Good point. I've made just 1 little change (I've identified Sender ID as the culprit), and pasted it into my gmail sig:
NOTE: If you are receiving this at a Hotmail account, please keep in mind that you might not be able to receive it after November, when Microsoft implements Dender ID as YABIS (Yet Another Broken Incompatible Standard). You may want to switch to a GMail Account or a Yahoo Account if you want to continue receiving emails from me and other non-Microsoft accounts. Ask me how.
sure they could see the boss got a bonus and dre out a load of cash.
but how the hell could they find out that the boss gave that CASH to a spyware company with no record.
- no bank records to follow up, which is what you suggested as evidence that could be developed:
the bank records showing a withdrawl of X amount and a deposit in the same amount to the spyware providers.
The additional problem, which I point out elsewhere, is that heresay doesn't cut it. Ints not enough that someone say that Advertiser A paid Company B X amount of dollars - they have to say they have first-hand knowledge of the payment. In other words, they have to have witnessed the payoff, and known what it was for. A mere supposition won't cut it for any sort of warrant, and if a judge DID issue one on that basis, all the evidence so gathered would be thrown out.
The AGs' approach is much better - no warrants needed. Just a prosecution of the advertisers. Who cares who they paid or how they paid it?
If you read your own original scenario again, you'll see there is a chain of 3 companies involved, not 2
"We need all records of all emails and payments made to J. Blogs of XYZ Corp as we believe he was used to funnel money to SpamBeEverywhere Inc in return for advertising, according to this sworn statement by the CEO of SpamBeEverywhere Inc"
The third entity is the wilfully ignorant advertiser, the one that is making the payments to J. Blogs of XYZ Corp. The one whose money is, as you say, being funnelled. This entity (the advertiser) is placing ads with a middle man (XYZ Corp) who then farms it out to SpamBeEverywhere Inc. This also fits in with the scenario TFA was talking about, which had advertisers farming out to agencies, who then pass it on to the spammers. The AG wants to go after the advertisers, not the middle men.
Applying it to your scenario, the AG wants to go after the original advertiser making the payments, rather than XYZ Corp or SpamBeEverywhere Inc., because going after the middlemen doesn't stop the problem - going after DontWannaKnowHow Inc, without who there would be no reason for the existence of XYZ Corp or SpamBeEverywhere Inc, makes more sense.
Also a lot easier afterwards to go down the food chain.
sure they could see the boss got a bonus and dre out a load of cash.
but how the hell could they find out that the boss gave that CASH to a spyware company with no record.
Again, the scenarios outlined don't make the connection. "Follow the money" fails, whereas going after the advertiser succeeds (you don't care in that case HOW it was financed - it could be stipulated that it was done as a quid pro quo, or even as a freebie with the advertisers' knowledge, even if the adv. chose to remain ignorant of the details - just that it took place, and that the advertiser should have exercised some control rather than just "allow it to happen".
"Follow the money" is really shorthand for "see who benefits". Usually, the two are equivalent - but not in this case, where "follow the money" breaks down because of the use of untraceable cash.
But lets ignore that and look a bit ore closely at the "fishing expedition":
Relevent evidence being examined because someone admitted a particular offense took place and there's already circumstantial evidence to back it up is not generally considered a "fishing expedition."
In this scenario, there is no "evidence" against the advertiser; only a statement against the middle man, XYZ Corp. The statement itself is heresay, in that SpamBeEverywhere has no firsthand knowledge of how XYZ Corp is paid by the advertiser. No judge is going to issue a search warrant based on statements that are at best heresay and at worse conjecture. Its not a case of judges ruling against prosecutors - its about heresay having zero value.
A proper scenario would be ALMOST the same, but the elements would differ: here's how:
AG: We believe XYZ Corp is being used to funnel money from advertisers to spam houses We have a statement from the CEO of a spam house that he was present when an advertiser made a payment to XYZ Corp for spam services.
See the diff? That might get you a warrant against XYZ Corp. Unsupported speculation won't.
BTW, a nitpick, but since when is the development of the spyware illegal? Development of software that can have illegal uses is not itself illegal - just ask DVD John:-)
You have no choice but to start with those who manage the malware product to begin with: those who sell the advertising
Of course that wouldn't be your only evidence - the bank records showing a withdrawl of X amount and a deposit in the same amount to the spyware providers.
The original poster posited cash payments - no bank records.
Additionally, you're talking out your ass (which is okay - this is slashdot after all) if you think a criminal RICO charge applies here.
As for civil actions, the courts have continually whittled away at applying RICO in civil cases. And where's the racketeering, the money-laundering (no, taking cash payments is NOT money-laundering, unless you're stupid enough to then convert them to book assets via false receipts instead of just spending the cash), or the appropriation of another business via criminal racketeering in such a case?
