Susan, spare us the grandstanding. If you think I'm such a hack, why did you email me, just last month, to invite me to do a new book about Spamhaus? If you don't like being in Spam Kings, why did you recently email me a photo of you to include in the 2nd edition?
I know you have mixed feelings about being profiled in the book. I realize you're wary of the Nanae crowd thinking you're a publicity hog. But this bizarre split in your public and private behavior toward me is alarming.
Steve Atkins and Spam Kings
on
Spam Kings
·
· Score: 1
An anonymous coward wrote: "[I]t's your ethical obligation to do everything you possibly can to `get it right.' Trying to shove responsibility for that off on a third party speaks volumes about you..."
A third party? As Steve Atkins (the creator of this thread) said, he is mentioned in the book. He's an email consultant and a long-time contributor to the Nanae anti-spam newsgroup. So you can see why I'd want to interview him for Spam Kings.
But when I tried in 2004 to get him to provide information about a couple of incidents in spam history (in order to "get it right"), he declined. He even threated to sue my publisher if his company (Word to the Wise) was mentioned in the book.
In brief, Atkins declined to share his view of events. And now he's publicly complaining that my rendition departs from his (secret) interpretation. That speaks volumes about him.
Be specific
on
Spam Kings
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Steve, care to produce some specifics about where Spam Kings departs from the historical record? The book is carefully documented/footnoted and is based entirely on fact (court documents, spam samples, chat logs, newsgroup postings, website archives, interviews, etc.). If you really care about getting this bit of Internet history right, you'll submit something to O'Reilly's errata page. Otherwise, your posting just sounds like sour grapes.
Susan Gunn
on
Spam Kings
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Susan Gunn may be feigning unhappiness with Spam Kings in anti-spammer forums. But in a recent conversation with me, she asked whether she could buy a large quantity of books at a discount, so she could give them away to friends. (This is on top of the three copies I've already sent her gratis.) That doesn't seem like the behavior of someone who thinks she's been "damaged" by a book. Unless, of course, she wants the copies to distribute to her team of 15 attorneys.;-)
I blogged something about this today here. Seems that prosecutors had plenty of dirt to prove Jessica's involvement, including an incriminating to-do list with her name all over it. Jon Praed presented a copy of these documents at the 2005 MIT Spam Conference, video of which is linked from my blog. Praed explained that, due to a legal technicality that's beyond me, the evidence was not admissible.
The preliminary injunction is over spyware, and specifically states that Wallace won't exploit two vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer to install his spyware on the computers of people who visit his web sites.
The "expert" estimates on spam percentages do vary. But one thing seems pretty clear. CAN-SPAM hasn't perceptibly reduced the flow of junk email since it went into effect 1/1/2004. That's why I have suggested that Congress seize a simple way to put some teeth into the law. Give U.S. citizens a right to private action. Why save the privilege of suing spammers just for ISPs, attorneys general, and the FTC?
To make matters even more confusing, Smathers originally signed a document, available here, in November saying he agreed to plead guilty to violating 18 USC 2314, Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. (To this legal sparrow, that seems like an appropriate charge.)
Then, on December 2, Smathers was arraigned instead for violating 18 USC 371, Conspiracy to Defraud the US Government. Smathers pled NOT guilty at the arraignment.
Then we have today's proceedings, with Smathers trying to enter a guilty plea, apparently to violating CAN-SPAM.
An "information" documentfiled at his arraignment does suggest Smathers was involved in sending decpetive and misleading spam using the AOL customer list. So maybe there is a CAN-SPAM aspect to this case.
But it really does look like the US Attorney's office was trying too hard to get a CAN-SPAM conviction under its belt.
The FTC lawsuit is against Seismic Productions, which used to be registered to Walt Rines, Wallace's old spamming partner. Rines currently distributes a Trojan horse program called Kazanon that (falsely) claims to make users of the Kazaa file-sharing program invisible to the authorities. When asked about the legality of Kazanon, Rines said "If there's a grey area, I'm all for taking the opportunity, from a marketing standpoint."
South Korea has regularly issued warnings like this since 1994. What the South Korean government fails to note is that its own military has nearly 200 "computer training facilities" and had trained more than 200,000 "information technicians." What's more, because North Korea's IT infrastructure is very centralized, it's particularly vulnerable to physical attacks.
This is what (when I read it in my non-techy persona) I get from the article.
War Driving
Just like being... authorized to walk inside, sit on the couch or help yourself to the contents of the fridge
New Law Lets'm "off the hook"
They can get into banks
Committee still open for opinion ...opening up greater opportunity for criminal activity.
