Slashdot Mirror


FTC Tries to Can Sex Spam

F_SMASH writes "The United States' Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has charged a group of companies and individuals with failing to include required warnings on 'sex' related spam e-mail."

168 comments

  1. Offshore? by grub · · Score: 4, Interesting


    One of the companies, Global Net Ventures, is based in the UK. How is the US FTC going to charge them?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Offshore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      charge the people that run the company, commit the illegal acts that are inthe US.

      anyone can have a server and company anywhere in the world. doesnt mean they cant be nailed for it when they are physically ina country with laws.

      also they can follow the money trail. stop money fromgoing to them.

      it doesnt matter where you are int hte world. business is difficult if the funds wont be allowed to transfer.

    2. Re:Offshore? by AceCaseOR · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I figure that, as they were spamming US Citizens, the FTC's argument is that they were doing business inside the United States, and thus are bound to follow US laws when doing so.

      I'm seriously hoping the FTC wins this suit.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    3. Re:Offshore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      How would you prevent money from being transfered into a bank account? Do you really think they'll get the NSA and FBI in on the thing?

    4. Re:Offshore? by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of the companies, Global Net Ventures, is based in the UK. How is the US FTC going to charge them?

      Little things like borders have never stopped US authorities before

    5. Re:Offshore? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Funny

      US absolutely can't do a thing. It's the same old issue of a spammer in Antartica 1000 miles away across the world, pressing "send, send, send".

      I love how a million American parents are writing a million complaint letters to Clearchannel etc for flashing 1 second of Janet Jackson's breast. Here they are at the mercy of the porn spammers, and can't do a thing.

    6. Re:Offshore? by pjrc · · Score: 5, Informative
      How is the US FTC going to charge them?

      Well, from the MSNBC article:

      But Harrington said the CAN-SPAM Act, which took force last January, makes all firms that engage in affiliate marketing liable for the actions of their sub-contractors.

      "There's a message here for anybody running an affiliate program; you need to monitor what the third parties are doing," she said. "If you are using a business model that recruits others, you are strictly liable for the practices of those third parties. It's not just the people who push the button. It's the business that provides the financial incentive. The law is clear and strict."

      And quoting from the CNN Money article:

      A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants that prohibits them from sending similar e-mails and freezes their assets, pending a preliminary hearing.

      Now if all the companies and people involved are outside the US, or they keep all their money stuffed in their mattresses and pay cash for everything, maybe they can just run away.

      But if they've done any banking within the US, they probably stand to lose all their money if they don't show up in court. (now if only groklaw would cover these cases....)

    7. Re:Offshore? by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't really think "nothing" is very valid. Some countries give the US (and other jurisdiction) - they just have to get permission first (sort of like when police from one state want to go to another state). They do this because it helps improve political relations (Trade relations, treaties, etc). They do this because turn-about is fair play "Yes Mr. President we let you come in and get our spammers, now we want to go in and get that guy who sold our people fake stocks".

      The UK is fairly friendly with the US, so I can't see why the US couldn't go in and get these guys.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    8. Re:Offshore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes because america has never ever in the history of the internet, shut down anyone else.

      right.......

      god you are a retard. by the way, this is about spam and eliminating a couple of american assholes that are hiding behind international companies.

      or cant you figure that out.

      go back to painting L and R on your shoes you idiot

    9. Re:Offshore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah so? Unless the company has an actual presence in the USA, there isn't much that can be done.

      What are they going to do? Tell customers that they shouldn't do business with them? Thats about all they can do.

    10. Re:Offshore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They do this because it helps improve political relations"

      They also do it because without permission it is called "kidnapping"

    11. Re:Offshore? by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1
      US absolutely can't do a thing.

      They don't need to, the U.K. government will do it for them. No country with any sense wants to risk trade with the US for the sake of an internet porn spammer.

      It's the same old issue of a spammer in Antartica 1000 miles away across the world, pressing "send, send, send".

      Block naval or air shipments of fuel "shiver,shiver,shiver can't seem to make hand work!".

    12. Re:Offshore? by syrinx · · Score: 1

      I love how a million American parents are writing a million complaint letters to Clearchannel etc for flashing 1 second of Janet Jackson's breast.

      Clearchannel owns radio stations. I doubt flashing a breast over radio is going to do much.

      I love how a million Slashbots write into websites about things they know nothing about.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    13. Re:Offshore? by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

      Nice catch, I thought that guy might have been right and the UK company might have been exempt. However, your arguement sounds right.

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    14. Re:Offshore? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      One of the companies, Global Net Ventures, is based in the UK. How is the US FTC going to charge them?

      My guess is send them a bill with a link to PayPal.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    15. Re:Offshore? by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

      I think the parents have the right to complain. Its not like anyone was expecting nudity, were they? If a show says there's not going to be nudity there shouldn't be any. Also, someone posted elsewhere that a spammer on foreign soil spamming Americans still have to abide by American law, since they're "doing business" with Americans.

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    16. Re:Offshore? by mhollis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, CBS broadcast Janet's "wardrobe malfunction." Clear Channel decided to quit airing Howard Stern in many areas. And it's not necessarily American parents who are doing the writing, it's right-wing organizations who take credit for most of the organizing.

      Howard is (and I am) still waiting for the FCC to treat Oprah Winfrey the same way his show has been treated by Michael Powell (the chairman of the FCC). I regularly do not tune in Mr. Stern's broadcasts but I know that many do and I believe the increased attempts at "regulation" (read doling out fines) have nothing to do with decency on the airwaves -- something the FCC got out of the business of being concerned with during the Reagan Administration.

      After all, according to Republican rhetoric, the market ought to decide what should be aired. It was the Reagan FCC that decided that market pressures should decide what the vertical and horizontal blanking intervals should be like (if you do not work in television, you probably don't know what these are for -- but you are the market making these decisions).

      I had thought that the FTC ought to regulate spammers.

      --
      Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
    17. Re:Offshore? by grazzy · · Score: 1

      haha. .guatanamo base next for the ceos? I for one certainly hope usa will TRY that one.. haha

    18. Re:Offshore? by LucidBeast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlikely. Despite US citizens being spammed US laws do not apply in UK or other way around. Of course these guys might run into trouble if they enter US, but UK wouldn't extradite them for sending spam. There might be laws in UK to do that though.

