irrelevant how much a US dollar is worth is Elbonia (or that US jurisdiction does not extend to Elbonia) unless the spammer is willing to spend the rest of his wretched life living in Elbonia.

I think people need to stop waiting for the government to solve all their problems for them.

Precisely; the government should focus on those problems that fall within the proper scope of government -- such as punishing people who violate my private property rights. It's not a perfect solution (the government won't return Al Ghirab to its pre-expose conditions and send spammers there), but it will do.

If you don't like spam, don't give out your email address to anyone but those you trust.

This is not a practical solution for anyone who needs to maintain a public contact.

Would you go around telling everyone in the world your real, physical address?

This analogy shows the silliness of your suggestion. The street addresses of most people are readily available, because for most people it is more a benefit than a nuisance to be accessible.

Re:One can wish

[iminplaya]

You and I have discussed this before, and I just posted on this to someone else, but I need your take. Why not take their property and garnish a big chunk their income for a nice long time? It could provide income for the state as opposed to spending tax payer money providing the spammer three squares and medical expenses at club fed. If we need to, we can put a "dog" collar on them.

Re:One can wish

[JuggleGeek]

Spam is no different.

Yes, it is. A lot of people *want* drugs, just like a lot of people *wanted* alcohol back during prohibition. Outlawing something that is popular with large numbers of people is quite difficult.

People do not want spam. A few people want to send spam to everyone else - but the recipients don't want it. Even the spammers don't want their own email boxes full of junk.

Re:One can wish

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> Does anyone here see a striking parallel to the international drug trade?

Sure there's a parallel in that they're both wildly profitable, but your comparison fails in one important way.

We want drugs.

We do not want spam.

Re:One can wish

[MethylPhreak]

How wrong you are, my friend. Do you not think that the legions of entities that are asking for these things to be sent out don't want them?

Re:One can wish

[MethylPhreak]

I know its taboo to respond to ones own post, but I neglected to read the second part of your message, thats what I get for posting whilst distracted.

But, the second part of your post still makes sense, if you replace drugs with, say, substances such as sarin and other nerve gases. There are a few people that want it, the recipients DEFINATELY dont want it, and yet there is a black market for it. Granted, not as popular or profitable as the drug market, but there nonetheless.

Re:One can wish

[JuggleGeek]

How wrong you are, my friend. Do you not think that the legions of entities that are asking for these things to be sent out don't want them?

Have you ever seen someone that didn't want it buying a bag of pot or a whatever of cocaine? This is pretty simple. People *want* to buy drugs. That means that law or no law, there is likely to be a market for drugs, and a profit for those that sell them. People do *not* want to receive spam. Other people want to send them spam - but they do not have a willing audience.

Yay!

[instanto]

Hope to see those guys in jail!
(Uhm: See - not Meet)

If they are persecuted for such, and it is proven that their income and fortunes are built on spam/illegal acts, will the state be able to confiscate their house etc and sell them? I really hope so.

Even better; These guys should be sent to a well known jail in Iraq. :-)

Re:Yay!

[REBloomfield]

If they were persecuted, we'd all be living in spammer mansions. Prosecution on the other hand :)

Re:Yay!

[instanto]

Aha. .no => not english :-)

Persecution:
1 : the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook
2 : the condition of being persecuted , harassed, or annoyed

Prosecute:
1 : to follow to the end : pursue until finished
2 : to engage in : PERFORM
3 a : to bring legal action against for redress or punishment of a crime or violation of law b : to institute legal proceedings with reference to
intransitive senses : to institute and carry on a legal suit or prosecution

How about we Prosecute AND Persecute them? :-)

Re:Yay!

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Jail? I was thinking about makeing them the new contestants in Robotwars.

Re:Yay!

[maximilln]

How come you don't get the AC trolling you as a "paranoid conspiracy theorist"? I guess they only watch me.

Outlaw spam?

[corporate_ai]

How will I get my p3n1s enlarged?

Re:Outlaw spam?

[Roland Piquepaille]

How will I get my p3n1s enlarged?

And you think that's bad? Look, my business partner in Nigeria, Mr. Adewale Johnson, read the above Slashdot article and got scared. I haven't heard a word from him since the article was posted. It's a bummer actually because I had just sent him $10K to pay for his lawyer's fees, and I was waiting for his confirmation that he wired me the $20M.

Personal message: Dr. Johnson, don't be scared by Slashdot, the article doesn't apply to you, only crooks. Please talk to me, I await your response eagerly. -- Your business partner!

I got scammed by all the spams..

[brxndxn]

Good! My penis never got any larger. Horny wives never had sex with me. My prescriptions for Xanax never arrived. My cheap version of Windows XP wouldn't activate. My home loans never came through. Michelle's page made just for me had 900,000 visits and I'm beginning to think she is cheating on me...

They're all scammers - a bunch of spamming scammers they are!!

Great

[digitalgimpus]

Spam has made email so rediculus it's amazing.

The FBI went crazy when someone crashed eTrade, Yahoo, etc. with a DoS attack...

But the world's email has been under a DoS attack for some time, while they stand idle.

Strange isn't it? Yahoo's website goes under heavy load, and it's criminal. Yahoo's mail goes under heavy load... and it's not.

Re:Great

[kabocox]

Actually, that's about the only valid reason that I could see for the US Postal Service to get involved in E-mail Delivery. They would sent out there own postal inspectors because mail fraud, mailing porn, and mailing false ads. across state lines is usually illegal or atleast against Postal Regs.

I wouldn't want a Federal Agency monitoring all e-mail accounts and mail sent. I wouldn't mind one though keeping track of and verifing network administrators with valid US e-mail servers. Actually, it would just be a pain in the butt and wouldn't stop hackjacked computers.

Re:Great

[akaina]

That's mostly because junk mail has a punitive cost, whereas DoS on a web server costs real-time customer transactions.

The FBI only gets involved when they have solid evidence that there is a loss of over $50,000 (or a number very near that).

Re:Great

[StormyMonday]

Yuppers.

For a long time now, spam has looked less like marketing and more like a denial of service attack.

The Feds claim to be concerned with "cyberterrorism". It's happening and it's right under their noses.

Re:Great

[caluml]

But the world's email has been under a DoS attack for some time, while they stand idle.

They're not the worlds policemen.

Re:Great

[nexus987]

Well I'm really glad they're doing something - It's been months since CAN-SPAM was passed into law and I was beginning to wonder if it would ever be enforced. Good luck FBI guys!

Re:Great

[gnu-generation-one]

"The FBI only gets involved when they have solid evidence that there is a loss of over $50,000"

Yet they didn't raid those responsible for SQL server, which caused a $900 million loss?

50?

[kuzb]

Why only 50? Why not _all_ of them?

If we know about 100 murderers, do we only go after 50?

Re:50?

[Cooke]

Its all about degree's they are going after

50 of the most noxious

Im sure if this is succesful then they will target the other 50.

Re:50?

[gclef]

Gotta start somewhere, and with someone. They've only got so many agents and prosecutors. Given that the vast majority of spam comes from a small number of people (approx 200, last time I saw), jailing 50 of those would put a huge dent in the spam problem. Also, once they've nailed a couple of these guys, they'll have court precedents that they can point to for the other cases, to make them run faster.

