Slashdot Mirror


FTC Recommends Bounty on Spammers

joke-boy writes "AP reports that as part of the CANSPAM legislation, the FTC has issued a report recommending placing taxpayer-funded 6-figure bounties on spammers, much like the bounties placed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted."

19 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Their Figures are a Little Off by christopherfinke · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What would it take to get someone to turn in one of those spammers who send millions of unwanted e-mails? At least $100,000, the Federal Trade Commission figures.
    Really? If I knew someone who was spamming, I'd turn them in for free. Any cash would just be a bonus.
    1. Re:Their Figures are a Little Off by bizpile · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? If I knew someone who was spamming, I'd turn them in for free. Any cash would just be a bonus.

      You make a good point. It's like when they double the bounty on Osama. Like people in Pakistan/Afganistan are sitting around saying, "You know, I'd turn him in for $50 million, but $25 million just doen't speak to me."

      Actually, I'd turn in a spammer just to get a couple of free punches ;).

    2. Re:Their Figures are a Little Off by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I turn in a dozen clearly fraudulent spams a month, which are blithely ignored by law enforcement. The problem is not "catching". The law enforcement agencies can easily, if they wish, get subpoenas to track the records or follow a canceled check or credit card to get the worst of the spammers.

      The problem is that they can't be bothered unless it involves hundreds of thousands of dollars of blatant wire fraud, and even then they're quite incompetent at following the evidence or even prosecuting for the right crime.

    3. Re:Their Figures are a Little Off by evilmrhenry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While you may turn in any spammers you know about, the purpose of a bounty is to reward those that take a bit of time to actually track one down.

      For example, a 6 figure bounty would be a good reward, even if it took a few months of full-time work to find the spammer.

  2. Six Figures? by josh3736 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I can understand six figure rewards for those on the ten most wanted list, but for spammers?

    Surely there are things that money could be better spent on. Like say, the implementation of a new email protocol. Or (gasp!) things like Social Security or education.

    1. Re:Six Figures? by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      maybe they're trying to save money in the seven figures from goverment buro's and education institutions by decreasing amounts of spam.

      (yeah it's kinda high especially with the quite easy frameup process compared to most other crime)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Six Figures? by savagedome · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Top ten most wanted deserve 7 and 8 figures.

      But seriously, screw these scum of the earth bastards. Remember those days when web was a nice place and everybody you knew had a cutesy little homepage and you would leave cute little message in their guest books and such with your name and email and such. DAMN I WANT THAT BACK. That was a nicer web instead of trying to take every bit of care not to leak your email EVEN ONCE. Coming up with NOSPAM crap in your email addresses while posting them somewhere in the hope that some bastard spammer's spider won't catch that. Putting all those funky signs and punctuation and ascii characters to fool those spiders. Using spam filters, white lists, black lists, bayseian etc. etc. Telling everybody not to send, forward anything and never to use your email except for personal reasons.

      And then your girlfriend sends you that cute little card to your email account from that cutesy flowery website that is an email harvester.

      DAMN I WANT THE OLD WEB BACK BEFORE THESE SPAMMERS CAME AND TOOK IT OVER.

    3. Re:Six Figures? by josh3736 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'd say one could compare spam to P2P music downloading.

      When Napster became big, the RIAA shut it down. But then 3 more P2P apps popped up to fill that void. Then the RIAA tried to shut them down. Rinse and repeat, there's now 64 different filesharing apps just for Windows.

      Now look at spam. Every time the FTC or whatever government agency shuts down a spammer, how many more will pop up to fill the void?

      Free music or free money. There's a risk with both -- getting sued by the RIAA or having the Federal government on your ass.

      What we really need to do is figgure out how to make it so that spam isn't profitable. Ever.

  3. Won't do much by Dorsai42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When there's a bounty on the advertisers who use the spammers, then we'll see a reduction in spam

    --
    If you forget about the future, the future will forget about you.
    1. Re:Won't do much by thomasdelbert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would be a nice way to catch one - pose as an advertiser. Now spammers don't know who to trust.

      - Thomas;

      --
      ___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
  4. Re:Allow me to say by Drawkcab · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A bounty doesn't really make sense the way that spammers are currently prosecuted. Most spammers just get a slap on the wrist. Until spammers actually start getting serious hard time or huge civil penalties, then the value of the bounty would be greater than the cost to most spammers. This would make it beneficial for a small time spammer to partake in their own bounty.

    If bounties given out were a percentage of the fines actually collected from spammers (which ideally should be really painful for big spammers), rather than some fixed range, then a bounty system would make sense. And spammers who manage to launder their profits so the fines don't stick need to get prison time.

  5. no bounty but maybe.... by zogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ....confiscation and public destruction of zombie computers. Then just *perhaps* enough people would bingo to what they are running and how they are running stuff on their computers to treat them with a little more intelligence, and they in turn might go seek out those who supplied them with inadequate products that are sold with no warranties, the vendors and software makers who ship these easily zombified boxes.

    It's way past time products that come brand new pre-borked got recalled and the vendors ordered to "not do that".