    19. Re:Offshore? by LucidBeast · · Score: 1

      Counter argument is of course that US propably doesn't want to harm relations with UK too much for couple of porn spammers either. On second thought I might be wrong since it's porn and politicians in US are nowdays bit too inclined to listen to their fundamentalist base.

    20. Re:Offshore? by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not really about a fundamentalist base. Many people especially the 1/2 of the population that are women are disgusted with all the crap clogging their inbox. Until recently my company was getting very graphical images. The women in our employ made it clear they wanted it stopped. The answer was a combination of blacklists, spamassassin, blocking entire countries (Thailand, china etc.) ip blocks. We do local and national business. Anything from asia went to the postmaster account for review. After about 3-4 months the emails changed from porn to drugs from Canada and b.s. mortgage offers. The spam filters in thunderbird handles them fairly well.

    21. Re:Offshore? by bluGill · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe the any country would be particularly interested in protecting spammers. Seems to me more like a case of the UK being helpful because they know their citizens are sick of spam and this will help rid the world of it.

      I don't know if the UK is as strict about porn as the US, but I don't think it matters too much. I don't think they would consider this a porn issue.

    22. Re:Offshore? by TheOldFart · · Score: 1

      He was making a point and the point is valid. Getting Stern and Jackson confused is not much of a strecth...

    23. Re:Offshore? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Unless the company has an actual presence in the USA, there isn't much that can be done. What are they going to do?

      You mean other than freeze their assets with U.S. banks and their accounts with U.S. based payment processors such as VISA and MasterCard?

    24. Re:Offshore? by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      I am a humanist - and do not consider myself a puritan in the slightest. But I am still wound up fairly tightly by email spam be it porn or otherwise.

      Considering the UK is trying to do what it can to limit spam as well - if a spammer can be brought up on US laws instead, then I would think we would uphold and welcome it.

      The more we can do to squeeze unsoliticited mailers of all kinds - the better. Its not like I have ever bought anything as the result of a spam anyway! If a case like this works - it may start to make spammers of all kinds feel very uncomfortable. International co-operation on dealing with spammers would give them a serious threat(instead of the slightly fluffy one they get now).

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    25. Re:Offshore? by LucidBeast · · Score: 1
      I'm no friend of spam either, and although switching to thunderbird has reduced that problem greatly, I find find it annoying, but I think there is the fundamental issue of national sovereignty.

      Nations shouldn't write their legislation so that it extends beyond their borders that is a receipe for chaos, confusion and injustice. I know this just from trying to be a law obedient resident of both US and Finland alternatively. Just figuring how to declare taxes is a chore.

      To address international problems like porn spam countries should seek mutual agreements, which would enable law enforcement to co-operate across national borders. UK and US could have similar laws where sending spam from one country to the other is illegal in the country of origin.

    26. Re:Offshore? by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Thunderbird does help. I mostly use squirrelmail when roaming to access my mail, but as its an IMAP set-up, I leave Thunderbird running on a virtual desktop - so it can deal with spam, and automatically filter/route other incoming stuff.

      I agree that national sovereignty is an issue - mutual anti-spam legislation would probably be the best way through it. The problem is, we can hardly get international agreements on much more pressing issues than spam, so I wouldnt expect much...

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    27. Re:Offshore? by hardkrash · · Score: 0

      Try http://www.hashcash.org/ It's a way of making a postage stamp for e-mail, allowing safe passage through spam filters. You could ask your business partners to use this to get their mail through quicker.

      --
      It's amazing how many people you could be friends with if only they'd make the first approach.
  2. Hurray For Sueing Spammers by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

    It is good that the government is doing something about spammers, even if it is just one segment of them.

    --
    Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    1. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by JohnnyKlunk · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah, but they're trying to can the only spam that I actually like!

    2. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      they're trying to can the only spam that I actually like!

      In other words, you are one of the stupid assholes that responds to porn spam, thus encouraging the bastards to send more of it. Fuck you very much.

    3. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by Lindsay+Lohan · · Score: 1
      they're trying to can the only spam that I actually like
      Excuse me for being naiive, but do you guys actually like porn in the form of spam?
    4. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1
      Not all guys, but there are probably some guys who like seeing naked women in a kiddy pool full of mystery meat (just like they seeing a nekkid Natilie Portman lying amongst hot grits).

      Those people are probably also turned on by goatse and/or tubgirl.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    5. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      yeah, but they're trying to can the only spam that I actually like!

      I agree. I have such a hard time finding pr0n sites when I am surfing. These guys provide a real service to society.

    6. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

      Umm.., no. I think (hope) he was saying it has a joke. I don't want to picture him as sitting around, getting antsy waiting for more porn spam. shiver

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    7. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by pcmanjon · · Score: 0, Troll

      QUOTE "by Lindsay Lohan (847467) (http://llrocks.com/)

      Excuse me for being naiive, but do you guys actually like porn in the form of spam?" /QUOTE

      Sorry to be OT here... but parent posters website and name is that of a RIAA fiended "punk rawk girl" that is quite hot. I think your a 14 year old boy who idolizes "Lindsay Lohan."

      Don't impersonate people though, that's kinda rude. (If you're the real Lindsay Lohan post a link to picture saying ./ rules!)

      [/OT]
      Sorry again!

    9. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by Lindsay+Lohan · · Score: 1
      If you're the real Lindsay Lohan
      Lol, thanks so much for the troll. I shouldn't even respond, but...

      I never claimed to be the "real LL"

      I am not a 14 year old

      I am not a boy

      My name is in FACT Lindsay.

      Now, next time try to post something intelligent, wouldya?

    10. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, next time try to post something intelligent, wouldya?

      Let's all try to post something intelligent. Why don't you go first?

    11. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      ROTFL- /. finally gets some female participation and she gets flamed! FWIW, I looked up her bio and she seems to be very legit. Don't know if she is 14 though ;) There ARE some very smart ladies in the IT area these days, unlike 20+ yrs ago when there were TWO in my CS graduating class. But those two were REALLY sharp, I hated thier guts for blowing the curve! :) Hint to LL..ya might get more respect from these teenagers if ya posted under LongIslandLolita ;)

    12. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by Michael+Hunt · · Score: 1

      Comparing Goatse to spam is like comparing apples and oranges. One is stretchy and excellent, and the other is annoying and a blight on the landscape.