If the FBI can pull this off, I think it'd be great.

Yes but

[Roland Piquepaille]

the FBI told Congress on Thursday that it has 'identified over 100 significant spammers

That's very nice, but the fact remains that 90% of all spam originates from countries that are out of the FBI's jurisdiction. What are they going to do about it?

It nothing else, American spammers will just move their operations abroad. The FBI knows this very well, so I reckon they're just making noise and spewing hot air in an effort to look like they're on top of the problem, when really they're not.

Re:Yes but

[djeaux]

It nothing else, American spammers will just move their operations abroad.

How many American spammers are going to move themselves to China? It's one thing to move the criminal operations overseas, but unless the criminal relocates his own worthless carcass, the fibbies can still go after him. The FBI loves to make cases by "following the money."

It's not just a matter of "outsourcing" the spamming operation overseas. The spammer will have to move to Lower Slobovia, too.

Re:Yes but

[instanto]

Well, once the war on terror is completed they can always declare a war on China and go after a country that aids and harbors spammers. :-)

Re:Yes but

[meringuoid]

That's very nice, but the fact remains that 90% of all spam originates from countries that are out of the FBI's jurisdiction. What are they going to do about it?

90% of spam is sent from servers outside the FBI's jurisdiction. That doesn't mean it originated there: it's sent by Americans who are offering products in America to an American market and expecting to be paid in American dollars to an American bank.

Unless the spammer is prepared personally to move overseas, sooner or later the matter comes into the FBI's jurisdiction.

And since when does being in a foreign country mean you can flout US law? Dmitri and Jon found that out to their cost. Criminals beware: you can no longer hide behind the figleaf of foreign national sovereignty!

Re:Yes but

[rekoil]

Actually, more and more spam is originating from various 0wned Windows boxen sitting on broadband lines right here in the US.

I think what you meant to say is that 90% of the websites advertised in spam emails today are offshore.

However, just because the servers are offshore does not mean that the spammers are foreign. If you follow the money like spamhaus.org does, you'll see that the large majority of the world's largest spammers are, in fact, based in the US. They simply host their servers in China.

In short, most American spammers have already moved their operations abroad. But as long as the spammers themselves are still here, they are very much subject to prosecution. It just takes more work to track them down. :)

Re:Yes but

[Mz6]

...it's also been shown that many of the actual spam SENDERS are in the US and Europe. They are simply using servers that are OUTSIDE of the US to send spam.

There was a story about this yesterday.

Re:Yes but

[instanto]

Both Dmitri and Jon are still free men and were not sentenced to anything, at least in the case of Jon.

So, where are the criminals?

Re:Yes but

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

At a guess: since the spammers are advertising for 'services' and 'products' available in the US, they will follow the money.

That the spam is actually being sent from China may be irrelevant. It would not be the first time that the US passed a law which also covered offences committed outside their boundaries.

Re:Yes but

[darnok]

> That's very nice, but the fact remains that 90% of
> all spam originates from countries that are out of
> the FBI's jurisdiction. What are they going to do
> about it?

How about:
- define spammers as terrorists
- propose a free trade agreement with countries housing spammers
- make adoption of US terrorist laws a condition of accepting the free trade agreement ...the rest is left to the reader's imagination

Re:Yes but

[WCMI92]

"Unless the spammer is prepared personally to move overseas, sooner or later the matter comes into the FBI's jurisdiction."

And that is the point... Let Ralsky and his gang of criminals have to choose:

1. Live in the USA and work for a living

2. Live in China or some third world Krapistan

At some point, spam enters US jurisdiction:

The advertiser
The spam gang

If either of those parties are in the US, it doesn't matter where the server is.

Re:Yes but

[RoboOp]

That's very nice, but the fact remains that 90% of all spam originates from countries that are out of the FBI's jurisdiction. What are they going to do about it?

An UAV armed with missles, God willing.

Re:Yes but

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Just a guess- but if you've made a million ill-gotten dollars spamming, I'm sure the Chinese Communists would love to set you up in a castle with a horde of "political prisoners" to serve you in luxury if you're willing to defraud the capitalists of more money for them. Outsourcing yourself if you're already rich isn't as big of a problem as you'd think.

Re:Yes but

[Zordak]

Criminals beware: you can no longer hide behind the figleaf of foreign national sovereignty!

I'm certainly no fan of the DMCA (in fact, as an engineer, I feel it is one of the most dangerous laws to my profession), and Adobe using the FBI as their stooge to arrest Dmitri for "cracking" their weak encryption was simply wrong. It should be Adobe's burden to come up with good encryption. They shouldn't be allowed to enforce weak encryption in the courts.

That being said, it bugs me to see posts about "you are not safe from US criminal law just because you live in a different sovereign nation." Dmitri was arrested on US soil. It's not like the FBI raided his home in Russia and dragged him out at gunpoint in front of his family. If you are breaking the laws of another country, even if those laws are wrong, DON'T GO THERE. The FBI has both the right and the responsibility to enforce US laws in US jurisdiction. The FBI doesn't get to decide which laws are right and which are wrong. That's up to the voters. This is a good thing. It means that even if a spammer physically moves himself offshore, all he has to do is come home to visit to subject himself to prosecution.

China

[millahtime]

So, how do we pressecute people in China. and we can't prossecute them.

Re:China

[DaHat]

Remember the title of the article you linked to?

71% of Spam Servers are Located in China

Just because the servers are there doesn't mean the are being used by locals.

It is very likely that a good % of those Viagra spams we all so love may be sent from a Chinese server, but it is nearly as likely that they are being initially sent from the US in the first place.

Re:China

[gowen]

The people aren't in China. The machines are in China, the people are, in the main, in the USA.

Re:China

[FireFury03]

I'm sure it must be illegal for the chinese to look at viagra propaganda web sites. ;)

Re:China

[Anarcho-Goth]

I'm sure it must be illegal for the chinese to look at viagra propaganda web sites.

Maybe we should start linking Viagra with Falun Gong?

Quick! Somebody call The Onion!

Get the Feds out...

[WordODD]

Before CANSPAM some states like California were actually making some (little) progess with their own state laws. Now that we have the Federally sponsered CANSPAM act these most of these previous laws have been rendered useless/void and a lot of them were tougher on spammers then CANSPAM is. The Feds have enough to deal with already and, it would be in their best interests to let the states handle it themselves.

Re:Get the Feds out...

[xTMFWahoo]

Aren't there jurisdiction issues with each state having it's own laws? A spammer violates different laws in each state they send spam to? I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that any lawsuits would be very complicated with different sets of laws..

The best way to stop spam...

[Singletoned]

The best way to stop spam would be if people stopped buying viagra and porn from the companies that send out the spam.

That way the spammers would stop making money and would stop sending spam.

Under capitalist principles, the spammers are doing the right thing. We need to make it unprofitable for them.

(Also, I think the spammers should start sending poems, jokes and stuff out. That way people would start reading their spam and be more susceptible to the offers).

Re:The best way to stop spam...

[Cooke]

There sales are minimal as a percentage of the emails they send. Its a few spoiling it for the rest, if they chose to buy thier Viagra or what not else where I admit that we would not be having this problem.