So you'd go before a judge and ask for a blanket search warrant based on statements made by a CEO who admitted to criminal activity, without a trial to establish fact evidence, to grab everything from a third company against which you have zero physical evidence and only an unsubstantiated allegation from your admitted crook against an intermediary.
You've been watching too much TV:-)
By your own statement, only XYZ Corp would be under the spotlight at that point, not any company making payments to it. You would have to establish the connection (not just an allegation) between XYZ Corp and SpamBeEverywhere Inc before you'd be allowed to go on a fishing expedition for payments made TO XYZ Corp by any 3rd party. In other words, either XYZ Corp rolls over, or you're shit out of luck. And the odds are, XYZ Corp won't roll over, seeing as there's no incentive for them to (no upside) and a large disincentive to (confessing to something that probably can't be proven in court is just plain dumb, seeing as SpamBeEverywhere's unsupported testimony would not be very credible before a jury in either a civil or criminal trial - in the case of a criminal proceding, it would definitely not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.).
Even that won't help in the case of cash payments. Cash doesn't leave much of a paper trail, you know.
Much better to go after the perceived beneficiary of the advertising directly, which is what's being proposed. If the company is guilty, the evidence will be there. If they were wilfully ignorant, that can also be established quite easily. Again, the evidence will be there. If, on the other hand, they are being Joe Jobbed, they will welcome the opportunity to clear their name.
Why go the complicated route A -> B -> C when you can just go directly to C?
Expedia.ca has such a low reputation up here that "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" (a CBC comedey) did a satire of them:
Expedient.ca
Him: "Look honey, we'll have dinner in San Francisco, then a cruise on this cruise ship, where I'll push you off the bow, then wipe down the rail, report you missing, and collect the insurance."
Her: "Wow, we're going to San Francisco!"
Announcer: You can book your travel, hire your hitman, get your rubber gloves, establish your alibi, all through Expedient.ca
A quick look at the posters history, etc., makes me think that
demonic-halo is a throwaway account for White Manual, another throwaway account. IOW, a troll (and a not very good one, at that).
Problem with that sort of evidence is that, while it looks good on TV, it doesn't stand up in court.
The defense will ask if the witness (Mr Spyware Provider) was promised anything in return for his testimony. The answer will be "Yes, I got a reduction of 80% in my jail term".
Since Mr. Spyware Provider wasn't a very credible witness to begin with, the case will fail.
It will all go down to Mr. Spyware Providers' word against the Defendants - and with no actual evidence, to boot. There WILL be a reasonable doubt that Mr. Spyware Provider is lying to save his own skin.
Nobody is forcing you to advertise on the net (which even in 1999 was already the LEAST effective means of advertising, and has gotten worse in terms of credibility, results per dollar spent, etc)
Nobody is forcing you to use the agencies you mentioned. Its not hard to check out the people you're dealing with. That you don't is the hallmark of the wilfully ignorant who don't do their due diligence
Contrary to what you state, its very easy to control how your ads get distributed - just put in a clause that provides financial penalties if they use adware/spyware. Agencies that won't agree to that are obviously not going to make the short list. That you are so desperate that you go with someone who won't agree to such terms is a sign that your business plan is doomed.
It's much easier to pay other people do the work and focus on developing a good product.
What good is it developing a good product if, by the time you get to market, you've already pissed off every possible consumer?
"It is just a marketing tool that we use," said Expedia spokesman David Dennis.
So, maybe we can use the same line of reasoning for a DDoS of Expedia - "Its just an anti-spyware/adware measure that we use."
I swear, do companies go out of their way to hire the lowest-IQ, most mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging, slope-foreheaded idiot they can find to be company shill^Wspokesman, or is it a side-effect of the job?
ITS ABOUT F***ING TIME! Companies have a responsability to know who they're dealing with, and not plead "willful ignorance". Its the same mrally, ethically, and legally as you buying a new computer for ten cents on the dollar from some guy who sells them out of his trunk.
In this case, I for one welcome our new attorney-general overlords!
As I pointed out elsewhere, the Chinese have been recording eclipses for over 4000 years. Its not like they had access to fancy arc-welders' goggles back in 2000 BC, you know.
As for the damage taking years to show up, well, its had more decades to show up than I want to think about. Hasn't yet. Oh, and I tested it again this morning while walking the dogs. I can still do it on a bright sunny +30 day. Mind you, had to do it a month ago when we had some problems at work with some pole-mounted equipment. It was either look directly at both it and the sun (the two were directly in line), or fetch a 50-foot ladder and climb up. Guess which was easier and quicker?