      Please don't make that mistake again.

  3. Michael are you fucking retarded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, ok, rhetorical, I know. Shouldn't this be in YRO?

  4. it's about time by fienna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it's about time someone took care of these bastards - i like the occasional titty but getting surprises at work is a bit extreme...

    --
    /not so /obvious
    1. Re:it's about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree, i admin my mom's computer and she gets the most offensive & vulgar spam sometimes relating to porn, if i could face these spammers in person i would smash my fist in their face as hard as i could...

      i agree a nice pretty titty is good, but these porn spammers do not target people that subscribe to adult websites, they target everybody - including children, old ladys, etc...etc...

  5. Canned Sex Spanm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ironing is delicious!

  6. Eh? by maskedbishounen · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sex in a can? I think I've seen something like this before.. err--

    Never mind.

    --
    "An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
    1. Re:Eh? by un1xl0ser · · Score: 1

      The "Fleshlight" is not a can, sorry.

      --
      v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
  7. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why haven't they gone out all the way and make this spam illegal instead of only capping a small part of it? It'll still end up in my mailbox...

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why haven't they gone out all the way and make this spam illegal

      Because we value freedom of speech, perhaps? Warning labels are a tool, utopically speaking, to ensure that only consenting adults receive this type email. This is way preferable to out-and-out censorship, no?

    2. Re:Hmm... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why haven't they gone out all the way and make this spam illegal instead of only capping a small part of it?

      Because the lawmakers in the US don't care about right and wrong, and they don't care about the general public, they care about the companies that give them lots of money. The DMA wrote the Can-Spam act to ensure that they could continue to spam, and congress passed to to ensure that the DMA members would continue to bribe them.

    3. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a censorship issue, there is no inherit right to send bulk unsolicited email that clogs my SMTP servers and customer's inboxes found in the 1st Amendment.

    4. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there are a LOT of people that *like* this sort of spam... (mostly 13 year old boys, but anyway..) and because what they've done is make it simple to filter. This way, all you have to do is put the text string into a filter and VIOLA! No sexually explicit spam.

    5. Re:Hmm... by AceCaseOR · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Ehhh... No. More likely there'd be serious free speech issues involved with banning spam entirely. I sincerely doubt that the companies that employ spammmers, especially porn spammers, make enough money to make it worth their while to buy a congressman. If they did, there'd have been a lot more resistance in congress to the FCC's crackdown on offencive conduct after the "Wardrobe Malfunction".

      You might want to loosen your tinfoil hat some.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    6. Re:Hmm... by forgetmenot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's some expression about not assuming malice that I think is pertinent here....

      Congress is made up of many individuals, not all of whom are taking bribes from the DMA. To suggest otherwise would involve a conspiracy that is simply too large to be feasible.

      CAN-SPAM is, over all, a decent law. It places restrictions on marketers that allow end-users to filter out what they don't want to see without completely making it illegal and thus denying either some unforseen but legitimate use for unsolicited email, or denying it to end-users who actually do want to see it. And let's face it - some people do want to see this spam because there would be no SPAM if there wasn't a segment of society making it economical.

    7. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there is no inherit right to send bulk unsolicited email that clogs my SMTP servers

      No, but "Your" != "All".

      I am ***NOT*** defending spam, or the activity of spamming. Keep in mind that spam is a moneymaking venture that would cease to make money if it was not welcomed by its target market.

      Willing, albeit stupid, buyers have a right to buy any legal product sold legally. Of course, illegal UCE should be dealt with under fraud or other applicable civil/criminal statutes.

      Also, bear in mind that you accept some risk of undesired traffic entering your network and reaching your connected hosts (including your SMTP/POP3 servers) by purchasing internet service. It's the same type of risk any gunslinger faced in the wild west, but with fewer potential gunshot wounds.

    8. Re:Hmm... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This doesn't actually speak to your question, but...

      Do you really want the government regulating speech? What they have done is what is proper. They have required honest labeling. If we could depend on honest labeling, then automatic filters could handle spam without much effort. And this would mean that the AMOUNT of spam would decrease (if nobody's looking at it, even idiots wouldn't click on the links).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Hmm... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ehhh... No. More likely there'd be serious free speech issues involved with banning spam entirely

      Nope. Courts have sided against the "Free Speach Means I Get To Do Whatever I Want" argument in the past, with no sign of it changing. The fact that you are unfamiliar with the issues doesn't change this fact.

      Faxes have had laws against fax spam for awhile. Those have been challeneged in court, and the laws stand. Telemarketing used to be a minor annoyance, and it grew and grew until we ended up with the Do Not Call list. Tele-spammers have tried to argue "Free Speech" in regards to that law, and again they have lost. You would never argue that I had a right to advertise by painting my ad on your car or house without permission, so why would you believe that spammers forcing their unwanted crap onto millions of other peoples computers to be acceptable?

      A couple of quotes from judges :

      U.S. Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin:
      "[Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands."

      Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court:
      "Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even good ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every persons domain."

      So much for the free speech nonsense.

      I sincerely doubt that the companies that employ spammmers, especially porn spammers, make enough money to make it worth their while to buy a congressman.

      Porn is one of the most profitable online businesses. (Offline, too. Sex sells.) Porn showed other companies *how* to use the web to make money. Even so, the porn spammers were obviously not the ones that managed to get the CAN-SPAM law passed, or there would not be additional restrictions for porn spam. And they aren't all small timers. For instance, Columbia House (you know - the "Get 10 albums for 10 cents!" people) has recently created a porn division.

      The DMA (Direct Marketing Association) wrote CAN-SPAM. It has very, very large businesses as members. Visit the link. You'll notice that the top section of the page is nothing but search engine keyword spam.

      From their page, some of their members :
      The DMA membership roster includes companies like AT&T, IBM, AOL Time Warner, Mellon Bank, Microsoft, Home Shopping Network, The New York Times, Rapp Collins, Prudential Insurance, Phillip Morris, Proctor & Gamble, as well as R.R. Donnelley, Acxiom, Experian and DoubleClick.

