Slashdot Mirror


Book Review: Spam Nation

benrothke writes There are really two stories within Spam Nation: The Inside Story of Organized Cybercrime-from Global Epidemic to Your Front Door. The first is how Brian Krebs uncovered the Russian cybergangs that sent trillions of spam emails for years. As interesting and compelling as that part of the story is; the second storyline is much more surprising and fascinating. Brian Krebs is one of the premier cybersecurity journalists. From 1995 to 2009, he was a reporter for The Washington Post, where he covered Internet security, technology policy, cybercrime and privacy issues. When Krebs presented the Post with his story about the Russian spammers, rather than run with it, the Post lawyers got in the way and were terrified of being sued for libel by the Russians. Many of the stories Krebs ran took months to get approval and many were rejected. It was the extreme reticence by the Post to deal with the issue that ultimately led Krebs to leave the paper. Before Krebs wrote this interesting book and did his groundbreaking research, it was clear that there were bad guys abroad spamming American's with countless emails for pharmaceuticals which led to a global spam problem. Read below for the rest of Ben's review. Spam Nation: The Inside Story of Organized Cybercrime-from Global Epidemic to Your Front Door author Brian Krebs pages 256 publisher Sourcebooks rating 10/10 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-1402295614 summary Excellent expose on why cybercrime pays and what you can do about it Much of the story details the doings of two of the major Russian pharmacy spammer factions, Rx-Promotion and GlavMed. In uncovering the story, Krebs had the good fortune that there was significant animosity between Rx-Promotion and GlavMed, which lead to an internal employee leaking a huge amount of emails and documents. Krebs obtained this treasure trove which he used to get a deep look at every significant aspect of these spam organizations. Hackers loyal to the heads of Rx-Promotion and GlavMed leaked this information to law enforcement officials and Krebs in an attempt to sabotage each other.

Krebs writes that the databases offered an unvarnished look at the hidden but burgeoning demand for cheap prescription drugs; a demand that appears driven in large part by Americans seeking more affordable and discreetly available medications.

Like many, I had thought that much of the pharmaceutical spam it was simply an issue of clueless end-users clicking on spam and getting scammed. This is where the second storyline comes in. Krebs notes that the argument goes that if people simply stopped buying from sites advertised via the spam that floods our inboxes, the problem would for the most part go away. It's not that the spam is a technology issue; it's that the products fill an economic need and void.

Krebs shows that most people who buy from the spammers are not idiots, clueless or crazy. The majority of them are performing rational, if not potentially risky choices based on a number of legitimate motivations. Krebs lists 4 primary motivations as: price and affordability, confidentiality, convenience & recreation or dependence.

Most of the purchasers from the Russian spammers are based in the US, which has the highest prescription drug prices in the world. The price and affordability that the spammers offer is a tremendous lure to these US consumers, many of whom are uninsured or underinsured.

Krebs then addresses the obvious question that this begs: if the spammers are selling huge amounts of bogus pharmaceuticals to unsuspecting Americans, why doesn't the extremely powerful and well-to-do pharmaceutical industry do something about it. Krebs writes that the pharmaceutical industry is in fact keenly aware of the issue but scared to do anything about it. Should the reality be that the unauthorized pharmaceuticals are effective, then the pharmaceutical industry would be placed in a quandary. They have therefore decided to take a passive approach and do nothing.

The book quotes John Horton, founder and president of LegitScript, a verification and monitoring service for online pharmacies. Horton observed that only 1% of online pharmacies are legitimate. But worse than that, he believes that the single biggest reason neither the FDA nor the pharmaceutical industry has put much effort into testing, is that they are worried that such tests may show that the drugs being sold by many so-called rogue pharmacies are by and large chemically indistinguishable from those sold by approved pharmacies.

So while the Russian spammers may be annoying for many, they have found an economic incentive that is driving many people to become repeat customers.