    We as consumers and the government wouldn't put up with "acme doors" that failed to swing open and closed, failed to lock adequately, and anyone could open with a gentle shove when it was allegedly latched, but with computers connected to the internet they can ship totally insecure crap and profit from it to the tune of hundreds of billions with little recourse for the consumer when they get owned or the dang thing fails to function as advertised.

    And really, the thought of a legion of whizzed off grandmothers who had their zombie computers confiscated descending on a computer and software marketing weasel convention and laying waste with brooms is rather a nice image.

    YOUNG MAN *WHACK* DON'T YOU EVER *WHACK* SELL THAT SHODDY MERCHANDISE AGAIN!! *WHACK WHACK WHACK*

  6. Re:that's hardly fair to the taxpayers by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Make the spammers pay out the bounty. There's absolutely no reason to make taxpayers (you know, citizens) suffer and go further in debt (via the nation) for the crimes to humanity that spammers have perpetrated.

    RTFA. Not enough money is recovered from spammers, even the few that are prosecuted. There is a small number of big spammers, who are smart enough to keep their money safe from seizure, and a lot who live in trailer parks. The benefit to society as a whole is worth the cost if it deters.

  7. Good to see some momentum by bigberk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Let's review the facts:
    1. Spammers use stolen resources (hijacked zombie computers, DSL/cable connections) in order to further their business.
    2. Spammers do not seek consent before bombarding email systems with their marketing information.
    3. Spammers generally disrespect requests for them to stop sending unsolicited email, and in fact often send more mail after such requests (selling 'confirmed' addresses to colleagues)
    4. Spammers deliberately conceal their location of 'business', mislead consumers in their 'marketing campaigns' and forge their identities.
    It's good to see these people increasingly treated as what they really are, criminals that have been harming society and getting away with it because our current laws are too slow to catch up. What they're doing is not only annoying, but harmful to innocent peoples' systems.
  8. What a waste. Next, Please. by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree.

    Further, I am very curious as to how many bounty hunters will have will and/or the ability to get foriegn spammers to US Courts.

    This, of course, speaks nothing of the spammers who are already here.

    Spammers being actively hunted in the post Soviet Bloc countries, China, Nigeria, etc would be a very interesting thing to see if it *ever* happened, which I sincerely doubt.

    The war on spam reminds me of the war on drugs.

    And, IIRC, the war on drugs has yet to be won.

    Donald Rumsfeld, a man I am not very fond of, did correctly point out in my opinion that the war on drugs is a demand problem.

    So is Spam.

    As long as spam is profitable, it *will* continue.

    This will mainly serve to make the FTC look good while doing little (VERY little) to solve the problem.

    Our tax dollars at waste - again.

    .

    --
    uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
  9. Wait a minute... by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's to keep spammers from turning in other spammers? Then the spammers get MORE money.... OUR money!

  10. outsourcing risk by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The reason this won't work is that it, like so many other laws, are designed to punish scapegoats(how apropos) and not the criminals. The criminals outsource risk. They use plausible deniability and showcased due diligence to avoid responsibility. They go in front of the courts and congress and say things like 'I don't recall' and 'I did not know' and 'No one told me', and seldom are the laws applied in such a way that it is required that these executive be held responsible for the mismanagement and malfeasance that those answers so clearly imply.

    The fact is that major corporations, like the illegal drug dealers, outsource the most dangerous of their illegal activities to small time criminals. The discounts these small time criminals provide are the smallest part of the benefit. The real benefit comes from a judicial system that allows Wal*Mart to hire illegal aliens at wages that do no meet the federal standards, but not be responsible for the legal consequences. This shifting of responsibility away from corporation appears to the primary purpose of the modern executive. And therefore the livelihood of the million dollar executive depends on the fiction that he or she is not responsible for anything separated by the smallest sliver of paper. Even if it requires that the we assume the executive is the stupidest person in the planet, pride in ones job and oneself has become so irrelevant that stupidity is the preferable interpretation.

    This means that the spammers we are likely to catch will be replaced tomorrow, created by the corporate dual obsession with criminal behavior and outsourcing risk. They at the same time need to protect themselves from lawsuits, but also need to sell prescription drugs to kids. There is always another person who wants to earn a buck, and the pushers are always willing to set up another patsy to take the fall.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  11. Testimonial to US Government ineffectiveness by humankind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's all about enforcement.

    It's a sad day when one branch of the government offers a bounty to get another branch of the government off their asses to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades.

    Spammers break laws. Felony laws. 95% of all spammers break serious laws that could have them put in prison.

    We don't need people to report spammers. All someone has to do is put an unpatched windows pc on the net for a few hours and they'll be a zombie pc and start collecting info and able to identify the spammers. In a day you can have a hundred charges of computer tampering.

    Think about this come election time. We have a government that has been neutered by big business that has little concern for anything which doesn't directly affect big, multinational corporations that contribute to their campaign coffers. The apathy of the public is responsible for allowing these losers in office.

  12. How does this work? by bluewee · · Score: 3, Insightful
    How does this fight SPAM from other countries? Take taxatation, if you store your money on an offshore account where their LAWS are different, it does not get taxed, how does spam all of a sudden get put into a different realm?

    How about something that works: Fight SPAM

    --
    [blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...