You can compare the issue to cold calling, which is baned in most places (western world). This is for a reason as is making spam illegal.

Re:The best way to stop spam...

[Anonymous Coward]

Under capitalist principles, the spammers are doing the right thing. We need to make it unprofitable for them.

Do you feel the same way about hitmen? When someone is commiting a crime to make money you don't just go after the profits, you increase the cost of doing business. You increase it by adding a little jail time. Capitalism is different from anarchy.

Re:The best way to stop spam...

[bcmm]

Then maybe something is wrong with aformentioned capitalist principles...

Re:The best way to stop spam...

[FireFury03]

Under capitalist principles, the spammers are doing the right thing. We need to make it unprofitable for them.

So as long as it's profitable, it's ok for me to sell pirated software, videos, etc. And it's ok for me to make kiddie porn and do contract killings? Just so long as I can make money from it...

Re:The best way to stop spam...

[Singletoned]

Yes, but the addition of jailtime doesn't stop people from being hitmen.

There are still hitmen in the world.

Editing

[Anonymous Coward]

It does outlaw the use of so-called "zombies"--computers running Windows that have been taken over and used as spam-bots--and punishes such an act with up to three to five years in prison.

Bit of selective editing and...

It does outlaw the use of so-called computers running Windows --and punishes such an act with up to three to five years in prison.

Re:Editing

[f0rt0r]

Best Version -> "It does outlaw the use of so-called "zombies"--computers running Windows"

I think the law should stop right there. Just outlaw
Windows :)

Let me guess...

[Kjella]

...this will be the kind where they round up a little ring of spammers/fraudsters, get big headlines and call this "a devastating blow to spammers everywhere" and that they've "destroyed the backbone of the spam community".

You certainly see it happen when it comes to warez, kiddie porn, drugs, organized crime etc. (without comparison otherwise). Strangely enough, a year later they have to make another "devastating blow" that'll once again "break them".

So I wouldn't turn off the spam filters just yet, I'm sure there's dozens of idiots willing and waiting to take their place. Of course it's doubleplusgood that they're trying, just don't expect them to "end" this any more than they end any other problem...

Kjella

Re:Let me guess...

[Sycraft-fu]

I'm sure it won't end it, I mean no matter how illegal you make someting and how horrible the punishment, there will always be an idiot that will try it once and a while. However I do think it can make a significant dent. The reason why cracking down on drugs is so ineffective is the huge demand. People want drugs, and are willing to go to great lenghts to get them. Not the same case with SPAM. Very, very few people want SPAM, some are just suckered in to buying from them.

The reason it is so prevalant isn't because it is super profitable, it's really not. It is profitable but not in the same way drugs are. It's because it is essentially zero risk, and low financial startup. It wasn't illegal and it didn't cost much, so scumbags would go for it and take what they got.

Well, start throwing the scumbags in jail, and others will think twice. Doesn't mean they'll all stop, but it will reduce the number willing to try.

Re:Let me guess...

[Steve B]

he reason why cracking down on drugs is so ineffective is the huge demand. People want drugs, and are willing to go to great lenghts to get them. Not the same case with spam

The basic difference is that the alternative to continuing to spam (legitimate advertising or abandonment of a business) is a lot easier than the alternative to continuing to use drugs (addicition withdrawl). Thus, a relatively modest penalty for spamming will drive out most spammers (not all, because some people are just plain stupid assholes).

In Other News

[Greyfox]

Scott Richter suddenly becomes unavailable to debate SpamCop's Julian Haight.

Bet it doesn't include the spammers in China

[isolvesystems]

It was reported that around 80% of spammers are located in China. Bet this 100 spammers do not include the one from China. International law enforcement needs to be involve in the smackdown of spammer.......

Follow the money

[NoSuchGuy]

The FBI should follow the money:

- Who profits from sale?
- Who sells products (=pills) to spam outlets?
- Is the spam send via own mailserver or hijacked proxies, worm infected PCs...

My Server = my Rules!

How to filter better - a modest proposal

[infolib]

A lot of the spam I get is "We detected a virus in your mail" when in fact the sender of the infected mail just spoofed my address.

It would probably be better if the AntiVirus companies didn't send such "warnings" at all, but if they want to, they should standardize on including a header such as X-virus-warning-bounce. Then the rest of us could just filter them out. It would save some of my precious mental bandwidth.

Re:How to filter better - a modest proposal

[Serious Simon]

But then it would be more easy to filter them out. Why do you think spammers go through so much trouble trying to defeat spam filters? I am not sure the antivirus companies see the advantage in your proposal (unless they are forced to it)

Recently, I even got a "we detected a virus in your email" message with a spoofed FROM: header so that it appeared it had been sent by my own ISP, while a closer inspection of the Received: headers revealed that was not the case.

Re:How to filter better - a modest proposal

[AndroidCat]

A lot of those messages are actually from the virus. For the real ones, Symantec is aquiring some clue and making their auto-responder smarter. I don't know if they can make the admins who change the default-off setting any smarter.

Re:How to filter better - a modest proposal

[DarkFencer]

I run a medium size mail server (>10000 users). My problem isn't the 'your message contained a virus messages'. I can train spam filters to put those in the bit bucket.

Its the "Your receipient doesn't exist" messages that are also noise from the viruses that are the problems. I can't filter those without filtering out legitimate undeliverable messages.

I wish more mail servers would do what we do. Check for viruses. If there is a virus discard. THEN check to see if the recipient exists. If you check for the recipient first, you have to bounce the message back if the recipient doesn't exist.

Re:How to filter better - a modest proposal

[nexus987]

Of course you and/or your ISP are/is publishing SPF records to prevent people from forging mail from your domain, right? (spf.pobox.com) Yeah, yeah, it's still in the early adopter phase, but it's got some momentum...

Re:How to filter better - a modest proposal

[thogard]

The 1st spam message I got after I started logging SPF records had a valid SPF record. I've gotten viruses with vaild SPF records. My DNS has already been crawled looking for SPF records that someone else can use. SPF has too many problems to be useful. While it heads in the right direction, its the wrong solution.

Re:How to filter better - a modest proposal

[nexus987]

I agree, SPF isn't perfect. I think the "wrong solution" is a bit harsh. Have you heard of anyone publishing SPF records being joe jobbed? Did the viruses you recieved come from the domain they claimed to have come from, or was the domain name forged? And do you have a better solution to domain name forgeries? (IE: do you think yahoo's domain keys is superior?)

Re:How to filter better - a modest proposal

[thogard]

I don't think "wrong solution" is harsh when it is broken worse than security of a typical MS product.
Yes, I do have something better. How about something based on what we know works like DNS black lists. We know DNS works and we know most email clients can do DNS-Bl type things. So why not use them?

It was 71%...

[Mz6]

And it was only that the spam was originating from servers in China. More than likely, the real spammers are here in the US and Europe.

While the FBI does their thing, curtail spam NOW!

[iamcf13]

Here are simple, uncomplicated techniques to stop a lot of spam and keep the existing system intact.

Juxtaposition of laws...

[acceber]

The CAN-SPAM Act 2003 states a maximum imprisonment term of 5 years for relevant offenders.

