Well, it is technically a Trojan and it sounds like they forgot to put in the legal blather that keeps the spyware people from getting busted, BUT it also seems pretty clear that anybody who is in a position to file a complaint would be foolish to do so.
Also, I should point out that it would be fairly easy to do this legally (i.e., just bury the the permissions in the legal blather that the installer throws up) and that the real copyright owners could do a similar thing.
I noticed that neither proponents of CAN-SPAM is willing to take thier own medicine and post their e-mail addresses on their web sites. Maybe we should help educate them and try and guess what their e-mail addresses are -- For exmaple, the following would be good guesses:
For those of you who can't find the link, a space has crept into lucas where it doesn't belong. Or actually, that must be a simulation of a Lucas wiring harness (Aren't those bullet connectors great?).
Actually, the law says they are equally liable. Well, actually it defines a spammer as being anybody who causes spam to be sent (whether they do it themselves or pay somebody else). It also says that the person or company being promoted is guilty if they don't take steps to stop the spamming once they find out about it.
I don't think this will do much good by itself, but I can think of three things that would make much better:
1. Combine it with a proxypot so it looks like there is an entire network of open mail servers out there.
2. Involve legal authorities in designing the tools so the ttols provide enough logging to result in a slam-dunk conviction of the spammers.
3. Work with said legal authorities to have the spammers arrested.
Unauthorized use of mail and proxy servers is illegal. The problem is collecting enough evidence. A combined mail and proxy sever system could probably do that. Also, involvement of law enforcement could get one a special IP allocation that doesn't mind being blacklisted. [You DO want the honeypot servers blacklisted, after all: It will make them look more like the real thing.]
> What makes you think they don't? Most U.S. based ISPs don't require anything more than enough complaints with reasonable evidence to shut spammers down. That's so wrong it's laughable. It took me over a year and many complaints to get a porno spammer in FL disconnected. It wasn't until I started contacting a large and very straight-laced investor in the ISP that I finally got some action. And that only worked because the guy was advertising porno sites. If they had been flooding the world with 20 billion vitamin scams a day, I probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
There are large numbers of ISPs who don't want to do anything if it's a large spammer. They are perfectly willing to dump somebody on a DSL in a trailer park, but when the the spammer is buying a T3, they get LOTS of protection.
1. Many routers have queues big enough to absorb short bursts like that; so, there won't be packet loss.
2. Routers could be taught to put acks at the front of the queue (if they don't already).
3. Routers could keep track of the max number of messages in a queue from any given IP. This would identify this DOS attack as well as any other bursty traffic.
> It will miss a lot of songs, but it is virtually guaranteed to not give false positives.
Nope. Anybody who wants to try to collect reverse DMCA fines from the RIAA can generate files full of random numbers and then alter the last N bytes to generate the desired checksum. Of course, this won't trick the RIAA if they actually listen to the files before firing off a subpoena, but I'll bet they are lazy enough to get caught at least once. If not, then listening to full scale white noise is really annoying... heh heh
One big problem here is that the services they want to tax are not being rendered in the EU. Does the EU require it's citizens to pay VAT on a restaurant meal in Manhattan?
This is also a screw job because the US companies aren't able to deduct expenses from the VAT the way the EU companies can. Effectively, the VAT is applied to margins for the EU companies, but gross income for the non-EU companies.
Telstra was terrible about policing spammers a year ago, but they seem to be getting better, now. Most of what I see is now coming from China and Brazil.
Speaking of China, what were the names of some of those subversive groups that all the Chinese spammers belong to? I know the Falun Gong is one, but what are the others?
1. The per message fine has to be enough to make it worth pursuing. MO has the right idea: $5000 per message.
2. It has to allow for individual enforcement (i.e., small claims court). Law enforcement, frankly, should be frying bigger fish.
3. It should be a felony to promote anything with SPAM without permission of the entity being promoted.
4. In addition to the spammer, the fine should apply any entity being promoted by SPAM unless they are willing to file a criminal complaint against the spammer (for violating rule number 3). Note that filing a false criminal complaint is also very illegal; so, this would not be likely t be misused.