Of course I have a few advantages - I'm nearsighted, so the image will never be focused directly on the retina anyway. Plus, my irises are blue, which blocks less of the light than brown or black, so my pupils will constrict more to drop the total amount of light in to the same amount. So I guess there are some darwinian benefits to being blue-eyed and near-sighted.
And of course firewalking is a prepared stunt - but remember, I'm not the one who introduced that completely irrelevent straw-man argument into the discussion in the first place. I gave it the rebuttal it deserved, nothing more, but you've got to admit, its an impressive stunt.
What's really cool is how normally you don't notice the micromovements of the human eye when looking at something (the eyeball is in constant motion - this way, the image we're seeing is constantly being sent by a new set of optic receptors being stimulated).
However, looking straight at the sun, it will appear to have a swirling rim, due to the micromovements of the eyeball.
The Chinese are credited with having many of the first observations of significant events in the sky. For instance, the Chinese recorded the first solar eclipse in the 2000 BC. They wrote "5th year of Emperor Zhong Kang of Xia, autumn, 9th month, day gengxu (47), the first day of the month; there was an eclipse of the Sun." The Chinese were actually scared of the solar eclipse. They saw it as the sky bringing despair to earth. Within the moment of the eclipses, sacrifices were performed, banners were hung, and music was played to persuade the sky to have mercy. Therefore it was important to be prepared for another solar eclipse.
This whole "you can't look directly at an eclipse without going blind" is a good example of modern mass hysteria. Go figure.
Guess I must be a bit of a freak, because I've ignored all those instructions not to walk directly on molten lava during an eruption, etc., and no foot damage. <p> Considering that a volcano is part of our natural environment, it kind of makes sense. <p> Are you seriously that stupid?
Not that I'm recommending it, just saying that just because you either can't look directly at the sun or are conditioned to believe that doing so will cause immediate eye damage doesn't mean that everyone is in the same boat.
And lets face it - people did it all the time before "modern days" with "modern eye protection". If you're going blind, stop browsing so much pr0n.
No, but you might be if you think that the horizon can't be used as a frame of reference for size. OUr evolution and our environment have both shaped our perceptions - we're conditioned to the idea that something on the horizon is a lot farther away than something that's NOT on the horizon.
I don't think refraction by the atmosphere can account directly for it, as it would require the atmosphere to affecdt ALL objects similarly... point sources, such as stars, aren't affected. No doubt there is increased scattering of light, but its in random directions.
Observations from space also disagree, showing the exact opposite effect - while there has been a lensing effect reported, its most effective for objects seen straight down through the least amount of atmosphere.
Now, where refraction MIGHT have an effect on perception is that it would change the apparent colour, and different coloured objects may be perceived as being different sizes, again depending on background, foreground, etc. Be fun to try it out with different coloured filters...
Thanks. I work with computers all day and sometimes it just seems that the whole world thinks computers/the internet are the solution to every problem, when the real problem, 10 times out of 10, is a people problem.
Its almost like the thinking goes something like this:
A: Here's the problem... make a computer program to fix it. B: Isn't that a people problem, not a tech problem? A: Yeah, but we can't reprogram people. B: But a computer program won't fix the problem A: Well, we've got to do *something*. Write a program.
... so we try to guide peoples' behaviours with programs (fill in this form, click on this button, etc), which then leads us to RTFM wars, etc.
Its funny how scared management is to dealing with people problems, when that is what they're there for in the first place.
This is just a special case of the more generalized one - people have a hard time dealing with each other. Guess that's why we're the most dangerous predators on the planet.
Yes, lots of times since I read it several decades ago. Always works. Also, if you're looking towards the sea, you STILL have a frame of reference - the horizon. So don't be so quick to call something bullshit.
Also maybe what works for most observers doesn't work for you.
Watched one of the Mercury transits of the sun w/o eye protection - its not as bad as driving in winter towards the sun with snow and ice also bouncing light all over the place... now THAT will make you go blind.
Guess I must be a bit of a freak, because I've ignored all those instructions not to look directly at the sun during an eclipse, etc., and no eye damage.
Considering that the sun is part of our natural environment, it kind of makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
But again, as I pointed out, the original poster posited CASH payments
- no bank records to follow up, which is what you suggested as evidence that could be developed:The additional problem, which I point out elsewhere, is that heresay doesn't cut it. Ints not enough that someone say that Advertiser A paid Company B X amount of dollars - they have to say they have first-hand knowledge of the payment. In other words, they have to have witnessed the payoff, and known what it was for. A mere supposition won't cut it for any sort of warrant, and if a judge DID issue one on that basis, all the evidence so gathered would be thrown out.The AGs' approach is much better - no warrants needed. Just a prosecution of the advertisers. Who cares who they paid or how they paid it?