Soldiers who abuse prisoners receive a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison.

If the law reflects community standards at all, it is obvious that spamming is considered to be significantly more noxious and intolerable. Although I'm not sure who the Americans would want to see locked away more. Spammers or abusers of human rights?

Re:Juxtaposition of laws...

[jfengel]

Actually, soldiers who abuse prisoners can receive a lot more than a year in prison. The first guy got one year because he wasn't directly involved; he just took the pictures. Look for stiffer sentences in the future.

Re:Juxtaposition of laws...

[finkployd]

Way offtopic, but here we go

Actually, soldiers who abuse prisoners can receive a lot more than a year in prison. The first guy got one year because he wasn't directly involved; he just took the pictures. Look for stiffer sentences in the future.

Yes, look for many "grunts" to take the fall for this. I'm sure of of their superiors were completly unaware of any of this and certainly did not condone it. (not that the grunts doing this don't deserve strong punishments, but you know it will never go higher than that)

Finkployd

Re:Juxtaposition of laws...

[broothal]

Actually, soldiers who abuse prisoners can receive a lot more than a year in prison.

No - the maximum penalty under the military law he was charged is one year.

Re:Juxtaposition of laws...

[Steve B]

Soldiers who abuse prisoners receive a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison.

Er, no. Soliders prosecuted under a "special court martial" can receive a maximum of one year imprisonment (and busting to buck private and dishonorable discharge), whatever the crime. Presumably, the reason this case was sent to a special court martial (rather than the type that could have sentenced him far more severely) is that he sang like a canary. That sort of deal is SOP for both military and civilian law enforcement.

Re:Maybe this will work?

[sqlrob]

Consider that there is (probably pretty conservatively) 100,000,000 emails sent per day in the US.

That's extremely conservative. AOL blocks 10x that amount as spam daily.

Ok, how do you get them to go after the other 50

[Andy_R]

Do they only go after 50 out of every 100 drugs smugglers, terrorists, etc?

I'm not in the USA (but 99% of the spam I get is for things priced in US$), but can't you force them legally to do the job properly?

Maybe file a freedom of information request to get the other 50 names and adresses?

Here's What:

[kmmatthews]

What are they going to do about it?

We like to call them individually targeted bombs. We could also use tactical nukes.

Better yet, we could arm all /.'ers with baseball bats and free airfare.....

Don't they have "real" criminals to catch?

[xanthines-R-yummy]

I'm not trying to be a troll, really I'm not...

but doesn't the FBI have enough to do already? I mean, I hate SPAM like everyone else (100/day AFTER filtering) but I'd rather have the FBI catch murderers, terrorist, spies, etc etc. I waste a lot of time cleaning my inbox, but I'd rather have the Feds catching violent criminals (cause you know we don't have enough of those here in the U.S.!) instead of relying on hospitals to keep me alive.

A spammer's whinge

[bigbadwlf]

"When we mail under the new law, the major ISPs focus on our From: addresses, Subject: lines, our company information, and our disclaimers on the bottom of the e-mail as well as our IP address. They use this information to block our e-mails," Scelson said.

That's the whole point - many customers pay for that service.

Re:A spammer's whinge

[AndroidCat]

He says that if people continue to block him, he'll start spamming again. My question: when did he ever stop?

The usual evidence of Rule #1 (spammers always lie):
Scelson, who said he had to move his family and business after receiving threats last year, said he was trying to play by the rules.

Didn't he file for bankruptcy in March 2003 or so? He moved out because he couldn't pay the mortgage. Remember that the next time the Spam King du jour brags about his Huge Enormous Spam Palace.

Re:Maybe this will work?

[darnok]

> Consider this - if a spammer purchases a CD with
> 1,000,000 email addresses (they're out there,
> probably more like 10,000,000 emails though), he
> would have to pay $10,000 or $1,000 to send those.

Wouldn't the spammer then just claim that $10k back as a business expense?

Translation:

[RicochetRita]

Scott Richter, be afraid. Be very afraid.

R

Re:Translation:

[AndroidCat]

Ron Scelson claims he spams from an underground nuclear-fallout shelter. Hmm... Pitchforks, check. Torches, check. Cement truck, check. Good to go!

Kinda like corporate COPS.

[suso]

If you've seen "Bowling for Columbine" you might remember Michael Moore talking with the producer of COPS about the possibility of making a show called Corporate COPS. Maybe they should make a Spam COPS because probably the spammers would try to run like that guy in England did a few weeks back.

Re:Maybe this will work?

[DarkGreenNight]

I've read from several others that most spam is generated from hijacked boxes, so this would not stop them. But there's also some other considerations. What about companies. How much would they have to pay? And internal mail would be free? A employee would have to pay for his/her personal e-mail? And for external e-mail but work-related?

We buy the computer, we pay the phone bill, we pay the bandwith, now you say that we have to pay more for sending information in a certain way? What about free e-mail servers? It'll be their end, or you'll have to pay for them, and if you already pay you'll have to pay more just to do the same as before.

So the transition from the actual e-mail system to the Ie-mail ("Improved" e-mail) would be as fluid as the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. Simply because most people (me included) do not want to pay.

How spam is affecting me.

[suso]

Personally, it's not a big problem for me, I filter out most of my spam. Or delete the ones that don't get filtered.

But as for my internet services business, it makes it hard because all the customers are getting slammed with spam and I'm always trying to do things to rememdy that, instead of working on better stuff like a nicer user control panel, better backup features, adding virtual IMAP accounts, etc.

We had the same problem at the ISP I used to work at. 50% of the sysadmins jobs where to deal with spam related problems.

So there is a measurable loss of money and productivity as a result of spam.

Re:Maybe this will work?

[aslate]

What about those that don't have the means to pay? I can't buy anything off the internet unless i use my parent's credit card. I don't think they'd be happy about putting their credit card info into yet another online database.

How many scammers do you think will set up fake email servers to rake in a few credit-card numbers? Would you trust Microsoft Hotmail with your credit card info?

Who gets this tax? If emails are global, how are they going to regulate this and split it up? I wouldn't want to be giving the US free money.

How would you implement it?

Cut it out already

[johannesg]

This article invariably gets posted whenever someone proposes a solution to spam. Has it ever occurred to you that a single solution is not going to work, but that it _will_ be possible to reduce the problem by taking a number of (in themselves incomplete) measures? And that it is necessary to take such steps, in order to reach a sufficiently acceptable solution?

By shooting down everything that looks like a beginning to a solution, you are defending the spammers and postponing the date when our inboxes will once again be _ours_.

Some comments on the items you selected:

> (*) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money

You won't know until you try, do you?

> (*) It is defenseless against brute force attacks

Maybe, but we still get to see the 50 most obnoxious spammers go through a courtcase and hopefully jail time or major fines. That is good enough for me.

> (*) Requires too much cooperation from spammers

Eh? Once the FBI figures out where they live, all they need to do is be home when they knock on his door. And then hopefully resist arrest in some extreme manner.

> (*) Open relays in foreign countries

Any spammer based in the US is vulnerable, though. Start with those, then think about how to get the rest. I'm sure some method will make itself apparent.