That kind of stuff is currently illegal to the tune of at least 5 years in jail and $20K in fines (computer fraud and abuse act). Good luck in getting the feds to enforce it, though. They seem to only be interested in nailing kiddies who put dirty pictures up on other people's web sites, not real honest to god theft of service....
I thought it was out of date, but sadly, it isn't.
Our House is Burnin' (2:57)
A fusion of African, Japanese and Classic Blues rhythms. Lyrics. download mp3 (2.6MB).
Re:The Yes Men could be at fault
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 2
But they didn't try to claim the web site was their own. They tried to make people think it was DOW's! Other posters have already pointed out that the Yes Men's descriptions of DOW's response to the Bhopal disaster appear to be much more accurate than DOW's own public statements.
Re:These types of stories need MORE publicity
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 2
You misquoted the story in a big way. They didn't mention James Parker in the hoax, they put him down as the owner of the domain name (i.e., the creator of the hoax). Of course, that was more than a little bit stupid (as they found out).
Slashdot Mirror
Don't fill in the forms with garbage, fill in every contact you can find from their level 1 ISP.
Well, it is technically a Trojan and it sounds like they forgot to put in the legal blather that keeps the spyware people from getting busted, BUT it also seems pretty clear that anybody who is in a position to file a complaint would be foolish to do so.
Also, I should point out that it would be fairly easy to do this legally (i.e., just bury the the permissions in the legal blather that the installer throws up) and that the real copyright owners could do a similar thing.
I noticed that neither proponents of CAN-SPAM is willing to take thier own medicine and post their e-mail addresses on their web sites. Maybe we should help educate them and try and guess what their e-mail addresses are -- For exmaple, the following would be good guesses:
n ate.govn .senate.gov
senator@burns.senate.gov
conrad_burns@burns.se
senator@wyden.senate.gov
ron_wyden@wyde
ronald_wyden@wyden.senate.gov
Anybody got and better guesses?
That was great.
Thank You Fellow victim.
For those of you who can't find the link, a space has crept into lucas where it doesn't belong. Or actually, that must be a simulation of a Lucas wiring harness (Aren't those bullet connectors great?).
Surely anything with Lucas electronics in it should be near the top of the list!
Actually, the law says they are equally liable. Well, actually it defines a spammer as being anybody who causes spam to be sent (whether they do it themselves or pay somebody else). It also says that the person or company being promoted is guilty if they don't take steps to stop the spamming once they find out about it.
I don't think this will do much good by itself, but I can think of three things that would make much better:
1. Combine it with a proxypot so it looks like there is an entire network of open mail servers out there.
2. Involve legal authorities in designing the tools so the ttols provide enough logging to result in a slam-dunk conviction of the spammers.
3. Work with said legal authorities to have the spammers arrested.
Unauthorized use of mail and proxy servers is illegal. The problem is collecting enough evidence. A combined mail and proxy sever system could probably do that. Also, involvement of law enforcement could get one a special IP allocation that doesn't mind being blacklisted. [You DO want the honeypot servers blacklisted, after all: It will make them look more like the real thing.]
> What makes you think they don't? Most U.S. based ISPs don't require anything more than enough complaints with reasonable evidence to shut spammers down.
That's so wrong it's laughable. It took me over a year and many complaints to get a porno spammer in FL disconnected. It wasn't until I started contacting a large and very straight-laced investor in the ISP that I finally got some action. And that only worked because the guy was advertising porno sites. If they had been flooding the world with 20 billion vitamin scams a day, I probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
There are large numbers of ISPs who don't want to do anything if it's a large spammer. They are perfectly willing to dump somebody on a DSL in a trailer park, but when the the spammer is buying a T3, they get LOTS of protection.
Get the facts straight.
1. Spamcop is not SPEWS
2. The Spamcop list is not a block list, it's supposed to be used for sorting, not blocking. This is pointed out in your own poster boy's rant.