Hmm. I guess you missed these other highlights:
operators of wireless networks must secure them
New Hampshire's proposed wireless law was hailed as "enlightened"
A variety of techniques can deter, if not eliminate, unauthorized access to wireless networks
the goal of the proposed law is to protect those who innocently stumble upon insecure wireless networks
FWIW, I like your sprinkler analogy. I also like another one that someone else pointed out: that the proposed law is akin to New Hampshire's rules about posting "No Hunting" signs on your property.
Brian McWilliams obviously thinks this is a bad law, and he has slanted his article accordingly
At the risk of feeding a troll, I must say I don't have an opinion either way on the bill. But I did think it was newsworthy. I certainly didn't try to "slant" the story.
Finally, I think you are confused about the origins of the expression war driving.
Sprint posted at its DSL support site today some instructions on how to disable remote management in the ZyXel P645 modem. They are available in PDF here
In a nutshell, they instruct you to use the unit's system management software to turn on some filters that block incoming port 80, 21, 23, and 69.
You being a reporter, I would bet there are e-mails in your inbox at this moment, i.e. messages relating to stories you are working on, that contain information with "significant public interest."
Actually, I was recently told by some retaliatory hax0rs that my mail spool is incredibly boring.
Is it OK if I hack into your account to get them?
No, it is not. Anyway, you're better off waiting for me to mill them into articles.
I'm the author of the article at Wired.com. I'll try to answer belately some of the questions raised by the story.
Not least of which being, yes, there were Nigerian spam scams galore in the inbox.
I was the person who correctly guessed -- on the first try -- the password to the Press account at UrukLink.net.
FWIW, when I signed in, the account had apparently been abandoned for several months. (It was over quota and rejecting new messages since Aug. 17). What caught by eye first was the message from an ATT.net account offering wireless technology to Iraq, as reported in the article.
Besides contemplating the potential illegality of my unauthorized access, I have also thought hard about the ethics of publishing the material I obtained.
Password cracking is not a generally accepted journalistic practice, as a reporter for another news organization pointed out to me today.
I was also notified that the material contained in Saddam's public inbox is not exactly the Pentagon Papers. Nor is my report on the e-mails anywhere near the caliber of the Chiquita expose'.
Nonetheless, I believe, and Wired News's editors backed me on this, that the contents of the inbox were of significant public interest considering the current conflict between the USA and Iraq.
Some readers have dismissed the messages as unimportant because so many came from ordinary Internet users and small businesses (and not from heads of state or major corporations). But I think that's what makes the inbox such an interesting, if unscientific, survey of public opinion.
To minimize the harm cause by the report, we removed the names of individuals and companies who wrote to Saddam -- even those of people from whom we had obtained comments.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you have mixed feelings about being profiled in the book. I realize you're wary of the Nanae crowd thinking you're a publicity hog. But this bizarre split in your public and private behavior toward me is alarming.
A third party? As Steve Atkins (the creator of this thread) said, he is mentioned in the book. He's an email consultant and a long-time contributor to the Nanae anti-spam newsgroup. So you can see why I'd want to interview him for Spam Kings.
But when I tried in 2004 to get him to provide information about a couple of incidents in spam history (in order to "get it right"), he declined. He even threated to sue my publisher if his company (Word to the Wise) was mentioned in the book.
In brief, Atkins declined to share his view of events. And now he's publicly complaining that my rendition departs from his (secret) interpretation. That speaks volumes about him.
Steve, care to produce some specifics about where Spam Kings departs from the historical record? The book is carefully documented/footnoted and is based entirely on fact (court documents, spam samples, chat logs, newsgroup postings, website archives, interviews, etc.). If you really care about getting this bit of Internet history right, you'll submit something to O'Reilly's errata page. Otherwise, your posting just sounds like sour grapes.
Susan Gunn may be feigning unhappiness with Spam Kings in anti-spammer forums. But in a recent conversation with me, she asked whether she could buy a large quantity of books at a discount, so she could give them away to friends. (This is on top of the three copies I've already sent her gratis.) That doesn't seem like the behavior of someone who thinks she's been "damaged" by a book. Unless, of course, she wants the copies to distribute to her team of 15 attorneys. ;-)
I blogged something about this today here. Seems that prosecutors had plenty of dirt to prove Jessica's involvement, including an incriminating to-do list with her name all over it. Jon Praed presented a copy of these documents at the 2005 MIT Spam Conference, video of which is linked from my blog. Praed explained that, due to a legal technicality that's beyond me, the evidence was not admissible.
The preliminary injunction is over spyware, and specifically states that Wallace won't exploit two vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer to install his spyware on the computers of people who visit his web sites.