      Now, do you want to stick with your "they can't afford to lobby congress" story? The DMA didn't want spam to be banned, so they managed to get a law past that let congresscritters say "Look, we passed a law against spam!" while actually passing a law that just formalised how to spam legally.

      You might want to loosen your tinfoil hat some.

      You might want to educate yourself about the issues instead of talking trash just because you don't understand.

    10. Re:Hmm... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you really want the government regulating speech?

      Speech like the illegal junk faxes they already regulate? Speech like that of Telemarketers, who have to respct the DNC list? Speech like yelling "FIRE!" in a theatre?

      The government already regulates speech. If they were to try to stop anyone from talking about X, there are few instances where they can justify it. (The "Fire" example would be one example where they can.) However, saying "You can not force anyone to listen to what you want to say" is perfectly reasonable.

    11. Re:Hmm... by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1
      Those have been challeneged in court, and the laws stand. Telemarketing used to be a minor annoyance, and it grew and grew until we ended up with the Do Not Call list.

      Ahh... but you see, that is not technically "banning" telemarketing. If you're not on the list, you still get calls. It's more of an "opt-out" list. The fax spam band stands because, due to how the fax system works, the people receiving the spam would have to pay for receiving the spam. It doesn't work that way for E-Mail Spam (you don't end up paying more for receiving spam, unless the sheer volume received requires you to pay for a larger inbox with your provider.)

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    12. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And let's face it - some people do want to see this spam because there would be no SPAM if there wasn't a segment of society making it economical.

      Then they can opt in. There's no reason that everyone should be harassed because a miniscule percentage might not mind.

    13. Re:Hmm... by geminidomino · · Score: 1
      Nope. You must have missed GP's quote from Chief Justice Warren Burger, Rowan v. US Post Office.
      "We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be captives everywhere. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
      Thus, spam is not afforded Free Speech protections.

      It doesn't work that way for E-Mail Spam (you don't end up paying more for receiving spam, unless the sheer volume received requires you to pay for a larger inbox with your provider.)

      Tell that to ISPs that have to pay for Brightmail, Postini, &c. contracts, and pass those costs on to the users in the form of higher rates. Spam is cost-shifted advertising, the same as junk faxing.
    14. Re:Hmm... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      Yes, some people want spam. But do you honestly think that they can't find viagra, porn, fake rolexes, etc without spam? Do you honestly think that because a small percentage want it, the rest of us should have to put up with tons of neverending crap?

      Some people want drugs. Some people want gay sex. Do you propose that the rest of us should be forced to take drugs and have gay sex because of those few that want them? Your argume falls apart because you are saying "A few want it, so everyone else should have to do it to". Those that want spam can sign up on every frickin suckers-mailing-list they want. The rest of us shouldn't be forced to get the same msgs.

  8. Easy filtering from here! by MikTheUser · · Score: 5, Funny

    'Cause now we can just set our spam filters to look out for something like "WARNING: This message's content might not be suited for..." right in the subject!

    1. Re:Easy filtering from here! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the idea. There are free-speech issues associated with saying, "No, you may not send this email" but forcing somebody to add an easily-filterable tag accomplishes much of the same goals with less burden, at least from the constitutional standpoint.

      There are still plenty of difficulties, but the internet isn't quite frictionless. A lot of spam originates in America in one form or another, and I doubt many spammers are actually willing to physically move to another country to continue their ways. The goal is not to algorithmically and logically eliminate all avenues of spam, but to gradually codify more and more rules to cut it down.

    2. Re:Easy filtering from here! by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cause now we can just set our spam filters to look out for something like "WARNING: This message's content might not be suited for...

      WARN1N6: Thi5 M355^ge's con7en7 m1gh7 no7 b3 sui.ted for...

    3. Re:Easy filtering from here! by MikTheUser · · Score: 1
      WARN1N6: Thi5 M355^ge's con7en7 m1gh7 no7 b3 sui.ted for...

      Not that big a deal:
      #python code
      #slashdot's ecode tag doesn't preserve leading whitespace

      replacements = {'5':'s', '7':t, ...}
      new_subject = ''

      for letter in range(len(mail_subject)):
      if replacements.haskey(letter):
      mail_subject.replace (letter, replacements[letter])

      for letter in range(len(mail_subject)):
      if letter != '.':
      new_subject += letter
  9. Images in the subject line? by bobbyjack · · Score: 5, Funny
    the FTC claims many of the e-mails revealed sexually explicit words or images in the subject line


    (my emphasis)

    Seriously, are their email clients that display images in the subject line?!
    1. Re:Images in the subject line? by stupidfoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seriously, are their email clients that display images in the subject line?!

      Somewhere, some PHB at Microsoft is thinking this would be great for Outlook 2005.

    2. Re:Images in the subject line? by rmccann · · Score: 1

      Open an email with images could alert spammers that you've read the email, hence spamming you more. So opening spam gets you more spam. Images in the subject line mean opening your inbox will get you spammed more!

    3. Re:Images in the subject line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should the subject line be limited to boring text and images when it could include ActiveX components?

    4. Re:Images in the subject line? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Ascii art?

      Is an xpm ascii art?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Images in the subject line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are THERE ...

    6. Re:Images in the subject line? by AEton · · Score: 1

      The NPR coverage of this story said "sexually explicit images in the first page". I wondered briefly whether there was a legal standard "page" (Outlook Express on unpatched Windows 98 machine with English fonts and characters?) then realized the law was intentionally vague. Lovely.

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    7. Re:Images in the subject line? by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Wow - that would mean email that could break your computer before even previewing it... I would see that as quite a probable extension for the MSVTP (MS-Virus Transfer Protocol - aka Outlook).

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
  10. down with p0rn! by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    down with p0rn...down with p0rn...errr...oops...down with spam but not p0rn.

    Good to see the FTC actually doing something about something that's really an issue. But about about the vioxx spam? Wasn't it just recently slashdotted that Vioxx spam took the crown from sex-related spam?

    O well, at least my spam filters can finally get some rest.

  11. Better colours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  12. Thanks, Michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I appreciate you finally lifting the posting ban on my IP address.

