Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Tries to Can Sex Spam

Posted by michael on from the closing-the-barn-door dept.

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."

18 of 168 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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

    3. 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....)

      --
      PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
    4. 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.
  2. Re:Hurray For Sueing Spammers by JohnnyKlunk · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  3. 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 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...

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. (.)(.) 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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...

  11. 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.

  12. 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.


    --
    Fight Spammers!