> (*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical

That's because people like you shoot them down before they are ever tried.

Re:Cut it out already

[FireFury03]

It is a bad law - not because it won't do any good (infact I think it will do some good), but because it could have done a lot more good. It is also a bad law because it essentially turns some what was a gray area into a completely legal area instead of doing what the rest of the world is doing and outlawing spam entirely.

The good thing about the law is that it should make it easier to filter the spam, and in an effort to save bandwidth it can be filtered as it is delivered (MTA can detect that it's spam and immediately drop the connection outright. Infact, the MTA can also add a firewall rule for that server's IP to drop all future connections into a tarpit. A large number of mail servers dropping spammer's connections into a tarpit would likely hit the spammer's outbound mail server pretty hard, at least until they rewrote their IP stacks to work around it.

Re:Cut it out already

[ghereheade]

If the do live outside the U.S. there might be an alternative enforcement strategy. A few guys in camo can "quietly" pick them up at their home and deliver them to a certain prison facility in Bagdad. Although normal persons/prisoners should never be treated the way they were in Bagdad, I don't think even the most liberal amoung us would worry about the spammers.

Re:Cut it out already

[badasscat]

It is a bad law - not because it won't do any good (infact I think it will do some good), but because it could have done a lot more good. It is also a bad law because it essentially turns some what was a gray area into a completely legal area instead of doing what the rest of the world is doing and outlawing spam entirely.

What "rest of the world"? Please provide us with some specific examples of how "the rest of the world" is outlawing spam. When you use a phrase like that, you'd better mean more than one or two countries, and you'd better really mean "outlawing entirely" rather than "placing restrictions upon" like the EU is doing and pretty much everybody else I can think of (nobody I know of has a law that says "the sending of any unsolicited email is a crime" - think about how draconian such a law would be). And that's what CAN-SPAM does too, albeit in a bit more relaxed fashion than some other laws. We've been over this before and pretty well all agreed it's impossible to "outlaw spam entirely", especially in the USA where we still have some vestiges of free speech (as in, you can now more easily outlaw speech deemed politically dangerous than in years past, but you still can't outlaw speech just because you find it inconvenient to wade through your inbox).

I'm not a big fan of CAN-SPAM either and feel it could have been a better law. But arguing against it at this point because it doesn't go far enough is like arguing against the assault weapons ban because it doesn't also cover handguns. There's rarely ever an all-or-nothing solution in politics or law; you have to fight for what you can, take what you can get, and then deal with the resulting law when it's done.

Right now, this is the only federal anti-spam law we have. It's not the best law anyone could have come up with, but it's better than nothing, and the best we could have gotten given the politics involved. And I don't see why you would argue against 100 of the worst spammers being prosecuted under it, just because you don't like the law. If a spammer's being prosecuted, a spammer's being prosecuted and that's all that matters.

I also don't see why this is filed under "your rights online". What passes for an online right these days on this site? Is it now Slashdot's position that it's a spammer's right to send spam? Are all government prosecutions bad, whatever the circumstances, and whatever the crime involved?

us spam

[cstream_chris]

You're all silly. Over 55% of the world's spam originates in the US with the closest 2nd being Canada at 6.8%. See Sophos Dirty Dozen at: http://www.sophos.com/spaminfo/articles/dirtydozen .html Additionally, over 90% of the world's spam comes from just 200 well known spammers (w/ Alan Ralsky being #1). See ROKSO (Registry of Known Spam Operations): http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/index.lasso Anyway, it's good the US is finally going after some of these people since individuals are no longer allowed to sue spammers under the Can Spam Act (aka "You Can Spam Act")

Re:Maybe this will work?

[Mick Ohrberg]

How would you implement it?

I'm like a consultant - I just suggest, I don't implement... :D

Obviusly my reasoning has flaws, but unless we start really thinking about this and take some kind of action, spamming will never cease. And as far as hijacked servers go, well, that's where I figured the electronic stamp would come in handy. And the tax could go to crime prevention, medical research...whatever is in need of the extra money.

Also, maybe the tax would only be applicable to persons above a certain income bracket? And on the rest, install an email quota? Shoot, I dunno - most of this stuff is impossible to implement w/o infringing on the first amendment and peoples' privacy, but I am SO sick and tired of all the spam.

OT: Re:Juxtaposition of laws..

[gclef]

That's because that particular soldier was in a special court martial, because he agreed to testify against the others (just like a plea bargain in regular courts).

The other soldiers are in regular courts martial, which do not have the 1-year limitation.

Nerds?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Maybe I get the whole geek vs nerds thing mixed up again but one of them knows that what you say is true. We know there is no magic bullet and that it will take multiple solutions all put together to have an effect.

Not everyone who posts on /. is however a geek/nerd. A fairly large amount is just angsty teen boys who think they are leet because they changed the color theme of the windows on their dell.

You can tell the parent post is not a nerd or a geek. Nerd/geeks don't get endless amounts of SPAM. We use disposable email addresses to limit the number of spam lists we are on, don't give out our email address to just every "free porn" site out there and use filters to stop the rest. That does not make us spam free but if you spend more then 1 minute deleting spam you are doing something wrong. Computers work FOR you, not you for the computer.

Please do not make everyone who uses a computer into a nerd/geek. Only those WHO understand our computers and can operate them correctly can possibly qualify.

All those who are diluged under spam fall into the luser group.

This may sound harsh but frankly I am fed up with the whining about spam. It is like virusses. Get some bloody protection and learn how to deal with it. You are the first line of defence. If you are unwilling to act then why do expect anyone else to?

Re:Nerds?

[Otter]

You can tell the parent post is not a nerd or a geek. Nerd/geeks don't get endless amounts of SPAM. We use disposable email addresses to limit the number of spam lists we are on, don't give out our email address to just every "free porn" site out there and use filters to stop the rest. That does not make us spam free but if you spend more then 1 minute deleting spam you are doing something wrong. Computers work FOR you, not you for the computer.

I'm quite happy with a mix of procmail (throwing out .cn and .ru mails, viruses, trojans and bounces), SpamAssassin and POPfile. If disposable accounts work for you, great -- for me, that's working FOR my computer, not the other way around.

In any case, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my point, which had to do with dealing with the spam issue as a whole, not with getting into some dweeb-war with you over who wastes more time making his computing life more efficient.

Re:Nerds?

[JuggleGeek]

All those who are diluged under spam fall into the luser group.

I have several public addresses on my website, in WhoIs, etc, which have been there for years. I refuse to kill them off because once everyone starts hiding their email addresses, the spammers have effectively killed off email as a useful tool.

I get 400-500 spams a day, plus bounces where spammers fake my domain when they send their spam.

It takes me very little time to deal with it - as you say, computers work for us.

And you have the gall to claim I'm a luser because I don't do things the way you do? Fuck you! You just keep hiding from spam and pretending it's not a problem. You keep pretending that your way is the only way and everyone who does anything different is a clueless luser. You just keep pretending that you have a clue - but I know better.

By the way - Fuck You, Asswipe.

there are more people to go after

[medvezhatnik]

FBI should go after those who advertise in the spam. not only spammers.
Most of them are scam artists anyway. no one would pay Allan Ralsky to send all this $hit.