  13. dissapointing by frogger01 · · Score: 0

    i really enjoy opening pron spam email with my boss over my shoulder... too bad

    --
    /* No Comment */
  14. The FTC going after spamers is like someone by thesonicboom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    putting their finger in the leak in the dike. The Internet is much bigger than one nation. The solution is going to have to be technological, not regulatory.

    1. Re:The FTC going after spamers is like someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and if you've ever tried to put YOUR finger in the leak of a dike, you know how painful that can be!

      Especially if she's a really big dike!

      Ba-dum-bum... ching!

    2. Re:The FTC going after spamers is like someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic that you use that analogy in a sex spam story.

    3. Re:The FTC going after spamers is like someone by the_mighty_$ · · Score: 1

      The solution is going to have to be technological, not regulatory.

      I disagree. That's like saying, "we should not use the law against bug-exploiting black hat hackers, but instead we should build bug free programs."

      Bug free programs will never exist. Likewise, there is always going to be some way to sneak spam past all the technological filters we create. If there is not some legal consequence, people will just keep doing it.

      Just MHO. What do you think?

      --
      VI VI VI - the editor of the beast!
  15. Porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they could stop v.i.a$GRa, "Sorry it took me so long to get back to you but your m0Rt.ga.ge application for $250000 at % 2 . 1 inter est is ready" and "This sT()CK is skyrocketting" my spam box would be empty.

    1. Re:Porn? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Since all the Viagra spam comes from a Canadian pharmacy, I would expect a "Can Spam" act to cover it "explicitly" - after all its Can Spam isnt it?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  16. 8== 8=== 8==== Grow it bigger!!111 one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need a jpg or gif image in the subject line when you've got ASCII art.

  17. When it's all said and done... by DaHat · · Score: 1

    Please tell me that crucifixion will be a possible penalty should/when/if they are convicted.

    1. Re:When it's all said and done... by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

      Nope, the punishment is that they will have a viagra pump implanted in their body and must work at the "Retirement Community For The Frisky", unless they lke that sort of thing. Then they will be crucified.

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    2. Re:When it's all said and done... by jd · · Score: 1

      Depends on the spammer. From some of the stuff being sent, I suspect a few might enjoy being nailed to a tree. For those, America might have to resort to the unthinkable - making them spectators to a Ken Jennings Trivia Marathon.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  18. Dust in the Eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTC should be doing more - why is it that 1 year after CAN-SPAM was passed, there are very few such cases? And why is it that the FTC goes out of its way to publicize this effort - articles on CNN's home page and all other major news sites. It seems to me that they were under pressure by consumers to sue somebody, so they picked a number of foreign domestic companies and individuals, most of which they cannot get in court because of personal jurisdiction or other issues.

    A default judgment against a Latvian spammer is not going to help out too much... I think.

  19. Thanks Alot! by shamowfski · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great, the FTC is stopping the only spam I looked forward to. Now the only thing I have to live for are those v14.gr4 emails. I'm glad their m4d l33t sp34k sk1llz c4n 5t1ll d3f34t my 5p4m f1lt3r.

  20. (.)(.) Big and Buxom! by OECD · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seriously, are their email clients that display images in the subject line?!

    Piece of cake, mate ;-)

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    1. Re:(.)(.) Big and Buxom! by Fred+Foobar · · Score: 1

      Big and Buxom eyes? WTF?

      --
      It was a really good paper.
  21. Sex? by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is it with this administration and sex? Janet Jackson -- huge fine for small tits. Sex spam -- have to stop that right now.

    Why not go after the 419 spammers who are stealing people's life savings? Or how about the fake pills and illegal drugs? Just business, I guess.

    1. Re:Sex? by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      Gee, I don't know, maybe because the porn spammers have more volume?

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    2. Re:Sex? by lack1uster · · Score: 0

      Small? I thought they were a decent size. Agree with the rest. I'd like to see them go after the phishers.

    3. Re:Sex? by jonhuang · · Score: 1

      Why not go after them both?

    4. Re:Sex? by vontrotsky · · Score: 1

      Why not go after the 419 spammers who are stealing people's life savings? Or how about the fake pills and illegal drugs?

      In this case it makes lots of sense. It's really hard for the FTC to go after a bunch of asshats like 419 spammers and phishers who operate completely illicitely and launder thier money. It's relatively easy for them to go after companies (e.g. porn sites) that do things like take credit cards and operate like real buisnesses.

      Jeff

    5. Re:Sex? by spanommers · · Score: 1

      Because sex spam is explicit, but spam is indiscriminate. I'm sure you don't have kids, but imagine some parent's reaction when his child is exposed to obscene images, just because his e-mail address is named after a pokemon and is easy to guess. The problem is NOT the middle-aged adults who don't bother to look into scams, it's the kids who are exposed to obscenity before society says they should be.

    6. Re:Sex? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Not even that. It's the kid that's exposed to "obsenoty" without their parent's conseting they be exposed to it.

      Forget society for a moment and think that the parent should give the concsent, nevermind society.

      Truth be told, shoving porn in a kid's face without a parent's consent is the equivalent of sexual harassment (think flashing a kid??), and should be punished accordingly.

      Of course we're too busy throwing hackers in jail for life-long sentences...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  22. Of course they are! by rackhamh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course the government is cracking down on sex spam. Just imagine...

    You're a middle-aged guy stuck in a bureacratic position. You spend your days debating horribly dreary points of order and generally struggling to effect any meaningful change...

    Then somebody comes up to you and says, "Hey [your name], wanna drop what you're doing and spend a few weeks/months looking at porn?"

    Yeah, tough decision there.

    1. Re:Of course they are! by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I suppose it depends on the bureacratic position we are talking about. Is there a manual like the Kama Sutra for this position, and can you tell me which one it is?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  23. New TLDs, dammit. by Nosf3ratu · · Score: 0, Insightful
    There is no reason for the lack of a .xxx domain.

    None.

    Should more TLDs been available in the early days of the web? Sure. Is it too late? I don't think so.

    A .xxx or .adult TLD would correct a lot of these problems.
    Naturally, the remaining problem is enforcement. Which would require *gasp* job creation. What a sin.

    --
    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori
    1. Re:New TLDs, dammit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what we need, more government intrusion onto the internet..