As to the efficacy of these pharmaceuticals being shipped from India, Turkey and other countries, it would seem pretty straightforward to perform laboratory tests. Yet the university labs that could perform these tests have found their hands-tied. In order to test the pharmaceuticals, they would have to order them, which is likely an illegal act. Also, the vast amount of factories making these pharmaceuticals makes it difficult to get a consistent set of findings.

As to getting paid for the products, Krebs writes how the thing the spammers relied on most was the ability to process credit card payments. What they feared the most were chargebacks; which is when the merchant has to forcibly refund the customer. If the chargeback rate goes over a certain threshold, then the vendor is forced to pay higher fees to the credit card company or many find their merchant agreement cancelled. The spammers were therefore extremely receptive to customer complaints and would do anything to make a basic refund than a chargeback. This was yet another economic incentive that motivated the spammers.

As to the main storyline, the book does a great job of detailing how the spam operations worked and how powerful they became. The spammers became so powerful, that even with all the work firms like Blue Security Inc. did, and organizations such as Spamhaus tried to do, they were almost impossible to stop.

Krebs writes how spammers now have moved into new areas such as scareware and ransomware. The victims are told to pay the ransom by purchasing a prepaid debit card and then to send the attackers the card number to they can redeem it for cash.

The book concludes with Krebs's 3 Rules for Online Safety namely: if you didn't go looking for it, don't install it; if you installed it, update it and if you no longer need it, remove it.

The scammers and online attackers are inherent forces in the world of e-commerce and it's foolhardy to think any technology or regulation can make them go away. Spam Nation does a great job of telling an important aspect of the story, and what small things you can do to make a large difference, such that you won't fall victim to these scammers. At just under 250 pages, Spam Nation is a quick read and an important one at that.

Reviewed by Ben Rothke.

You can purchase Spam Nation: The Inside Story of Organized Cybercrime-from Global Epidemic to Your Front Door from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page. If you'd like to see what books we have available from our review library please let us know.

82 comments

  1. Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of the better book reviews I've seen on slashdot.
    It is so good that I am left feeling like I don't need to read the book unless I'm looking for the dramatical aspects of the story.

    1. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      r u a drama queen..? then read the book!

  2. LOL ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    The spammers were therefore extremely receptive to customer complaints and would do anything to make a basic refund than a chargeback.

    So, the spammers are more interested in good customer service than the real companies?

    Sad.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:LOL ... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Legitimate companies have a high volume of stable charges, and so can show a culpable minimized percentage of bad faith.

      Niche companies light up like a fucking christmas tree when you start sending chargebacks.

    2. Re:LOL ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic!!

      if only walmart could learn from then

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

      what do you mean they light up?

  3. sued for libel by the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >sued for libel by the Russians

    seriously? is that even possible in the us?

    1. Re:sued for libel by the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think the bad guys would try to sue. Then they would have to reveal details of their evil doings. I assume he would name names and companies and not just blanket say "the Russians".

    2. Re:sued for libel by the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no idea...but most lawyers are nerbous people.

      if they think theres a lawsuit,,they flee./

    3. Re:sued for libel by the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who said they are bad guys? according to amnesty international, spammers violate no international treaties.

      they are law abiding citizens.

      pure americans if you think about it that context.

  4. Pharmaceutical spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A client told me that after he sent his $25.01 how to enlarge his penis, he received a magnifying glass in the mail.

    1. Re:Pharmaceutical spam by sexconker · · Score: 2

      A client told me that after he sent his $25.01 how to enlarge his penis, he received a magnifying glass in the mail.

      Sure. A "client".

    2. Re:Pharmaceutical spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A client told me that after he sent his $25.01 how to enlarge his penis, he received a magnifying glass in the mail.

      Hmm...

      Eddie:How did we get eighty-six pounds twenty-three pence behind [on the TV rental] in the first place? [..] It wasn't me who bypassed Rumbelows every week for the last three months, saved up the eighty-six pounds twenty-three pence, and took it five doors along to Dr. O'Grady's Personal Organ Enhancement Clinic, was it? [..] "For a mere eighty-five pounds--"

      Richie: Oh God.