Re:Maybe this will work?

[smellystudent]

Back from where, exactly? They could legitimately claim it back from their company if they paid for it from their own pocket, they could claim tax relief on it as a business expense, but sadly nobody goes around giving me money for stuff just because I claim it's a "business expense".

all spam

[Ozwald]

This is good. Now if they can manage to keep paper shit out of my mailbox at home, then I'd be excited. Seeing a full waste basket of Walmart ads makes me ill.

But parts of me wonder if the FBI is really wasting their time and our money. Just like Windows viruses or drunk driving, the source of the problem is not actually solved. Just makes it less appealing to do wrong. I wish instead resources went into making email more secure. And just like file sharing, we risk driving spammers further underground where FBI can't go.

Oz

Re:Maybe this will work?

[the chao goes mu]

If you put a low-income exemption into this plan, the spammers would simply subcontract to the poor in order to avoid your taxation scheme. Once you leave a loophole, someone will exploit it.

Screw the FBI, I Want the Army

[Landaras]

Wake me when it's the U.S. Army handling the spammer smackdown.

And as an upside, Bush's (flawed) policies would help "solve" the whole international jurisdiction problem that spam has.

- Neil Wehneman

I have a wonderful spam proof

[NewToNix]

method.

But it will not fit in this tiny /. reply box...

Appropriate Sig: This really is my last theorem.

cynical

[Doc Ruby]

OK, how about an additional complaint that Ashcroft will be doing something about spam only at the end of this year, just in time for the election? Sure, that's cynical, but not as cynical as his boss, Karl Rove, Bush's soviet-style "political director". Rove is the gatekeeper on all policies and decisions in the White House, subordinating every BushCo policy to their highest priority: reelection. And Rove built his career on his rise with the Direct Marketing Association, whose members fill your postal mailbox with traditional paper spam. So of course they really love spam, know how much you hate it, and intend to "do something about it" only to the extent that they get lots of press for their "crackdown", before letting the spammers off the hook - after the election. And you'll thank them for it with your votes.

Re:cynical

[Doc Ruby]

How do you thank them - by buying their spammed products? I prefer to thank them by paying my federal taxes, which would more than subsidize the stamps. Especially if the DMA members were cut off from the billions in corporate welfare handed out by Rove's boys, including attempts at complete tax exemption.

Re:cynical

[base3]

Bull. If anything, 37 cent first class stamps subsidize ludicrously cheap bulk mail rates.

Re:Maybe this will work?

[Batou]

The problem with this is what happens to legitimate mailing lists? Take Bugtraq for example. How many people subscribe to their lists? It would cost them a fortune to exist.

The only real way to get rid of this is to force sender verification. SPF is a good start, but won't go far enough, IMHO. SMTP itself needs to be tossed out in favor of something new, but getting the impetus behind this is enormous to say the least.

Infection & Antibiotics

[dark404]

Your argument is best expressed as spam is an antibiotic resistant infection. As such it must be treated with several antibiotics (Solutions) until there are no more spammers.

An alternative plan!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just release the names and addresses of the (alleged) spammers.

Things will be taken care of.

Why?

[phorm]

Why should CANSPAM kill state laws though? CANSPAN gives an allowed for following certain conditions. A state law can add several additional conditions. I believe the laws are set up so that federal cannot fully override state laws?

Basically, the federal law would be like a blanket law for states w/o their own antispam laws, the state laws would add other conditions.

Jokes in Spam

[Sir Toby]

(Also, I think the spammers should start sending poems, jokes and stuff out. That way people would start reading their spam and be more susceptible to the offers).

They are already doing this. I've seen at lease one spam that included a joke in it. It was obviously intended to work around a Bayesian filter, but still...

one solution I never see mentioned

[zogger]

and that is a large, non commercial email system. All the members sign up, pay a fee of some sort of adequate folding money for an email account, something high enough to make it practical to have an account, and impractical enough for spammers to use it. It's like a built from scratch giant whitelist. Any infractions, you are out. Something like the proposed google email system, that big I mean, but zero commercial traffic, none, not for any reason. The fees go to pay for the servers and bandwith, etc of the org that runs it. It would be viral in the sense that you as joe emailer tell your friends/whomever you normally conduct non commercial email with "here's my new address, it's restricted. The company doesn't allow commercial email at all, in fact, zero mail gets inside the system from outside the system. the email must orginate and terminate totally inside the system of registered users.. You can email me at this addy,after you register yourself, but don't CC to people outside, no spam or ads are allowed,you have to do your best on keeping your own computer clean, you assume responsbility for that, and this is how you can contact me now if you want to, your choice".

Then stick with it.

The main problem with email is it's so easy to have unlimited emails, so easy to create them. If an email addy was actually worth as much as say your snail mail addy or your phone number, it wouldn't be quite as bad. I don't think it would ever get perfect, but I bet it could eliminate the bulk of the bad stuff. What would an email addy that good be worth per year? I guess that's a variable, perhaps a downpayment, then a bandwith charge over a certain amount of traffic in and out of your box.

And no, I really don't have any technical details of how to go about it, outside my area of expertise. Maybe it's impossible, I don't know, but it seems like it *should* be possible. And there's nothing stopping anyone from keeping their "old" style email in addition, but at least it would be one account you know was mostly rid of spam and viruses and whatnot right from the git-go..

Re:Maybe this will work?

[maximilln]

-----
If it got rid of spam, I wouldn't be opposed to paying $0.01 or even $0.001 per email.
-----
Ideally I agree.

Practically we know that, once the door is opened to charging for e-mail, it'll only be a matter of time before we're paying $0.10/ea, or $0.40/ea. Once the system is in place to charge for something then the people who profit will ratchet up the price as far as possible.

Consider that most people send far less than 10 e-mails/day, as you pointed out. Let's take a theoretical number, probably still a high estimate, of one hundred e-mails per month. If the charge were five cents each most people would see an increase of $5.00/month to their cable bill. That's less than the tax amount. Most people wouldn't even blink an eye. Next year it's $7.00, the year after it's $10.00, and people still aren't batting an eye. After a few years the system becomes like telephone lines used to be: plans are offered which give X e-mails per month with a charge of Y for each e-mail afterwards.

It'd be a twenty year cycle before we got back to the point where we are today: a plan with unlimited e-mail figured in to the overall cost of the service. By that time, the cost of the service will have doubled past what it really needs to be. No one would know any better, though, because 20 years is long enough for a new generating to be cycling through school.

Just like telephone service.

I hate this arguement

[phorm]

First of all, murders would often be an issue for local law enforcement. Serials killers perhaps an FBI issue, but otherwise it would be the jurisdiction of the local PD.

Terrorists... if you look at all the steps taken to "combat terrorism," I'd rather they backed off a bit on their current focus before I end up with SWAT in my living room. Proactive steps against terrorist attacks would be good, but the "war against terror" is more like a witch-hunt with an agendy for implenting draconian laws.

Spies. I suppose that goes with the above. How many FBI agents should go towards the above? It's not really a good decision to ignore a given crime in favour of another - it's more a matter of scale for both enforcement and punishment.

What are they waiting for?