If you read your own original scenario again, you'll see there is a chain of 3 companies involved, not 2
The third entity is the wilfully ignorant advertiser, the one that is making the payments to J. Blogs of XYZ Corp. The one whose money is, as you say, being funnelled. This entity (the advertiser) is placing ads with a middle man (XYZ Corp) who then farms it out to SpamBeEverywhere Inc. This also fits in with the scenario TFA was talking about, which had advertisers farming out to agencies, who then pass it on to the spammers. The AG wants to go after the advertisers, not the middle men.
Applying it to your scenario, the AG wants to go after the original advertiser making the payments, rather than XYZ Corp or SpamBeEverywhere Inc., because going after the middlemen doesn't stop the problem - going after DontWannaKnowHow Inc, without who there would be no reason for the existence of XYZ Corp or SpamBeEverywhere Inc, makes more sense.
Also a lot easier afterwards to go down the food chain.
Now, back to the original poster http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=153911&cid=129 11194
Again, the scenarios outlined don't make the connection. "Follow the money" fails, whereas going after the advertiser succeeds (you don't care in that case HOW it was financed - it could be stipulated that it was done as a quid pro quo, or even as a freebie with the advertisers' knowledge, even if the adv. chose to remain ignorant of the details - just that it took place, and that the advertiser should have exercised some control rather than just "allow it to happen".
"Follow the money" is really shorthand for "see who benefits". Usually, the two are equivalent - but not in this case, where "follow the money" breaks down because of the use of untraceable cash.
But lets ignore that and look a bit ore closely at the "fishing expedition":
In this scenario, there is no "evidence" against the advertiser; only a statement against the middle man, XYZ Corp. The statement itself is heresay, in that SpamBeEverywhere has no firsthand knowledge of how XYZ Corp is paid by the advertiser. No judge is going to issue a search warrant based on statements that are at best heresay and at worse conjecture. Its not a case of judges ruling against prosecutors - its about heresay having zero value.
A proper scenario would be ALMOST the same, but the elements would differ: here's how:
See the diff? That might get you a warrant against XYZ Corp. Unsupported speculation won't.
BTW, a nitpick, but since when is the development of the spyware illegal? Development of software that can have illegal uses is not itself illegal - just ask DVD John :-)
Nonsense - as one coun
Additionally, you're talking out your ass (which is okay - this is slashdot after all) if you think a criminal RICO charge applies here.
As for civil actions, the courts have continually whittled away at applying RICO in civil cases. And where's the racketeering, the money-laundering (no, taking cash payments is NOT money-laundering, unless you're stupid enough to then convert them to book assets via false receipts instead of just spending the cash), or the appropriation of another business via criminal racketeering in such a case?
Nope, no RICO crimes here.
You've been watching too much TV :-)
By your own statement, only XYZ Corp would be under the spotlight at that point, not any company making payments to it. You would have to establish the connection (not just an allegation) between XYZ Corp and SpamBeEverywhere Inc before you'd be allowed to go on a fishing expedition for payments made TO XYZ Corp by any 3rd party. In other words, either XYZ Corp rolls over, or you're shit out of luck. And the odds are, XYZ Corp won't roll over, seeing as there's no incentive for them to (no upside) and a large disincentive to (confessing to something that probably can't be proven in court is just plain dumb, seeing as SpamBeEverywhere's unsupported testimony would not be very credible before a jury in either a civil or criminal trial - in the case of a criminal proceding, it would definitely not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.).
Even that won't help in the case of cash payments. Cash doesn't leave much of a paper trail, you know.
Much better to go after the perceived beneficiary of the advertising directly, which is what's being proposed. If the company is guilty, the evidence will be there. If they were wilfully ignorant, that can also be established quite easily. Again, the evidence will be there. If, on the other hand, they are being Joe Jobbed, they will welcome the opportunity to clear their name.
Why go the complicated route A -> B -> C when you can just go directly to C?
A quick look at the posters history, etc., makes me think that demonic-halo is a throwaway account for White Manual, another throwaway account. IOW, a troll (and a not very good one, at that).
The defense will ask if the witness (Mr Spyware Provider) was promised anything in return for his testimony. The answer will be "Yes, I got a reduction of 80% in my jail term".
Since Mr. Spyware Provider wasn't a very credible witness to begin with, the case will fail.
It will all go down to Mr. Spyware Providers' word against the Defendants - and with no actual evidence, to boot. There WILL be a reasonable doubt that Mr. Spyware Provider is lying to save his own skin.
