Massachusetts Drops Hammer on Spam Gang

karvind writes "According to story on BBC and Yahoo, the Massachusetts attorney general has filed a lawsuit against one of the world's biggest spam gangs. An emergency court order granted under the suit should see the network of websites the spammers ran shut down. Attorney General Thomas Reilly's civil complaint against alleged ringleader Leo Kuvayev and six other people associated with 2K Services Ltd. and Ecash Pay Ltd. Offered for sale on the websites were pornography, pills, pirated software and fake fancy watches."

Comments

How does spam STILL work??

[alecks]

I am still baffeld at how and why SPAM still works?!?! Everyone i know complains about spam, even the most non-technical people... Yet, apparently, some of them still go and buy stuff...

I'd be very curious to see some figures on how much money was spent on spam-started purchases last year....

Re:How does spam STILL work??

[sac13]

I'd be very curious to see some figures on how much money was spent on spam-started purchases last year....

It's not so much about the total as the cost per lead generated (from what I recall from my marketing classes). Advertising channels are judged by cost per lead generated. To place an ad in a magazine, newspaper, on radio/tv, etc, it costs significant money. To send spam, it's a significantly smaller cost (virtually free if you already have the hardware/software/connectivity). So, even though SPAM probably generates a lot smaller number of quality leads per person exposed, it's still more cost effective than the alternatives... at least from a cash flow perspective. They obviously don't factor the loss of goodwill (which some companies actually assign a monetary value to in their accounting as an asset) in with their decision.

Drops what, a tiny plastic hammer?

[Kainaw]

FTA: So far no formal charges have been filed against Mr Kuvayev and his colleagues who are thought to be behind the two companies, 2K Services Ltd and Ecash Pay Ltd, that sent all the spam.

So, what did they do? They filed a restraining order to have the websites shut down. A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST A WEBSITE!?!?!?

FTA: Two phone numbers for Kuvayev and 2K Services in Canada were disconnected

So, he disconnected his phones and moved. How long until he sets up shop again?

now if only the Mass Attorney General

[Richthofen80]

would file charges against the Big Dig Contractors, as well as the shitty state management, and the Mass Turnpike authority.

While geeks are probably going to herald this as a great thing, a more cursory review might reveal this to be an easier way of filling the state's coffers, through lawsuits.

A similar example might be how Tobacco Companies were sued and now provide a great deal of revenue to the states.

Re:So who will win the PR war

[suwain_2]

I don't know about in New York, but it's been speculated that Reilly's going to run for governor of Massachusetts in the next election.

Something like this might look really good in a campaign.

Posturing for gubernatorial run

[crow]

While I fully approve of this, it's important to note that this is clearly an attempt for the AG to boost his visibility and popularity for the 2006 gubernatorial election. It's no secret that Riley will be challenging Romney.

That makes me question if he'll take a hard line and go for not only shutting them down, but setting an example for others, or if he'll take the easy approach of getting a settlement that makes him look good, but doesn't act as a deterrent.

Economic Analysis

[Veinor]

Suppose that the cost of stopping a spam e-mail at the source can be quantified, and same for the benefit for doing same (a stretch, but it's necessary for the following discussion). Then, society will stop spam e-mails as long as the cost of stopping the nth, (its Marginal Cost, or MC) is less than or equal to the benefit for stopping it (its Marginal Benefit, or MB).
The MB is relatively low for stopping just one e-mail, since many filters stop these anyway. The MC, on the other hand, is relatively high, as we have seen. Therefore, the MC will catch up to the MB very fast, and very little spam will be stopped.

You used the magic word: *APPARENTLY*

[schon]

Yet, apparently, some of them still go and buy stuff

Yes, and I have a rock that *APPARENTLY* keeps tigers away. I can personally attest that I have never been attacked by a tiger while I had the rock.

This is one of the myths about spam: that it must work, because otherwise spammers wouldn't be doing it. And it's just that: a myth.

It doesn't matter if people buy things from spammers, or if people don't buy things from spammers. The spammers will still spam because A) it costs them nothing, and B) they *BELIEVE* it must work, because there is so much spam.

I know people who buy things from Spam

[doublem]

I disagree. I knew a couple of people at my former job who actually bought things that were sent to them as SPAM. One coworker bought a "Digital Camera" that had no LCD and about 2 megs of internal RAM. The software for manging the thing was full of spyware. Without the software you couldn't get pictures off it, and without the spyware, the camera management software ceased functioning, so he decided to leave the malware on his work computer. The Network Admin actually got a dressing down from the company's owner for uninstalling the spyware and thus "Breaking Dick's camera" in the process.

I tried to talk to the guy about buying things from Spam. He and the other staffer who bought junk like that compared it to buying things from mail order catalogs. "We can't stop those either, and they're harder to get rid of then just hitting the 'delete' button."

When A----- said, "If it was a scam the police would shut them down" followed by a glare that made it clear she thought I was an idiot.

A----- later had problems with a credit card number being stolen. I asked her if it was the same card she'd used to buy the camera. I was treated to a 15 minute tirade insisting I was paranoid.

People buy things from Spam, and have no problems with doing so.

Legal basis?

[crow]

So what is the legal basis for this suit?

I'm hoping that they're using good old-fashioned fraud, false advertising, and similar laws. So often we see lawmakers rushing out to tackle the latest problem instead of law enforcement agencies using existing laws to crack down on the new behaviour.

Its not just the spammers

[Zaai]

Lets not forget why there are spammers. Spam exists because there are advertisers and because we make it work.

What else could help to deterr spam?

Legislation could be more effective if advertising through spamming was also illegal.

Also, if we, the end users, would more easily see what companies are advertising through spam than that would hurt the company's image and be a deterrent. An idea for a browser plugin maybe?

Also adding to effectiveness would be to block sites of advertisers that are on the spammers list. For example, a firefox plugin could automatically check if url's are spam url's and hide the URL and the sites, if the user chooses to.

We need more than just legislation against spamming, the driving source of spam are the advertisers!

I know what you mean

[ackthpt]

My spam count has gone from "insane" to "alot". I guess we haven't arrested enough.

I know what you mean. My spam has gone in waves over the last month. I'll have a couple dozen each day that elude the filter and then suddenly 170+ in a few hours. And these fake Rolex, Pharmacy and pirate software are the bulk of what constitutes these waves.

I figured there was a new player in spam who had just increased their volume immensely.

Under the lawsuit Mr Reilly wants the defendants fined for breaking state and national laws outlawing spam. He also wants them to repay people who lost money because of the huge amounts of spam mail that was sent.

He's letting them off easy. I want them fileted.