The "expert" estimates on spam percentages do vary. But one thing seems pretty clear. CAN-SPAM hasn't perceptibly reduced the flow of junk email since it went into effect 1/1/2004. That's why I have suggested that Congress seize a simple way to put some teeth into the law. Give U.S. citizens a right to private action. Why save the privilege of suing spammers just for ISPs, attorneys general, and the FTC?
Then, on December 2, Smathers was arraigned instead for violating 18 USC 371, Conspiracy to Defraud the US Government. Smathers pled NOT guilty at the arraignment.
Then we have today's proceedings, with Smathers trying to enter a guilty plea, apparently to violating CAN-SPAM.
An "information" documentfiled at his arraignment does suggest Smathers was involved in sending decpetive and misleading spam using the AOL customer list. So maybe there is a CAN-SPAM aspect to this case.
But it really does look like the US Attorney's office was trying too hard to get a CAN-SPAM conviction under its belt.
Fwiw, if you make it to the end of the article, you'll see that the Rolex spammers actually DID remove me from their lists. (Don't try this at home.)
The FTC lawsuit is against Seismic Productions, which used to be registered to Walt Rines, Wallace's old spamming partner. Rines currently distributes a Trojan horse program called Kazanon that (falsely) claims to make users of the Kazaa file-sharing program invisible to the authorities. When asked about the legality of Kazanon, Rines said "If there's a grey area, I'm all for taking the opportunity, from a marketing standpoint."
South Korea has regularly issued warnings like this since 1994. What the South Korean government fails to note is that its own military has nearly 200 "computer training facilities" and had trained more than 200,000 "information technicians." What's more, because North Korea's IT infrastructure is very centralized, it's particularly vulnerable to physical attacks.
War Driving
...opening up greater opportunity for criminal activity.
Just like being... authorized to walk inside, sit on the couch or help yourself to the contents of the fridge
New Law Lets'm "off the hook"
They can get into banks
Committee still open for opinion
Hmm. I guess you missed these other highlights:
operators of wireless networks must secure them
New Hampshire's proposed wireless law was hailed as "enlightened"
A variety of techniques can deter, if not eliminate, unauthorized access to wireless networks
the goal of the proposed law is to protect those who innocently stumble upon insecure wireless networks
FWIW, I like your sprinkler analogy. I also like another one that someone else pointed out: that the proposed law is akin to New Hampshire's rules about posting "No Hunting" signs on your property.
B.
At the risk of feeding a troll, I must say I don't have an opinion either way on the bill. But I did think it was newsworthy. I certainly didn't try to "slant" the story.
Finally, I think you are confused about the origins of the expression war driving.
Brian
Sprint posted at its DSL support site today some instructions on how to disable remote management in the ZyXel P645 modem. They are available in PDF here
In a nutshell, they instruct you to use the unit's system management software to turn on some filters that block incoming port 80, 21, 23, and 69.
According to this post on the Full-Disclosure list, the CVS bug has been known underground for a while. Wonder what they've been doing with it?
Actually, I was recently told by some retaliatory hax0rs that my mail spool is incredibly boring.
Is it OK if I hack into your account to get them?
No, it is not. Anyway, you're better off waiting for me to mill them into articles.
Brian
I'm the author of the article at Wired.com. I'll try to answer belately some of the questions raised by the story.
Not least of which being, yes, there were Nigerian spam scams galore in the inbox.
I was the person who correctly guessed -- on the first try -- the password to the Press account at UrukLink.net.
FWIW, when I signed in, the account had apparently been abandoned for several months. (It was over quota and rejecting new messages since Aug. 17). What caught by eye first was the message from an ATT.net account offering wireless technology to Iraq, as reported in the article.
Besides contemplating the potential illegality of my unauthorized access, I have also thought hard about the ethics of publishing the material I obtained.
Password cracking is not a generally accepted journalistic practice, as a reporter for another news organization pointed out to me today. I was also notified that the material contained in Saddam's public inbox is not exactly the Pentagon Papers. Nor is my report on the e-mails anywhere near the caliber of the Chiquita expose'.
Nonetheless, I believe, and Wired News's editors backed me on this, that the contents of the inbox were of significant public interest considering the current conflict between the USA and Iraq.
Some readers have dismissed the messages as unimportant because so many came from ordinary Internet users and small businesses (and not from heads of state or major corporations). But I think that's what makes the inbox such an interesting, if unscientific, survey of public opinion.
To minimize the harm cause by the report, we removed the names of individuals and companies who wrote to Saddam -- even those of people from whom we had obtained comments.
Brian