Slashdot Mirror


CRTC Issues $1.1 Million Penalty To Compu-Finder For Spamming Canadians

zentigger writes Canadians rejoice! It looks like the new anti-spam regulations might actually have some teeth! Today, the CRTC issued a $1.1 million fine to Compu-Finder for violating Canada's anti-spam legislation by sending commercial emails without consent, as well as messages in which the unsubscribe mechanisms did not function properly. Furthermore, an analysis of the complaints made to the Spam Reporting Centre of this industry sector shows that Compu-Finder accounts for 26% of all complaints submitted.

54 comments

  1. Now figure out a way to stop the phone calls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The robo-calls make me very, very angry.

    1. Re:Now figure out a way to stop the phone calls. by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      And the txt msgs, too.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    2. Re:Now figure out a way to stop the phone calls. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      The robo-calls make me very, very angry.

      Chill.

      Hang up the phone and get on with your life.

      Getting "very, very angry" just fills your life with stress for now reason and leads you to an early grave.

    3. Re:Now figure out a way to stop the phone calls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. Hate only hurts yourself with stress and adrenaline and does nothing to others. I live by the adage that if someone needs killing, you do it with a smile on your lips.

      Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

  2. Private right of action? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when my private right of action privilege comes into force in 2017, can I get $1.1M from fuckwads like these?

  3. Given the depth of surveillance by msobkow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given the depth of surveillance performed by CSEC and the NSA, I think it's been *proven* that telcos could *easily* detect and block the sources of robo-calls, too.

    My guess is the robo-call companies pay them big bucks to harass everyone, so the telcos have no motivation to do shit about the problem.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Given the depth of surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      I don't believe for a fucking half-second that the telcos cannot stop robo-call telemarketing.

    2. Re:Given the depth of surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as the telcos are concerned, there is no "problem", only network monetization strategies.

    3. Re:Given the depth of surveillance by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Sure the could block all robo-calls but then the next meme would be "FCC blocks political free speech" or "FCC blocks charity campaigns". Blocking robo-calls is easy but robo-calls in themselves are not illegal. Even in do not call lists there are exemptions such as charity/political calls.

    4. Re:Given the depth of surveillance by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My guess is the robo-call companies pay them big bucks to harass everyone, so the telcos have no motivation to do shit about the problem.

      You can also pay for the privilege of not being harassed. You can block ten numbers, you can block numbers without caller ID, and you can get caller ID. And you can pay for each of these features.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Given the depth of surveillance by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      There should not be exceptions for Charity/Political calls. Those are still unsolicited. They are not covered by the first amendment. Free Speech does not mean that you can annoy people to your heart's content, on their dollar. They can make all the charity handout messages or political statements they want and if people are interested in hearing them, then people can call them.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:Given the depth of surveillance by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Why should a person have to pay to avoid something that somebody is illegally doing to them? The cost of the crime should be on the criminal, not the victim.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  4. 1.1 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, they must've lost the whole weeks coffee money. only tee for the next week!

    1. Re:1.1 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Is $1.1M really just chump change, even for this spammer?

    2. Re:1.1 million by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      In all likelihood, yes. Setting up something to scour for email addresses and sending bulk mail costs pennies. If they get even a 0.01% return on their emails (i.e. 1 out of 10,000 people falling for it) they still pull in tons of money.

    3. Re:1.1 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Is $1.1M really just chump change, even for this spammer?

      Yes. A recent report from Microsoft claims telemarketing fraud in Canada targeting users of Microsoft Windows earned the fraudsters approximately 347 billion dollars in one year from a mere 200 thousand gullible victims. So a fine of 1 million dollars is pocket change.

  5. So what happend to the "Do Not Call" list? by Quasimodem · · Score: 2

    I signed up for that when it first came out and have been getting more calls since --- both (semi) human and robo --- than I ever did before?

    1. Re:So what happend to the "Do Not Call" list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The list only works if the CRTC enforce it. With caller-id spoofing and the telcos not assisting in the tracking of the criminals, what can the CRTC do?

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the CRTC here. On the contrary. The CRTC need to hold the telcos' feet to the fire and abolish the "we don't know who they are" stonewalling that the telcos do.

      When I am on the DNCL and I get a telemarketing call I should be able to just dial a "star code" (i.e. *99) which results in the telco sending the originating information along with my phone number to the CRTC to be processed. And when the telcos say they cannot determine who the originating party is, I don't believe them for half-a-fucking second.

      And again, I will never believe for even half-a-fucking second that in this technological world where the government can spy on every single one of us simultaneously, that the telcos could not implement this system.