    2. Re:New TLDs, dammit. by _Wagz_ · · Score: 1

      Sign me up for that job!

    3. Re:New TLDs, dammit. by schatten · · Score: 1

      Then you would be redirected from a .net to a .xxx site. That doesn't help at all.

      The sex sites will argue about art vs. pornography and that opens up the fine line of nudity.

  24. Damnitt! by JossiRossi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now how am I supposed to meet Christine, Joy, or all the other girls who desperatly seek my company?!

    --
    Just a boy doing unproffesional IT work that's way above his head.
    1. Re:Damnitt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You new to slashdot aren't you?

  25. What I want to know is... by confusion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How are people deciphering what the hell spam is tying to sell these days? What am I supposed to do with an email like this:
    Subject: PharmaBGHZ8
    Message:
    Hurtnig?

    At least with porn spam, you have something to look at.

    Jerry
    http://www.syslog.org/

    1. Re:What I want to know is... by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      Not always. I've received porn spam without any pictures at all.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    2. Re:What I want to know is... by confusion · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those should absolutely be banned! :)

      Jerry
      http://www.syslog.org/

  26. Go Feds! by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know it is standard procedure to ridicule anything the present administration does, but going after ANY spammers is OK in my book. And going after the worst of the porn spammers is even better. Hell, I'l a geek and have been known to look at that stuff but these days I feel like I need a bath after I work through my inbox.... and that is after spamassassin has had first crack at it.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Go Feds! by swb · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with you, but I think it might be an example of the Feds "doing something" just to hit tick boxes on the Administration's agenda. "Spam, check. Christian values, check."

      If they were REALLY serious about doing this we'd have a serious FBI/FTC RICO sting operation that would take down some ISPs, some credit card merchant processors, and a whole bunch of other "legitimate" people in addition to the spammers.

      This would have the net effect of cutting off the "air supply" of the spam industry by scaring away those people who make money off of spam businesses.

      This kind of blustering, while it feels encouraging, really is about appearing to do something about (a) spam and (b) defending traditional moral values, not about actually accomplishing anything.

  27. Pork is worse than SPAM. by Peyna · · Score: 1

    If the government would work on getting rid of all that PORK in the budget instead of wasting time on fruitless efforts like getting rid of SPAM we'd be a lot better off.

    --
    What?
  28. They should bottle it instead by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Canned sex spam starts to taste like the can, glass is much better. Did you know that the first canned food was stored in champagne bottles?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:They should bottle it instead by qzulla · · Score: 1

      Napoleons army.

      What do I win?

      qz

  29. Right problem, irrelevant solution. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    Half the time sex spam uses sex warnings as an allure. The problem here is spam, not sex.

    The only way to allow people to avoid sex-spam completely is to get rid of it, and that's not in the ability of the FTC.

    This is like a speeding ticket, it hurts someone who is hurting safety. This move cannot help any "innocents" (in fact, it helps nobody) who just want a clean inbox.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
    1. Re:Right problem, irrelevant solution. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. It makes it easier to filter out some of the things you don't want. (And if you do want it, it makes it easier to automatically move it to the correct folder.)

      Not that I think it will work, but I do consider that enforcing honest labeling is a reasonable thing for a government to do.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Right problem, irrelevant solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On slashdot if a link isn't "work safe", the poster will say as much. The same should apply for email.

    3. Re:Right problem, irrelevant solution. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      Certainly spammers "should" label their explicit emails as such, but you have to remember who we are fighting.

      They do not accept unsubscribe requests, and they generally ignore federal laws on fruad.

      If anyone listens to the FTC, they will still make explicit titles hard to interperet, and therefor hard to filter. You wouldn't expect your newspaper to put all solicitations in the back seperated from everything just to make things easier for you the subscriber... how can you expect the equivilent of people with no ethics?

      The FTC is acting outside of their scope, and they aren't helping anything. The only way they can send a message here is by locking someone up for 9 years, and they simply don't have the legal backing to do so.

      It seems to me like the 800lb lazy gorilla (well, maybe dead... FCC) wont carry the piano up the stairs, so the FTC out of sheer initiative attempts to carry it around the block, and up the stairs. Not only is this not their feild, they're not even attempting a viable method.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
  30. That's easy. by jd · · Score: 1

    The same way they dealt with a P2P site in the UK. They ask the British Government permission to bulldoze their way in and wreck havoc, in exchange for making the Canadians buy some more subs.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  31. Of course, I misread this. by Raptor+CK · · Score: 1

    As "FTC Tries Sex in Can."

    I wonder if they would bust themselves for spamming.

    --
    Raptor
    "Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
  32. Actually, yes. by jd · · Score: 1
    There was a notorious bug in DEC Mail for the VAX, under VMS 5.5, which allowed you to embed DCL script in the subject lines. I saw plenty of people inject ASCII graphics that way.


    For "full" graphics, you'd probably need to have the DCL script uudecode the body of the message, which could contain the image data, which the subject line could then pass to an image viewer to display.


    So, yes, it is possible. Provided you can find anyone using a VAX.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  33. oh, so *that's* what "CAN-SPAM" meant by Mars+Saxman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh - wait - "tries to can sex spam"... suddenly the name of that law makes more sense. I had been reading "can spam" as, "you can spam and nobody can sue you as long as you follow these rules"; it never occured to me that they might have intended "can" to be a verb. I was really surprised that Congress was being so straightforward about their intentions with that law, given that cutesy acronyms for law names are usually feel-good propaganda that mean something completely opposite of whatever the law actually does. I guess they outsmarted themselves with that acronym, since it works in both directions...

    1. Re:oh, so *that's* what "CAN-SPAM" meant by drew · · Score: 1

      huh. i had always wondered what idiot came up with that name. i still think it's a dumb name, and a pretty useless law, but at least it makes sense now....

      up until now, i had always interpreted can-spam the same as you.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    2. Re:oh, so *that's* what "CAN-SPAM" meant by richyoung · · Score: 1
      I always thought the ambiguity was intentional, so they could speak more clearly out of both sides of their mouths. It lets them can tell the DMA, "We've passed CAN-SPAM for you!" and then turn around and tell their constituents, "We've passed CAN-SPAM for you!"