3. I've gotten enough spam from fastmail to recognize the domain; so, your poster boy is blowing smoke.
Stop stealing other people's time (by supporting spammers) and you will get off the block lists.
1. Many routers have queues big enough to absorb short bursts like that; so, there won't be packet loss.
2. Routers could be taught to put acks at the front of the queue (if they don't already).
3. Routers could keep track of the max number of messages in a queue from any given IP. This would identify this DOS attack as well as any other bursty traffic.
> It will miss a lot of songs, but it is virtually guaranteed to not give false positives.
Nope. Anybody who wants to try to collect reverse DMCA fines from the RIAA can generate files full of random numbers and then alter the last N bytes to generate the desired checksum. Of course, this won't trick the RIAA if they actually listen to the files before firing off a subpoena, but I'll bet they are lazy enough to get caught at least once. If not, then listening to full scale white noise is really annoying... heh heh
You are the exception. More than half the spam I am seeing these days comes from hijacked residential cable modem connections.
If you want to blame somebody, blame the spammers for hijacking the computers.
One big problem here is that the services they want to tax are not being rendered in the EU. Does the EU require it's citizens to pay VAT on a restaurant meal in Manhattan?
This is also a screw job because the US companies aren't able to deduct expenses from the VAT the way the EU companies can. Effectively, the VAT is applied to margins for the EU companies, but gross income for the non-EU companies.
So track one of them down and press charges. Child Moletation might work. Sexual harassment of a child will definitely work.
So Rep Tauzin is promoting the DMA and spam. http://catalogrequest.com/ is still there.
Some mailing addresses for Rep Tauzin:
2183 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Federal Building
Room 107
423 Lafayette Street
Houma, Louisiana 70360
8201 West Judge Perez Drive
Chalmette, Louisiana 70043
210 East Main Street
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560
828 South Irma Blvd.
Room 212-A
Gonzales, Louisiana 70737
Telstra was terrible about policing spammers a year ago, but they seem to be getting better, now. Most of what I see is now coming from China and Brazil.
Speaking of China, what were the names of some of those subversive groups that all the Chinese spammers belong to? I know the Falun Gong is one, but what are the others?
This is going to make a number of RFC's illegal...
How entertaining.
From Spamhaus:
"Defendant Samuel Meltzer resides at 1370 Carling Drive #302, Saint Paul, Minnesota."
For mailing, that's MN 55108-5212
1. The per message fine has to be enough to make it worth pursuing. MO has the right idea: $5000 per message.
2. It has to allow for individual enforcement (i.e., small claims court). Law enforcement, frankly, should be frying bigger fish.
3. It should be a felony to promote anything with SPAM without permission of the entity being promoted.
4. In addition to the spammer, the fine should apply any entity being promoted by SPAM unless they are willing to file a criminal complaint against the spammer (for violating rule number 3). Note that filing a false criminal complaint is also very illegal; so, this would not be likely t be misused.
That kind of stuff is currently illegal to the tune of at least 5 years in jail and $20K in fines (computer fraud and abuse act). Good luck in getting the feds to enforce it, though. They seem to only be interested in nailing kiddies who put dirty pictures up on other people's web sites, not real honest to god theft of service....
Go to the drug store and get some Saltpeter. You will also need carbon and sulfer.
Use outdoors.
I thought it was out of date, but sadly, it isn't.
Our House is Burnin' (2:57)
A fusion of African, Japanese and Classic Blues rhythms.
Lyrics. download mp3 (2.6MB).
But they didn't try to claim the web site was their own. They tried to make people think it was DOW's! Other posters have already pointed out that the Yes Men's descriptions of DOW's response to the Bhopal disaster appear to be much more accurate than DOW's own public statements.
You misquoted the story in a big way. They didn't mention James Parker in the hoax, they put him down as the owner of the domain name (i.e., the creator of the hoax). Of course, that was more than a little bit stupid (as they found out).
Want a good example, try searching Google for what kind of diet one should go on for diabetes.
I can't be sure what kind of example it is, but you will surely find a ton of conflicting information...