      Eddie:"For a mere eighty-five pounds, you too can have your personal organ enhanced so that it is comparable in size to that of a fully-grown mountain gorilla."

      Richie: Yes, and when he said "comparable in size" I didn't realise he meant "an awful lot smaller than"!

      Eddie:You mean it didn't work?

      Richie: Well, I mean, yes, he did enhance it temporarily. But when it said on the door "Revolutionary new enlargement technique", I didn't realise he was just going to stick me in a cubicle for half an hour with a copy of Razzle! Eighty-five quid! I could have been watching Emmerdale Farm now.

      Eddie:Yeah... and then you could have got one for free!

    3. Re:Pharmaceutical spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      richie is my bratha!

      eddie is my matha's best friend.

      be nice.

  5. bogus pharmaceuticals/unauthorized pharmaceuticals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. bogus pharmaceuticals/unauthorized pharmaceuticals
    2. Should the reality be that the unauthorized pharmaceuticals are effective...

    1. are they not real drugs or are they just unapproved for purchase in the us?
    2. the placebo effect?

  6. Re:who gets spam any more? by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Bullshit, Will Robinson! Bullshit!

  7. Re:who gets spam any more? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    I use comment sense and go even one step further and make an alias on the server for each service/company that asks for my personal email address.

    However, all it takes is for one friend to use your business email address for an online service (some stupid file-sharing site) and you're screwed.

  8. Clarify this sentence, please? by MikeTheGreat · · Score: 1

    Should the reality be that the unauthorized pharmaceuticals are effective, then the pharmaceutical industry would be placed in a quandary.

    What quandary would that be? That they'd face (illegal) competition?

    A quandary is a situation where you're confused about what to do. Facing cheaper competition doesn't seem like it would be confusing. Difficult or challenging, yes. Terrifying, possibly. But not so much confusing.

    If the pharmaceutical industry had the choice of either selling lots and lots of drugs (through the spammers) at a discount that might put them in a quandary. Should they risk being found out (and potentially have everyone buy the cheap stuff (thus reducing their overall revenue and profit)) or should they NOT sell their product through the black market, thus passing on the money they could get from that. That's a situation where it's not really clear what the best thing to do is.

    Interesting book, sounds like. And thank you for the review - I've got it on hold at my local public library now!

    1. Re:Clarify this sentence, please? by benrothke · · Score: 1

      Big pharma has long portrayed these foreign made pharmaceuticals as dirty and dangerous.

      The quandary is that if as John Horton noted that they are indeed indistinguishable from those sold by approved pharmacies; then US pharma is selling a drug at 10x the price.

      It would place them in a PR nightmare they could not get out of.

    2. Re:Clarify this sentence, please? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Big pharma has a buddy relationship going with the domestic regulators. They like a fairly high and expensive regulatory barrier to entry. It keeps competitors out and prices high. They have a fairly captive customer base of people who want to stay alive and healthy.

    3. Re:Clarify this sentence, please? by MikeTheGreat · · Score: 1

      Exactly! There's no 'quandary' here - the price difference is entirely intentional. In order for there to be a quandary there needs to be some uncertainty on someone's part.

      (The book review author doesn't really spell out what the quandary is - the companies may not know exactly what they're going to do but if that's the quandary then it needs to be spelled out, rather than left to the reader to guess at)

    4. Re:Clarify this sentence, please? by benrothke · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but they still have turned a blind-eye to the foreign illegal pharma. The amount important is not insignificant, and pharma has gone after smaller fish in the past.

  9. Re:who gets spam any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, all it takes is for one friend to use your business email address

    People don't email people any more, they contact them on FB. There's no reason for your friends to even have "your business email". Most of the people I know barely even know what to do with an email address, and they certainly don't use it for friend-to-friend talking.