      They may be amoral, but they're not stupid.

      --
      6. Audible Alarm (not shown)
      -from a Cuisinart product owner's manual.
  34. What about: by temojen · · Score: 1

    Dear Friend,
    Hope this mail will not constitute an embarrassment to you. I came across your name while searching for a good Partner.
    My Name is Mr.Abu Tanko personal assistant(P.A)to Mr.Kayode J. Naiyeju, the Accountant General ofthe Federal (AGF), Federal Republic of Nigeria. Recently,a large sum of money was recovered by the present democratic government from the estate of the former military dictator, General Sanni Abacha who died in 1998.This money was stashed in variousaccounts abroad,especially in Luxemburg,Switzerland. After recovering this money, it was discovered that the money had already accrued interest payments to the tune of over US$35 Million. Now, this money is not part of the money recovered.And no one knows about it, but me and a few trusted aides.
    I intend to transfer this money abroad, to be invested or held by you on trust. This transaction is risk free and can be completed within five working days.

    I will need the following information to commence with this transaction.
    1.Your full names,
    2.Your prvivate Telephone and Fax numbers,
    3.Your contact home or office address,
    4.Your age and occupation.

    It is worthy to note that you are entitled to 30% of the total money,at the successful end of this transaction.
    Reply this mail if you are interested so that we can decide on how to proceed from here. Please send your reponse to my alternative e-mail address:(redacted)

    Regards,
    Abu Tanko




    and



    Best present for your friends :pearson peasant peasanthood.
    re [11]:
    JOB OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU(GET BACK)
    Message subject
    Smith Barney: Please VaIidate Your Account
    expecting your response
    HELP CLAIM YOUR FAMILY INHERITANCE
    DEAR (name), KINDLY TREAT AS URGENT.
    Security Alert on Microsoft Internet Explorer (from "SunTrust" support@suntrust.com)
    Attention. Lloyd
    XP PR0, AD0BE, 0FFICE 2OO3 & ALL FOR INSTANT DOWNLOAD NOW lessor emaciate

  35. That's supposed to have worked... by jd · · Score: 1

    Dutch folklore does describe an incident where a person managed to prevent such sea defences from collapsing, by plugging the hole.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:That's supposed to have worked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is where the phrase comes from. Amazing.

  36. True, but... by jd · · Score: 1

    The campaign donations are just loans. If the Government didn't repay them immediately, can you imagine what the interest rates would do to the economy?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  37. MLATs by taxman_10m · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial _690.html

    Criminal Cases Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties: Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs) are relatively recent development. They seek to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regularize and facilitate its procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally the two Justice Departments, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants, and to serve process. Generally, the remedies offered by the treaties are only available to the prosecutors. The defense must usually proceed with the methods of obtaining evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country which usually involve letters rogatory. See "Questions" below.

    MLAT Treaties in Force:

    I. The United States has bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) currently in force with: Anguilla*, Antigua/Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands*, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominica, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, Grenada, Hong Kong, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Korea (South), Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Montserrat*, Morocco, Netherlands, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Romania, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad, Turkey, Turks and Caicos Islands*, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

  38. other titles by slothman32 · · Score: 1

    Why don't they force all SPAM to have the word "spam" in the title? That would make ot so much easier. Same with viruses. Is sex singled out because 51% of people are against it?

    --
    Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    1. Re:other titles by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think that any spammers would pay attention to a law that says they must put "spam" in the header? Besides, something tells me this is more than 51%. Much more.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:other titles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that would put a serious crimp in Hormel's direct email marketing campaign...

    3. Re:other titles by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      No of course not. Similarly putting sex in wouldn't deter them. About 51%. That was just an arbitrary number I made up. Unless 75% of states agree then it doesn't matter if it is 100%.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  39. Likely. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 4, Informative
    The FTC has gone after Global Web Promotions in Australia. The FTC froze the funds that they had in Canda, along with other locations. Even if they are not in the USA, if they take credit cards, their money flows through the USA.

    Many countries have signed the Hague Convention which include the rules on cross border enforcement of civil judgments.


    1. Re:Likely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Austrailia just the ugly little step-daughter of the United States? They make us wacko Puritans look... well... moderate.

    2. Re:Likely. by EulerX07 · · Score: 1

      The FTC froze the funds that they had in Canada, along with other locations. Even if they are not in the USA, if they take credit cards, their money flows through the USA.

      Wait a second, did Canada get annexed by the USA while I was on holidays?

  40. That's easy. by jd · · Score: 1

    If you can pass the e-mail through the 31337 sp33k text filter and it winds up the same, it's either spam or from your boss.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  41. Crucifixion's a doddle! by Duhavid · · Score: 1

    Obligitory Monty Python joke.

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
    1. Re:Crucifixion's a doddle! by DaHat · · Score: 1
      If we are going to quote Monty Python in true geek style... we must add code! In this case, C#...
      foreach( object foo in this.Line )
      {
      Console.WriteLine( "Next" );
      System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000);
      Console.WriteLine( "Crucifixion?" );
      if( Console.ReadLine() == "Yes" )
      {
      Console.WriteLine("Good, out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.");
      }
      else
      {
      //Be made a fool of
      }
      }
  42. whoa! by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

    sex and spam? in a can? SIGN ME UP!

  43. Not really by paranode · · Score: 1

    Any company that makes money off of unsolicited sex spam in the US is going to have to answer to the FTC. Sure, companies can still do this from offshore but hopefully those governments care enough to stop it. The point is, if the companies have to choose between conforming to the law or getting charged then they'll start putting the warnings in.

  44. Step in the right direction. by Foo2rama · · Score: 1

    This is a type of spam that they actually have some legit legeal backing to go after. The problem is that this can and does expose minors to pornography. I am not against porn, but this is a good place to start and can help make a real legeal precident, to finally effectivly go after spam.

    Its funny but the US government has failed to see the one way they actually could go after this type of spam. In much the same way that the FCC can "censor" public television and radio. The FCC is allowed to censor because the radio spectrum (boradcast TV and radio) is a limited bandwitdh, and they must allow the best use for the most people. Using this arguement it is suprising that no one has tried to enforce limits on what you can do with any US top level domain. Or used this arguement to enforce internet traffic in the US. Granted I do not know alot about the specific infra-structure of the internet, but I would assume that the government has invested some money into the infrastructure that would give them some leeway to enforce FCC type broadcast restrictions on the net.