[pedantic bore]

If they have identified these people and have some evidence, why are they waiting to act until "later next year?" The longer they're on the loose, the more chance they will have to move their operations overseas, earn money to hire better lawyers, etc. And, of course, the more spam they will inflict on us and the more it will cost *us*.

I say arrest them as soon as the prosecuting attorney is happy with the case.a judge will sign a warrant. Why wait?

Because it wasn't illegal

[Sycraft-fu]

Until just receantly. America is a legal by default nation, that's what the spirit of Ammendment 10 of the Constitution is. Unless a law has been passed against something, it's legal. Hence why ecasty was legal for awhile. It had to be categorized as a controlled substance before it could be illegal.

So SPAM itself wasn't illegal. Some (many) of the things spammers did were illegal, but quite hard to prosecute, like fraud. Yes, it was illegal to advertise you are selling something you are not but it's much harder to prove. You need a complaning witness (person who's been ripped off) and then it's he said she said.

Now that SPAM, or at least some kinds of it, are illegal, it's a whole lot easier. You get the ball rolling by charging them with spamming. Then you can get a warrant for their servers and their finincials and such. With that, fraud is much easier to prove and they can then get doubly fucked.

collecting evidence

[rozz]

i can't stop but imagine the FBI team bustin' in and shouting :

- hands up!!! nobody move!!!

- all your SPAM belongs to us!

and then proceed to collect evidence:

- sirs, please put your pants down!

- we have to take all that 3-inches-extra from your dicks as hard-evidence!

FTC sharing its info with the FBI?

[jdunlevy]

Since the FTC (not the FBI) is the US government body that gets most UCE/spam complaints, (FBI seems interested only in some types of fraud -- and then only if there are victims, not just attempts) I'll be curious to see if the two bodies are able to cooperate enough for the FBI to actually make use of the FTC's data, of which ther must by now be a mind-blowingly huge amount.

Every spammer has a goal.

[struberg]

And this goal is to heavily increase the people going to his website or accessing his services.

So it is quite an analogy to the tax system! They import something and we export something.

If we can not stop their imports, then we have to stop the resulting exports!

Oki, to get more acurate: The european and american hoster are no problem, they can be sued to bancruptcy. For all other countries: Lets collect all urls of the advertising companies and block them. The major internet firms like google, yahoo, msn and most important the big internet providers like aol, etc should block the ip of those companies.

This is like the ordb (open relay black list) but in a reverse manner.

An simple example:
A chinese company xxx is spamming around doing some advertising for some of their pages. If this ip will be blocked within a day by most ISP's, then nobody will show their pages. This way, spam mails will be incredibly less rentable and the number of spam mails will significantly drop

LieGrü,
strub
www.struct.at

Link to FBI Congressional Statement

[dazed-n-confused]

Here's what the article's all about: CAN-SPAM Act Congressional Testimony of Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Jana Monroe before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, May 20, 2004

Steve Linford of spamhaus calls the overview of Project SLAM-Spam "required reading for all spammers."

Instant results aren't promised

[Ra5pu7in]

Good grief. No law suddenly causes all violators to stop their behavior. Laws against monopolies didn't make businesses suddenly see the error of their ways and break up. Laws against racism and segregation haven't ended prejudice. The laws are merely tools allowing some authoritative body to take action against the worst offenders (and sometimes the lesser offenders).

Take laws against racism and segregation. Until the military came along and forced some schools to accept non-white students, they would have gone right on ignoring the law. It took 1) someone reporting the violation, 2) someone investigating the violation, 3) someone enforcing the punishment for the violation, and 4) someone making it know through action that violations would not be acceptable.

The FBI is investigating and getting ready to go after spammers. They have not yet enforced the punishments, but they have the authority to confiscate possessions bought with the proceeds or used in spamming (much as the IRS does for tax evaders), so losing homes and cars and computers should begin to make it less profitable to spam. Until enough spammers lose a lot, the word won't spread that spamming doesn't pay. That doesn't make the law useless - it just means it hasn't had time to make much impact yet. The degree of the impact will depend on the continued enforcement (though I believe the ratio of FBI agents to spammers is a lot better than speeders to cops).

Of course, this won't stop all spammers. There will be the diehard group (likely with mafia-style connections) who go so deep underground that they are hard to find.

BTW, spammers by their very business, want to have someone able to find them -- their "customers". (Hey, perhaps we should go after the users instead of the dealers -- slap a $250 fine on any person who buys from spam. Soon, with no one responding to their offers, spammers would go out of business. Yeah, I know this wouldn't really work.)

Re:Maybe this will work?

[lost_n_confused]

Your solution is OK for individuals but what about small shareware authors who do all of their tech support by e-mail? I have had a number of freeware programmers who have helped me with problems. How do you suggest they pay for e-mail? To charge for e-mail is a waste. You want to stop SPAM find the companies the are selling the products and fine them big $$$. If every company that used the services of a spammer is tied up in court for years and all of their cash is used to fight the lawsuits spamming would not be a viable business choice.

death

[Scott Richter]

As satisfying as that might be (public executions, please!) I don't think anyone really wants such a law.

Thank you. Now could you tell that to the lynch mob trying to break down my door?

Thanks,

Scott

Re:Maybe this will work?

[maximilln]

Hmmmm... good point. ISPs could offer the "unlimited e-mail" account but that wouldn't stop spam. All of the spammers would sign up for the unlimited e-mail accounts.

If the feds really wanted to stop spam they'd have three agents ordering products identified from spam and tracking down the company through the credit card billing or the shipping trail. Order the stuff overnight from FedEx and then backtrack it to the original warehouse. Once at the warehouse serve a subpoena to find who the stocker/provider was. Anything short of this approach (including the CANSPAM Act) is just a dog and pony show.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Steve B]

it's alot easier to keep spam under controll than it is to keep government in it's[sic] place.

Punishing people who violate my private property rights is the government's place. Duh.

Don't expect much. - the DMA is involved.

[Animats]

The FBI now claims to be "investigating spam". But they've contracted with the Direct Marketing association for support, the project has been going on since at least August 2003, and they're vague about what resources are actually being devoted to the project.

The "Notable early accomplishments" read very strangely. They seem to have been drafted for maximum deniability. "Developed ten primary subject packets developed and for referral to Law Enforcement" "We are already planning meetings to ensure that this initiative is on track, and to further define the scope and packaging of this activity are being planned." Doesn't sound like a major roundup of criminals is in the works.

The FBI doesn't actually produce many arrests per hour expended. The FBI's Baltimore-based child porno operation produces about 1.6 arrests per agent year. They have 200 agents on that operation, or about 2% of their agent staff. (The FBI isn't that big. There are only about 12,000 agents. The NYPD is four times as large.) So to shut down 100 spammers per year, they'd probably have to devote about 75 agents to the operation, which is a big bite for them.

The DMA involvement is part of the problem. The DMA carefully crafted the CAN-SPAM act to make it expensive to enforce. The California law (which CAN-SPAM invalidated) was nice and simple - advertise using spam, go to jail. It's easy to find and arrest the advertisers, who collect the money. CAN-SPAM requires finding the actual spammers, which is much harder. With the DMA working closely with the FBI, they can direct the FBI away from "responsible e-mail marketers", as the DMA puts it. They may also receive FBI cooperation in lobbying against stronger anti-spam legislation in future.