    So I'd agree, there's no reason to ever get spammed. Use throwaways when signing up, and that's all you need to do.

  10. Re:who gets spam any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Your friends aren't going to spam you
    Facebook
    Google+
    Linked In

    And that's only "legitimate" companies. Viruses have accessed email address books for a variety of reasons. Usually just to perpetuate themselves, but some are no doubt gathering lists of valid addresses.

  11. Internet the perfect crime space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet is the jewel for crime. You can hide your tracks, have little overhead and can disappear when things heat up. Sony knows all too well how good cyber crime is. But just because you are one singular individual does not mean crime is not looking at you. People are very dumb when it comes to securing information. They do simple passwords, use them at multiple sites, and change them almost never. Come to think of it, would not surprise me even a company like Sony is guilty of a lot of this. Every time we see a successful Target or Sony hacking. We know it emboldens the hackers even more. Their success is our demise.

    1. Re:Internet the perfect crime space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly. check out this story where a guy used the net and got caught:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/runasandvik/2013/12/18/harvard-student-receives-f-for-tor-failure-while-sending-anonymous-bomb-threat/

  12. Re:who gets spam any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or one virus on his computer to dump out his contact list (or just guessing his webmail password).

  13. Re:bogus pharmaceuticals/unauthorized pharmaceutic by Enry · · Score: 1

    The FDA has rather strict quality control standards so my guess is these pharmacies have not gone through the process to be fully licensed. And another thing:

    But worse than that, he believes that the single biggest reason neither the FDA nor the pharmaceutical industry has put much effort into testing, is that they are worried that such tests may show that the drugs being sold by many so-called rogue pharmacies are by and large chemically indistinguishable from those sold by approved pharmacies.

    Yes...after the quality control of toys, toothpaste, dog food, and drywall from China, we're sure we can trust their quality with our pharmaceuticals.

  14. Re:who gets spam any more? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    I use comment sense

    If there's one thing Slashdot could use more of, it's comment sense.

  15. Re:who gets spam any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you give anything but a throwaway to Facebook, G+, or Linked In? Makes no sense. It just allows them to spam you.

    There are services you can use for "one shot" addrs that will let you reply to their signup email, and then the addr is deleted. They're super handy!

  16. Why are we afraid of international lawsuits? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I don't see any reason to be afraid of being sued by Russian criminals. A few jobs ago I once had a webpage up (which attracted very little attention) that somewhat similarly exposed a particular registrar as being overwhelmingly spammer-friendly. My employer got nervous and pulled down said web page on my behalf (it was being hosted on their server at the time - yeah, I should have had it elsewhere) because they were afraid of being sued.

    Frankly I don't see any reasone why it would even be a bad thing to be sued by these goons. They usually are doing their "business" in countries that don't have any kind of extradition (yeah, I know that usually doesn't matter in civil suits) agreements with the US or any other way to force me to show up for their lawsuit or be bound by its findings.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Why are we afraid of international lawsuits? by benrothke · · Score: 1

      International lawsuits terrify management. As these lawsuits are distracting, time consuming and extremely expensive.

      While libel is extremely hard to prove, no firm wants to be on the receiving end of a subpoena. The Washington Post is somewhat risk adverse, which is why they backed off on the story.

    2. Re:Why are we afraid of international lawsuits? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      no firm wants to be on the receiving end of a subpoena

      I understand that, but what is a subpoena worth in a court in another country? Generally nothing, really. Sure if you fail to show up for a civil trial in another court they could find against you because you didn't show up but they still won't be able to get far with that unless you have assets in that country that they can seize.

      I can understand companies wanting to avoid dealing with it in the US court if they can, but I don't see the point of being so paranoid about it in other countries.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:Why are we afraid of international lawsuits? by benrothke · · Score: 1

      I don’t know the laws. But Krebs was explicit that the Washington Post lawyers put the kibosh on many of his stories due to those lawsuit fears. And when they didn’t, it took months of review to finally to get the story out.