    --


    ---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
    1. Re:Step in the right direction. by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting. I'm in favor of this because it's merely enforcing honest labeling. Which I consider a legitimate function of government.

      I don't consider it reasonable for the govt. to decide what minors can and cannot watch. That's their parent's job. But honest labeling makes the parent's job feasible. OTOH, I would be quite opposed to their censoring spam, including sex related spam. But I would be in favor of their regulating the honesty of the sending e-mail address, at least for commercial e-mail, and e-mail requesting any kind of financial transaction. (I'm not clear that they have, or should have, ANY right to regulate non-commercial e-mail. In fact I rather think not.)

      1: Within limits. Excessive labelling requirements can be as bad as excessive taxation. OTOH, the govt. doesn't get as much reward from it so it has less incentive.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  45. ye olde english death penalties by Ironsides · · Score: 1

    draw and quartering
    beheading
    keel hauling
    disembowlement with bowls being set on fire
    put rat(s) in cauldron, put caludron mouth up against stomach, heat base of cauldron

    The english used to have some great death penalties. Too bad they (and we) are all wimps now. We need to bring back some of these and the ones like it.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  46. I pitty the Joe-Jobbed out there then... by penix1 · · Score: 1
    "There's a message here for anybody running an affiliate program; you need to monitor what the third parties are doing," she said. "If you are using a business model that recruits others, you are strictly liable for the practices of those third parties. It's not just the people who push the button. It's the business that provides the financial incentive. The law is clear and strict."

    So how does this apply to the poor company that gets Joe-jobbed?
    I see this a boon to those that practice that form of spam.


    B.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    1. Re:I pitty the Joe-Jobbed out there then... by pjrc · · Score: 1
      It certainly appears the FTC has done their homework, and not simply relied on forged headers.

      But if there was a mix-up, the innocent bystander could contact the FTC, petition the court, or show up to the hearing.

  47. Hey! What about the children! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    I know you're joking when you say you like porn spam, but let's face a fact:

    MANY CHILDREN TODAY HAVE E-MAIL.

    And that makes them easy targets for porn spam. What would the parents think about it? Sure they can install filters and such, but then we have two choices:

    b) Children exposed to porn
    a) Hyper-protected children with stupid AOL accounts

    Neither of these is a good choice.

    Obviously SPAM needs to be regulated (and of course, disappear, but the world's not perfect).

    1. Re:Hey! What about the children! by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      You realise that children are already exposed to porn right?

  48. Can Sex Spam? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    I hope they wear gloves.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  49. MOD PARENT UP!!! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Funny

    Either +1 insightful, or +1 funny. (actually it's depressingly RIGHT).

  50. Actually wouldn't it be a better idea... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    to add the following headers to spam?

    X-Unsolicited: Yes
    X-Suitable-for-children: No

    And then yes, make ALL spam that doesn't comply, illegal. Better regulations, gentlemen :)

    Of course, this is the REAL world :'(

  51. Different Meanings by HtR · · Score: 1
    Great Headline! I love headlines where you can get very different meanings by removing single words.

    FTC Tries To Can Sex Spam

    FTC Tries to Can Sex (is that like bottling it?)

    FTC Tries Can Sex (not sure what that is, but I can imagine)

    FTC Can Sex (well, good for them!)

    FTC Sex (sounds kinky. Perhaps it involves committees?)

    Sex (hey, you got my attention)

    --
    Have you tried turning it off and on again?
  52. 8======== by jonhuang · · Score: 1

    no text. DONGS!

  53. Related question: by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

    Out of an odd curiosity: Do any /.ers reward UCE senders who send emails in full compliance with CAN-SPAM by doing business with them?

    Or, is it more likely the case that "It came by email, I didn't ask for it, fsck it and the (foul slime) that sent it!"

    --
    Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
    1. Re:Related question: by amgqmp1 · · Score: 1

      Ya know...focused e-mail marketing (UCE in compliance with CAN-SPAM) is very effective. I do this a few times a year to customers (and people that expressed interest in products we make). We tend to offer a pretty sweet deal in the e-mail and find the e-mails to be very successful (and no complaints to my knowledge).

    2. Re:Related question: by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      So you're a spammer.

  54. Can sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who read this as "FTC tries can sex spam"?

    I can't really blame them...if I got some spam offering can-sex, I'd probably click on it too. Damn my morbid curiosity.

  55. Totally dude! _/\(!)/\_ by bikerguy99 · · Score: 1

    Totally dude!

  56. Eyes vs. boobs by tepples · · Score: 1

    The common Unicode-art for eyes has a center dot (·, a character that unfortunately isn't whitelisted in Slashdot's configuration of Slashcode). Boobs have the dot at the bottom.

  57. Yeah. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    Didn't you hear about that?

    Actually, governments cooperate with each other. The Australian version of the FTC helped the FTC in their investigation of Global Web.

  58. Screw SunTrust by tepples · · Score: 1

    Security Alert on Microsoft Internet Explorer (from "SunTrust" support@suntrust.com)

    I'd stop right there, as SunTrust tried to sue the publisher of The Wind Done Gone.

    1. Re:Screw SunTrust by temojen · · Score: 1

      And that has to do with phishing spam how?

  59. What about the farm animals? by amgqmp1 · · Score: 1

    Where are the farm animal midget monkey sex sites going to advertise? Take away spam and they'll just be some guy in a trench coat on a street corner handing out little paper flyers for "monkeygibletsandbjoobies.com". In the end...the animals lose. The horses will go back to being turned to glue, the pigs will be ham, and the monkeys...well, they'll still just be monkeys. ;)

  60. No opt out link? Oh no! by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

    In addition, the FTC said the advertisements did not include the required "opt-out" link to be removed from the e-mail list. As a result, thousands of people continued to receive the messages without their consent.

    I think they mean they lacked the required "yes, I'm reading your spam"-opt-in link.

    I don't know what's more frustrating, the obstinance of spammers or the ignorance of lawmakers.