    2. Re:So what happend to the "Do Not Call" list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can actually happen that the genuinely don't know. If it is an international call and the originating number has been spoofed in the country of origin there is nothing the destination country phone company can do to track that, except point to which operator the call originated from.

    3. Re:So what happend to the "Do Not Call" list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I suspect as much also. Canadian telcos should be required to refuse calls from international telcos that do not enforce or report accurate call origination. Or they should be required to substitute international telco identification into the caller-id.

      I'd be happy to see "Untrusted Origin India" on my caller display for such calls so that I can route them into the garbage before they even ring my phone. But I have that kind of control over my incoming calls. Poor schlebs that get regular domestic telco service from the likes of Bell should be able to (free of charge!) refuse calls from untrusted origins also.

      If everyone in Canada who knows they won't be getting any legitimate calls from India can block them that will put a crimp on that business pretty quick. At least the people who won't block those calls (the Indians who will want calls from their family in India) can yell at the spammers in their own language.

    4. Re:So what happend to the "Do Not Call" list? by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      you do know that the telcos by definition have ways of sorting the originating number AT THE NETWORK LEVEL.

      Even if it was a VOIP call the telco could start blocking the switch (or have the provider disable the account used)

      Dot Gov folks need to either start issuing fines equal to 140% of the profits or have the DOD "serve papers" on the folks profiting from this.

    5. Re:So what happend to the "Do Not Call" list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I receive almost none. Those I do receive are definitely no longer from within Canada, but are the likes of the Indian "this is Windows calling" scams.

      In other news, anecdotes makes for poor evidence.

    6. Re:So what happend to the "Do Not Call" list? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The CRTC need to hold the telcos' feet to the fire and abolish the "we don't know who they are" stonewalling that the telcos do.

      SOMEBODY is getting billed for the call. SOMEBODY knows where it originated from. The problem is that the same SOMEBODY who you are asking to block these calls does not get paid when that call does not go through. Therefore, they lose business. The illegal autodialer makes a million calls a day. You make maybe three or four.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:So what happend to the "Do Not Call" list? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      They'll know where the call originated from if they'd have to pay a fine for the privilege of "not knowing".

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    8. Re:So what happend to the "Do Not Call" list? by StrangeBrew · · Score: 1

      You aren't kidding. Though I had a 'boy do I feel like an idiot' moment recently. I received a call from woman with a thick Asian accent, very hard to understand, especially given the background noise of a low-rent call center, but I did catch the word 'Windows'. I started to ask her if her parents were embarrassed that she works for criminals. She was obviously confused and clarified that she doesn't work for criminals, she was trying to get me to agree to a 'free' window replacement estimate on our home due to a draw we entered at a home reno show. Oops. I did decline the offer, but felt less bad about my tirade when she called back 3 more GD times over the next week.

  6. Just kill them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We as a society waste too many resources on people who should simply be exterminated. The spammers, pop up trojan idiots, etc should just be destroyed but I guess that's the difference between real leadership by men and worthless democracy.

    1. Re:Just kill them by mrbcs · · Score: 1
      Didn't Russia do that years ago? Public execution of spammers? Problem solved. Only need to kill a couple of them, the rest will get the message.

      Crime is usually the result of lax penalties. Make it so it's not worth the punishment already!

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
  7. 26% seems a bit high by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

    Considering all the different spammers out there, it's hard to imagine any single entity getting 26% of all complaints. Somebody must have been really out to get them, or there must not have been that many complaints submitted. From the quick glance I did, I couldn't determine how many complaints they got, or how many emails this company sent out. They probably would have not gotten such a big fine if their unsubscribe links worked.

    I'm from Canada, and as much as I don't like spam, I think that this goes a bit too far. Spam filters are so good now that I rarely see spam in my inbox, and anything that isn't caught can easily be blocked by a filter. This may stop a few companies within the country from sending out emails, but the vast majority of spam comes from outside the country, and this law can't protect against that. It really makes it difficult for small companies to verify that they comply with the regulations. When even companies like Microsoft stop sending out important emails, because there's no way to verity that they have consent for the emails they are sending out, then there's not much the small companies can do to cover themselves if somebody was to complain.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:26% seems a bit high by DamonHD · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just because *you* don't get SPAM doesn't mean that it isn't a problem in a number of ways.

      I get 10,000+ SPAM attempts per day. I;d have to give up well-known and memorable emails addresses to begin to trim it.

      Legit inbound and outbound mails get lots in the SPAM wars, eg people miss important mails of mine, and I miss theirs.