    4. Re:Why are we afraid of international lawsuits? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      The Washington Post has journalists working in Russia. They might reasonably be concerned about reprisals.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
  17. Strunk & White Rolling Over... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    Krebs then addresses the obvious question that this begs:

    It does not beg any questions.

    1. Re:Strunk & White Rolling Over... by neminem · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. It is literally (ok, fine, metaphorically) begging for you to ask that question. It begs the question. That's a perfectly legitimate shortening, even if it wasn't what the (significantly less clear) original meaning of the phrase was. Give it up.

    2. Re:Strunk & White Rolling Over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Krebs then addresses the obvious question that this begs:

      It does not beg any questions.

      Agreed. Only those who lack an adequate education would disagree, typically by stating 1) everyone is doing it that way or 2) It's too difficult to learn the correct meaning of the phrase.

    3. Re:Strunk & White Rolling Over... by jpellino · · Score: 1

      It raises the question. We are now in the midst of reconfiguring the meaning of a (very useful) phrase just because some people can't remember that "raise" and "beg" are two different words.

      --
      "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    4. Re:Strunk & White Rolling Over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if u wants good grammers...slashdot aint de place boi!

    5. Re:Strunk & White Rolling Over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is this the new york times or slashdot?

      when u figure that out...u will see this is not a big deal.

    6. Re:Strunk & White Rolling Over... by neminem · · Score: 1

      Indeed, they *are* two different words, and thus, their connotations are in fact not the same. "Raises the question" just means "brings up", whereas the modern definition of "begs the question" asks that you imagine as though the question were literally (and in this case, I do mean literally, as the "metaphorically" sense is coming from the verb "to imagine") begging you, "PLEASE! *Please* ask this question! I *insist* that you ask this question!", that merely "raising the question" doesn't. As such, I firmly believe that the phrase as it is now commonly used *is* useful.

      Furthermore, it is *not* overriding the previous usage - if you want to refer to the logical fallacy of begging the question, you would generally just state, "that is clearly begging the question". If I were to say, "that's clearly begging the question: where did she go?", and you assumed a definition of "assuming the conclusion of an argument" in that sentence, what would that even *mean*? A word or phrase can definitely have two or more meanings without any of them being diluted, as long as it's clear from context, either syntactically or semantically or both, which is meant.

    7. Re:Strunk & White Rolling Over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong....it should be: Strunk and White.

      Never use an ampersand where the word 'and' will suffice.

      23.5.13

    8. Re:Strunk & White Rolling Over... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      If I were to say, "that's clearly begging the question: where did she go?", and you assumed a definition of "assuming the conclusion of an argument" in that sentence, what would that even *mean*?

      It would mean that your question assumes that she went someplace but that it hasn't been established that she has actually gone anywhere. It's kind of like the old question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Not only does it assume that you are married it also assumes that at one time you were in the habit of beating her, neither of which facts are generally established before the question is asked.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    9. Re:Strunk & White Rolling Over... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      "Strunk & White" should be used when referencing the manual.

      We're both wrong :)

    10. Re:Strunk & White Rolling Over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who died and made Strunk & White in charge?

      That book is woefully outdated.

  18. Re:who gets spam any more? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Only kids use Facebook.

    or

    If you need me to have a Facebook account to be able to contact me, then drop me as a friend.

  19. Re:Russian spam? Hell no. by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    Currently bloating my spam folder are sports betting sites promising NFL locks, a strange flood of tinnitus cures (is that a new hot thing?), diabetes "cures," solar ads, and lots and lots of fake gift card spams and insurance open enrollment ads.

    Almost none of it makes it into my inbox.

  20. Re:Russian spam? Hell no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can tell u wrote this in russian and use google translate!

    thank you boris!

  21. The brave American journalists by mi · · Score: 1

    When Krebs presented the Post with his story about the Russian spammers, rather than run with it, the Post lawyers got in the way and were terrified of being sued for libel by the Russians.

