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."
Now these bastard are gonna make *ME* rich!!!!
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.
Why make the taxpayers pay for cleaning up the internet of spam?
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.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
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
I think that they determined that it would take $100,000 - $250,000 for people to turn in people that they knew were spamming, but according to the article: The FTC, in a report requested by Congress, did not take a position on whether such a system was a good idea. To me, that sounds like the refrained from recommending it.
I guess it's up to us to convince them that it's a good idea.
Note: they recommend that this money come from taxpayers, but in an effort to try to cut down on that, can I suggest we find another source of it? Perhaps we need to not only look to civil penalties from the spammers, but also from the ISPs who behave negligently toward spammers.
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.
A bounty doesn't really make sense the way that spammers are currently prosecuted.
It does, however, make a *lot* of sense if the spammer gets to hang on my far wall encased in frozen carbonite.
I wouldn't consider paying a bounty hunter who brought in the spammer any other way.
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
I am reporting a spammer, RAVENSPEAR, an IP will be provided by SlashDot, and the address will be provided by the ISP. Could I get the sum payed out to me in 5 installments of 20,000 USD over 5 years?
Alex
[blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
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.