      SPAM traffic also wastes bandwidth and power in my networking equipment and servers; visible and significant for a partly off-grid system for example.

      SPAM filters are a poor fix for a pernicious problem that has destroyed what was a wonderful communications service. I was using email before SPAM existed.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:26% seems a bit high by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      This isn't about the 'enlarge your penis' level of spam, this is about the website you gave your email to 5 years ago that still emails you daily with the broken unsubscribe link. This is about forcing companies to not be annoying and incompetent. After all, if they want to operate in Canada they should learn how to be polite.

    3. Re:26% seems a bit high by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      "it's hard to imagine any single entity getting 26% of all complaints."

      Likely it means they didn't try to hide their identity and use botnets for distribution like the worst spammers do, so people were able to actually file complaints against them accurately.

      Now lets think about the behavior we are actually incenting...

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
  8. Oh Canada please take care of UBM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada,

    While you are at it, please deal with UBM for spamming us countless times without any easy way to unsubscribe from their stupid emails and magazine promotions!!

    Anon Coward

  9. Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need a $1.1M fine, spammer.

  10. Canadian Dollars by Greyfox · · Score: 0

    Sadly it's in Canadian dollars, so all those extra zeros are basically pointless.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  11. It's not 26% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't account for a quarter of spam reports. From the CBC article:

    "Compu-Finder was flagged for investigation as it accounted for more than one quarter of the spam complaints received that were related to training companies."

  12. YEAH RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These Companies make 10x that amount in a given week... This may as well be pocket change to them.
    Considering that they cost and scam people out of hundreds of millions of dollars per year (The sum total of these types of Companies) why not just bankrupt them and repay the money they swindle people out of? Oh, thats right, because the world is run by banker nazis now... Screw it, Chop off all the fingers, toes, and tongue of any scammer convicted... Stop that BS REAL QUICK!

  13. I'm all in favor of rejoicing for no reason by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But frankly, I'd hold the applause until after the penalty is collected and Compu-Finder is actually disbanded. Because frankly, it's a hollow victory if they move, change their corporate name, hire a fictitious body of corporate officers, and resume where they left off.

    They're frakking spammers. What makes anyone think this bureaucratic announcement actually will matter?

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  14. NoMoRobo.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These blocking features come "free" w/my phone subscription w/TWC. When I complained about a robo calling number it wouldn't let me block (because it was "invalid") TWC referred me to nomorobo.com. It seems they work w/some providers to block these calls. You get the advantage of automatically blocking a wider pool of numbers. The drawback is that the phone will ring once since they block after the connection's been made.

    1. Re:NoMoRobo.com by msobkow · · Score: 1

      The caller-id squirt happens after the first ring, so they can't block it before the second.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  15. Meanwhile, the US supports its citizens by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    By fining Google half a billion dollars for allowing discount Canadian pharmacies to advertise on it.
    I'm hoping that the Paul administration makes the federosaurus pay Google back every dime they stole on behalf of Big Pharma, with penalty interest.

  16. Combating email spam is easy ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... if it costs one penny (or some other pricing scheme) to send each email.

    The fee would be tacked on the ISP's bill, much like a tax, and would go to the government toward litigation costs for prosecuting spammers.

    That simple change would kill spam.

    I have to think of everything.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Combating email spam is easy ... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      ... if it costs one penny (or some other pricing scheme) to send each email.

      The fee would be tacked on the ISP's bill, much like a tax, and would go to the government toward litigation costs for prosecuting spammers.

      That simple change would kill spam.

      I have to think of everything.

      And legitimate double opt-in newsletters.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Combating email spam is easy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post advocates a

      ( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante

      approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

      ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
      (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
      (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
      ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
      ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
      (x) Users of email will not put up with it
      (x) Microsoft will not put up with it
      ( ) The police will not put up with it
      (x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
      (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
      (x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
      ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
      ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

      Specifically, your plan fails to account for

      ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
      (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
      ( ) Open relays in foreign countries
      ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
      ( ) Asshats
      (x) Jurisdictional problems
      (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
      ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
      (x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
      ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
      ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
      (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
      ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
      (x) Extreme profitability of spam
      (x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
      ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
      ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
      ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
      ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
      (x) Outlook

      and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

      (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
      been shown practical
      ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
      ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
      ( ) Blacklists suck
      ( ) Whitelists suck
      ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
      ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
      ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
      ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
      (x) Sending email should be free
      ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
      ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
      ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
      ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
      ( ) I don't want the government reading my email
      ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

      Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

      ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
      (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
      ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
      house down!

    3. Re:Combating email spam is easy ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      tl;dr

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.