    Sure. The cost of a vice-Presidential candidate's wardrobe is a much safer thing to report...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:The brave American journalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      palin is much prettier than any russian hacker...there u have it!

    2. Re:The brave American journalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      krebs does work that cnn, fox, and the others wont touch.

      cnn has scammers like greg evans on as their security 'expert'

      krebs knows his tech talk....do not dis-respect him.

  22. So... did he have any tested? by jfengel · · Score: 1

    I've read the review, but not the book, but a key element seems to come down to "Maybe it's real, but nobody knows". It seems a fairly simple procedure for him to order some of it and have it tested, and then he'd know. Yeah, that's a legal gray area, but it would make his case a lot stronger to be able to say "Yeah, I ordered a bunch of Russian Viagra and it tested out as 75% as good as the real stuff".

    I know that means taking a risk of being prosecuted, but isn't that something we commend journalists for? At least, better than making allegations about what corporate execs and government employees are thinking without evidence.

    1. Re:So... did he have any tested? by benrothke · · Score: 2

      Such tests require sophisticated testing equipment.

      Those with the equipment are not going to risk getting their labs shut down for testing illegal drugs.

      The book notes that The University of Alabama at Birmingham was ready to do the testing; but the necessary approval from the FDA and university administrations simply could not be obtained.

    2. Re:So... did he have any tested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yeah, I ordered a bunch of Russian Viagra and it tested out as 75% as good as the real stuff".

      You can still get a 75% stiffie in.

    3. Re:So... did he have any tested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got some southern comfort from russia...it was higher quality than the alabama stuff.

      putin rox!

    4. Re:So... did he have any tested? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Really? It's illegal just to run the test? (Or at least, too close to a gray area to even consider it?)

      Wow, that sucks.

    5. Re:So... did he have any tested? by benrothke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Krebs writes that he had people at The University of Alabama at Birmingham ready to do the testing. But they couldn’t get the necessary sign off, both from the school administration and the FDA.

      And even if they did, imagine if CNN got hold of the story. They would plaster the headlines with: University testing illegal Russian drugs for potency.

    6. Re:So... did he have any tested? by athenaprime · · Score: 2

      You'd think the FDA and Big Pharma would *want* to have definitive proof that illegal Russian/Canadian pharmaceuticals were EvilWickedMeanBadNasty things. My guess is that the stuff sold illegally is the same stuff sold in legit pharmacies a good portion of the time. Possibly from the same companies who sold it to the wholesalers. They just need the drugs to be more expensive here to make up the profits from selling them cheaper in tighter markets.

    7. Re:So... did he have any tested? by benrothke · · Score: 1

      That does seem to be the point he makes.

    8. Re:So... did he have any tested? by ale2011 · · Score: 1

      It's fairly clear from the investigations Krebs carried out that a good deal of the chemicals have the right components and sort the expected effect. The risk is much higher than buying full price stuff at legit shops, of course. Krebs investigates the reasons why buyers go that way, and conveys the feeling (to me, at least) that there are several legitimate needs that pharmaceutical suppliers are far from satisfying. There should be a better market for medicines, but that's not the point.

  23. Re:bogus pharmaceuticals/unauthorized pharmaceutic by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    The FDA has rather strict quality control standards so my guess is these pharmacies have not gone through the process to be fully licensed. And another thing:

    But worse than that, he believes that the single biggest reason neither the FDA nor the pharmaceutical industry has put much effort into testing, is that they are worried that such tests may show that the drugs being sold by many so-called rogue pharmacies are by and large chemically indistinguishable from those sold by approved pharmacies.

    Yes...after the quality control of toys, toothpaste, dog food, and drywall from China, we're sure we can trust their quality with our pharmaceuticals.

    Yeah, you know, they are "by and large" indistinguishable from the real ones. I mean, what's a few PPM of arsenic, or cyanide, or lead? The rest of the drug is still there, and that's what you ordered. You wouldn't send a gourmet steak back just because the cook brushed a little olive oil and salt on it, when it was listed on the menu as just a steak? So why are we rejecting these drugs?