Oh, and its FDA, not FDR. FDR's been dead for a while. Even us Canucks know that.
- Nobody is forcing you to advertise on the net (which even in 1999 was already the LEAST effective means of advertising, and has gotten worse in terms of credibility, results per dollar spent, etc)
- Nobody is forcing you to use the agencies you mentioned. Its not hard to check out the people you're dealing with. That you don't is the hallmark of the wilfully ignorant who don't do their due diligence
- Contrary to what you state, its very easy to control how your ads get distributed - just put in a clause that provides financial penalties if they use adware/spyware. Agencies that won't agree to that are obviously not going to make the short list. That you are so desperate that you go with someone who won't agree to such terms is a sign that your business plan is doomed.
What good is it developing a good product if, by the time you get to market, you've already pissed off every possible consumer?I swear, do companies go out of their way to hire the lowest-IQ, most mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging, slope-foreheaded idiot they can find to be company shill^Wspokesman, or is it a side-effect of the job?
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
ITS ABOUT F***ING TIME! Companies have a responsability to know who they're dealing with, and not plead "willful ignorance". Its the same mrally, ethically, and legally as you buying a new computer for ten cents on the dollar from some guy who sells them out of his trunk.
In this case, I for one welcome our new attorney-general overlords!
As for the damage taking years to show up, well, its had more decades to show up than I want to think about. Hasn't yet. Oh, and I tested it again this morning while walking the dogs. I can still do it on a bright sunny +30 day. Mind you, had to do it a month ago when we had some problems at work with some pole-mounted equipment. It was either look directly at both it and the sun (the two were directly in line), or fetch a 50-foot ladder and climb up. Guess which was easier and quicker?
Of course I have a few advantages - I'm nearsighted, so the image will never be focused directly on the retina anyway. Plus, my irises are blue, which blocks less of the light than brown or black, so my pupils will constrict more to drop the total amount of light in to the same amount. So I guess there are some darwinian benefits to being blue-eyed and near-sighted.
And of course firewalking is a prepared stunt - but remember, I'm not the one who introduced that completely irrelevent straw-man argument into the discussion in the first place. I gave it the rebuttal it deserved, nothing more, but you've got to admit, its an impressive stunt.
However, looking straight at the sun, it will appear to have a swirling rim, due to the micromovements of the eyeball.
People who think you can't observe a solar eclipse without modern safety precautions must believe the Chinese invented welders' goggles and polaroid filters more than 4,000 years ago: http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~devriepl/phy211/Ancient Astronomy/Chinese.htm
This whole "you can't look directly at an eclipse without going blind" is a good example of modern mass hysteria. Go figure.Not that I'm recommending it, just saying that just because you either can't look directly at the sun or are conditioned to believe that doing so will cause immediate eye damage doesn't mean that everyone is in the same boat.
And lets face it - people did it all the time before "modern days" with "modern eye protection". If you're going blind, stop browsing so much pr0n.
No, but you might be if you think that the horizon can't be used as a frame of reference for size. OUr evolution and our environment have both shaped our perceptions - we're conditioned to the idea that something on the horizon is a lot farther away than something that's NOT on the horizon.
Observations from space also disagree, showing the exact opposite effect - while there has been a lensing effect reported, its most effective for objects seen straight down through the least amount of atmosphere.
Now, where refraction MIGHT have an effect on perception is that it would change the apparent colour, and different coloured objects may be perceived as being different sizes, again depending on background, foreground, etc. Be fun to try it out with different coloured filters ...
Its almost like the thinking goes something like this:
... so we try to guide peoples' behaviours with programs (fill in this form, click on this button, etc), which then leads us to RTFM wars, etc.Its funny how scared management is to dealing with people problems, when that is what they're there for in the first place.
This is just a special case of the more generalized one - people have a hard time dealing with each other. Guess that's why we're the most dangerous predators on the planet.
... easier to use a shoebox with a piece of tissue paper covering an opening on one end and a pinhole in the other to make a pinhole camera ...
Also maybe what works for most observers doesn't work for you.
Watched one of the Mercury transits of the sun w/o eye protection - its not as bad as driving in winter towards the sun with snow and ice also bouncing light all over the place ... now THAT will make you go blind.
Considering that the sun is part of our natural environment, it kind of makes sense.
Step 1: look at the moon near the horizon
Step 2: now, block out the horizon and all other objects with your hands, and look at the moon
The moon looks MUCH smaller whe you frame it with your hands and block out the extraneous stuff.
Also works with the sun, etc.
Nah, there *is* a dfference between having something be optional and making it mandatory for your users :-)