Poor Snotty

[Dimensio]

Aww, what's the matter, Snotty? Are you shocked that your acts of theft, trespass and harassment have fostered ill will against you? Are you pissing your pants because there are people who actually want to give you what you deserve? Are you still such an arrogant shit that you see fit to sue Spamcop when they've done nothing wrong?

Re:Poor Snotty

[Scott Richter]

Aww, what's the matter, Snotty? Are you shocked that your acts of theft, trespass and harassment have fostered ill will against you? Are you pissing your pants because there are people who actually want to give you what you deserve? Are you still such an arrogant shit that you see fit to sue Spamcop when they've done nothing wrong?

Actually, I'm shitting them. And Spamcop is a bunch of evil, mean assclowns. I will 0wnZ0r them.

Re:Poor Snotty

[Dimensio]

Actually, I'm shitting them.

I guess that's why your TRO got smacked down before it could even go into effect.

And Spamcop is a bunch of evil, mean assclowns.

Poor widdle Snotty, whining and moaning because the big mean Spamcop gives people a tool to report your acts of theft and harassment.

Why not put a bounty?

[dindi]

Spam supposedly costs a lot to companies.

I just realized that when started to run my own business and had to deal with over 50 spam messages on my "business accounts". Spam filters do not work, since some of my contact are listed in spam DB-s for a reason or an other. My shared cable IP is in those, since some badass used that provider (the only provider btw here) to spam.

To make my story short, why not just put a bounty on spammers? If they are really worth going after why not "outsource" or "open source" it to the masses.

You give the address of the spammer, FBI kicks the door you get your $50k...

Actually providers could do the same, they have the CC info, and for a chineise ISP getting $50k would be a bigger catch than the monthly $2000 for a bulletproof hosting and all the troubble that goes with it ...

Techniques? : set up honeypots, sell bulletproof hosting, pay the $25 to the spammer who offers you guaranteed 7million visitors, and go after them when their bank shows on your CC statement ...

Say that you are a mail advertising/mail software guru and put an ad in the local newspaper, or online ....

PS: I dealt with casinos, pharmacies, credit card sites, and debte management, and I never sent out 1 single mail without someone asking for it (eg signing up to news with a signup confirming system) or directly hitting REPLY in my mailer.... and I am proud of it... and I would be happy to have all the crap disappear from my mailbox and have those bastards pay HUGE fines !

The ones making money

[Bender Unit 22]

It is not about the iron that sends the spam or hosts the pages. Go after the people making money from this and I think you will find most of them located in the US.

Re:I Agree

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Because the top -5- spammers are responsible for probably 90% of the spam. By nailing the top 50, we'll be left not only a tiny fraction of the spam that used to be flowing, but just the tiny operators who don't have a) vast amounts of cash to mount legal defenses, or b) the technical resources to keep changing their tactics to get around filters. And hopefully, once the littler fish see what's happening to the big operators like Ralsky and Richter, they'll get out of the game entirely and go back to dealing meth and whoring out their daughters for nickels.

well, now

[capt.mellow]

. . . this is something I will actually be glad to see my tax dollars paying for.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[argoff]

"Punishing people who violate my private property rights is the government's place. Duh. "

Yeah, but the purpose of punishing people isn't to get payback, but secure liberties. Why have some massive central federal authority to do that when we can do it ourselves?

Naked pyramid of spammers... I'd pay to see that!

[enronman]

Spammers are not covered by the geneva convention... I can't wait to see what they do to those guys in prision.

Biggest or Worst?

[crucini]

I hope that's true. It may well be, however, that the FBI will go after the spammers with the most criminality rather than the most spam. The guy stealing credit card numbers, shipping phony medicines, etc. I hope you're right.

Possibly maybe we'll do something real soon now.

[AnotherBlackHat]

targeting 50 of the most noxious for potential prosecution later this year.

They think they know of 100 people who are violating the CANSPAM act, and there's only potential for prosecution?

Why do I feel like this is just election year politicing at it's typical bad?

-- this is not a .sig

OptInRealBig's still operating openly

[billstewart]

Scotty pretends to be operating legitimately, and puts OptIn's name and contact information on the "legitimate bulk email" he sends. He also appears to be using the name WholesaleBandwidth, though that could be a buddy of his if it's not him directly. I don't know if he's also sending spam through other channels, but OptInRealBig's still going.

I used to discard all my OptInRealBig spam (based on From moosq.com), but when they filed their lawsuit against spamcop I started saving it all. I usually get a few a day, down from a dozen or so. Most of what I get goes to a catchall alias that my ISP provides, which is something I'd *never* use to sign up for everything, so it's strict from harvesting or dictionary-spam.

OptIn no longer uses the OptiGate connections through AboveNet that they referenced in their lawsuit. They're now using somebody who's a customer of WVFiber.net. They've got nice operational folks, who said they were having their management talk to the customer to get them to dump OptIn, but it apparently hasn't happened yet. If you want to check out who they're using when you read this, traceroute 23/moosq.com (or other two-digit number between about 01 and 50.) You'll currently see some path to wvfiber.net, then to ibis7 (an old business name wvfiber used) then 69.6.63.2, then the moosq. If you've got spam from them and want to forward them to abuse@wvfiber.net, that could help get Scotty kicked off yet another ISP.

If you're an ISP and want to do your customers a favor, you could set your DNS to resolve any moosq.com domains to 127.0.0.2, and blackhole route 69.6.0.0/18 and 69.6.64.0/20 and as11938. (At one point, AboveNet, who were OptiGate's upstream, stopped accepting route advertisements for 69.6.0.0/18, as documented in the lawsuit.) If you're a Tier 1 ISP and want to violate the normal practices that keep the Internet running smoothly, you could even start advertising routes to that space and null-route it, but that would be a Bad Thing.

Yes, but he's transparently bogus

[billstewart]

Scotty's complaint alleged that by removing the spam complainer's name from complaints to his upstream providers, that prevented him from doing his CAN-SPAM duty and removing them from his lists. This is Rule 1, of course - if a spam complainer _wanted_ to give Scotty their address so he could resell it to other spammers, the complainer could do that directly. And if the complainer wanted to give that to Scotty's pet ISP Optigate, which stated in the lawsuit that they'd give it to Scotty, the complainer could have done that too. Spamcop's providing a service that people specifically want by removing the names.

The only anti-spam law that I've seen that was really useful was the never-enacted "S.1618" Senate bill. Spammers would but lies in the bottom of their messages about how S.1618 said they mail wasn't really spam, and S.1618 was a sufficiently unique string that your spam filters could safely trash any message that contained it (unless you were in a discussion about spam, of course, but those discussions always risk false positives.)

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Steve B]

Yeah, but the purpose of punishing people isn't to get payback, but secure liberties. Why have some massive central federal authority to do that when we can do it ourselves?

If the government is willing to get out of the way for real (i.e. make spammers "outlaws" in the old-fashioned sense of the term, meaning "one outside the protection of the law", so that their spamboxen could be cracked and disabled without legal recourse), fine. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.