    /sarcasm

  24. Re:Russian spam? Hell no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thank you for banking with Capital One!

  25. Re:who gets spam any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    u must use gmail.

    sign up for a yahoo or hotmail account...wait an hour...u will have spam.

    wait 1 week...u will have lots of spam.

  26. Re:who gets spam any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That might be fine among neckbeards, but out in the real world, people communicate with Facebook.

  27. Re:who gets spam any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my real world, when I want to talk to my friends, I ring them, email them, or even go to see them.

    Facebook seems to be for attention whores who live in their mom's basement and wish they had actual friends.

  28. Re:bogus pharmaceuticals/unauthorized pharmaceutic by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you know, they are "by and large" indistinguishable from the real ones. I mean, what's a few PPM of arsenic, or cyanide, or lead? The rest of the drug is still there, and that's what you ordered. You wouldn't send a gourmet steak back just because the cook brushed a little olive oil and salt on it, when it was listed on the menu as just a steak? So why are we rejecting these drugs?

    /sarcasm

    What makes you think the 'official' drugs are made in different factories than the 'unofficial' drugs? Everything I've seen suggests the pharma companies source this stuff from the same places. The FDA process is a labeling process.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  29. Re:bogus pharmaceuticals/unauthorized pharmaceutic by Enry · · Score: 1

    What have you seen that suggests this?

  30. Re:Russian spam? Hell no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good then; but what else is there to talk about?

  31. Re:Russian spam? Hell no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason you get a lot of solar ads is that that the US Govt. has subsidized a lot of the installations.
    The power company is also in on it.

    Many of the solar firms are legit, but many are scammers.

    Start your research here - http://www.solarreviews.com/

  32. The New Spam Ecosystem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The New Spam Ecosystem the book is about it truly devastating to my privacy.

  33. Re:bogus pharmaceuticals/unauthorized pharmaceutic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they work like magic and the pharmacutical firms are not tooo happy about that.

  34. Re:bogus pharmaceuticals/unauthorized pharmaceutic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    u wrote the funniest thing i have read in months - The FDA has rather strict quality control standards...

    the fda is a bunch of pylons! u 2 tooo funnie.

  35. Re:bogus pharmaceuticals/unauthorized pharmaceutic by john.r.strohm · · Score: 1

    I can't speak to the Russian spammers.

    However, I routinely buy asthma maintenance medications in Bangkok, Thailand, while on vacation. SAME manufacturers, SAME production lines, SAME LOT NUMBERS, but at a fraction of the cost.

  36. I have to props to Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gmail has the best spam filter I even seen in 30 years of email! Once or twice a year, something ends in my spam folder that I wanna see and I don't recall the last thing I had spam in my inbox. Gmail has made spam his bitch!

    Weird, are the bottom of this page is says, "The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra". This is the first thing I disagree with Dijkstra. Long live professional immaturity!

    1. Re:I have to props to Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 years of email...????????????? i am btter,,,,ui have 48 year.

      dude...spam has not even been around that long!!!!!!!!

      youre reply is spam.

      dont exaggerate what you think you did.

  37. Re:Book review requesst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Followed-on item to my just requested request:

    Besides reviewing the book by Chris, all his reviews are can be found in the following URL:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AH62BQTCMR3BR/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev/192-7946993-1915354?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

  38. Re:Book review requesst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a followup to my followup - please follow Chris here: https://twitter.com/chris767roberts

  39. Re:bogus pharmaceuticals/unauthorized pharmaceutic by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    What have you seen that suggests this?

    TV shows. In particular a program on drug manufacture and all of of the production lines shown were in places like Pakistan and India, supplying the big pharma companies who supply worldwide. I don't think there's a 'gold standard' drug manufacturing industry based in the USA just to keep the idiot patriots happy.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.