Re:Here's how it works from another perspective
on
How Image Spam Works
·
· Score: 2, Informative
In addition to the cracker mentioned in the other post, there are often many layers of people profiting from the spam. To use my mortgage spam example (see my above post) there is:
1. The script writer who writes the script to compromise the PC
2. The idiot whose unprotected PC spews forth the spam
3. The ratfuck who controls the botnet and rents it out to the main spammer
4. The main spammer who serves as the point of contact with the "lead generators"
5. The asshat individual spammer "affiliates" who spam at the direction of the main spammer
6. The lead generators who buy the spam leads knowing they were generated by spam and the greywash them by selling them to...
7-9.... the middlemen who buy the spam leads from the lead generator and in turn represent themselves as "lead generators" to mortgage brokers and banks, promising the mortgage brokers and banks that the leads were generated legitimately through their web sites.
10. The mortgage brokers and banks who buy the leads from the middlemen without asking too many questions, but have read the terms of the contract which state the leads were generated legitimately.
11. The foolio who replied to the mortgage spam and is now getting calls from dozens of mortgage brokers wanting to give him a quote.
The broker paid probably $1.00 per lead, but stands to make $5,000 to $15,000 in commissions.
I sued some mortgage spammers, and when I got to their bank records through discovery, these fuckers were grossing $90,000 per day. You read that correctly.
Spam success not always defined by direct purchase
on
How Image Spam Works
·
· Score: 1
Mortgage spam succeeds even if there is no "purchase" by the recipient. The spammer (and several layers of "lead generators") make money if the recipient simply fills out the form on the landing page to which the recipient is pointed.
Before you go off on the idiocy of people who respond to these mortgage spams, take into consideration their victims. Many of these mortgage spams say things like "Thank you for your refinance request..." etc. Victims include otherwise intelligent people who may not be internet savvy who are in the midst of a refinance. Imagine a grandmother or a person for whom English is not first language who has recently started the refinance process. Then they get one of these emails that pretend to be from someone with whom the recipient is already dealing, and respond to the link. Sure, they may think it a bit odd, but whatever. Within hours they are deluged with calls from dozens of different lenders and brokers who have purchased the spam leads.
Now, I have no great respect for the intelligence of the average internet user, but I would just like to point out that someone can be intelligent and honestly duped by mortgage spam, but more to the point the spam recipient paid no money but the spam is successful. It is the middleman purchaser of the lead generated by that spam who is funding the spam.
Of course I have no sympathy and little respect for that scummy level (usually multiple levels) between the actual spammer and the recipient of the spam lead, but I will also point out that the contracts between the broker making the call and the lead generating company that sold him the lead usually state that the lead was not generated illegally, is being sold exclusively to that broker, etc.
I guess my point is that the economics of spam vary from product/service to product/service being spammed. Penny stock pump-and-dump schemes have very different economic mechanics...
I know it is hip to be cynical, but I am a litigation attorney who is often in court several times a week and it has been my experience - virtually without exception - that the judges before whom I appear are competent, thoughtful, intelligent, honest and usually make the right decisions (wrong decisions are why we have appellate courts).
I have also litigated a few spam cases, and have faced different reactions from different judges. One judge did appear intimidated because I had named some of the biggest banks in California (for buying mortgage spam leads) and she had attorneys from some of the biggest law firms in town defending their clients with exceptional zeal. She also did not appear to have even a limited understanding of the technical aspects of spam, so my allegations seemed seemed far fetched to her (despite pointing out for her the California legislature's findings regarding spam.
However, when she saw that I was not a nut job, I was not out to simply get nuisance settlements, and that my pleadings were actually very detailed, and met every element necessary to constitute a cause of action, she eventually ruled in my favor and allowed my case to go forward on the merits.
Google is a corporation. The corporation is run by its Board of Directors. The decision to use transport such as this is protected by the Business Judgment Rule. In other words, unless the Board Members are violating their duty of care or duty of loyalty to Google's owners (shareholders), then no, the shareholders can't do anything beyond suggesting to the Board that this is not he best way to run the company. A "court "will not substitute its own notions of what is or is not sound business judgment."
As someone else note, Google's owners own 100% of the company - I believe you meant "founders" or perhaps "directors."
When a large entity like Disney files a lawsuit against a small blogger like this, the blogger's defense is an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Instead of answering Disney's complaint (if there is one), the blogger files an anti-SLAPP motion. The judge will then make some preliminary determinations and, if the blogger is successful, will throw out Disney's suit.
The beauty of it is that if the blogger wins, he gets his attorneys' fees paid. (If he loses, he does not have to pay Disney's attorneys fees.)
This encourages attorneys to defend individuals without the resources to fight big companies. There are many attorneys like me who get EFF's emails asking to help individuals like this on a contingency basis. If the blogger really is in the right then that is some good money.
I note that the link discusses a "Rule 11" motion, which would be in federal court. I don't know if there is a similar motion in fed court.
As someone who has mostly overcome my natural procrastination, the best way I have found to counter procrastination is by writing my goals down in a pen-and-paper journal. YMMV, but I have found that the act of writing them down (and the visceral act of crossing them off when complete) brings them to the fore of my consciousness in a way that my computer "tasks" reminders don't...
That's not a crime - it's a tort. In other words, the government could not prosecute you, but someone might be able to sue you but only if it was accompanied by an act that put someone in apprehension of an imminent, unlawful touching.
The crime of assault is defined by statute. In California it is defined in Cal Pen Code 240 "An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another."
The difference between the tort and the crime is that in the tort you need only intend to cause apprehension of even the least unwanted touching, even if you didn't actually intend to touch the plaintiff. In the crime the defendant must actually attempt to cause a violent injury.
Yes, we did get a goldmine of information out of the spammer against which we got the stipulated judgment. I knew there was money in spam, but to see one spammer taking in $90,000 - $110,000 every day was an eye opener.
If any of you hate spam, you should thank Mr. Sorehands... he is a one-man litigational nightmare to spammers and the kooks who use them to market their crappy products.
You are both right on the mark. The article is simply an advertisement for Mindshare, and the other articles listed are much better. As I suspected from reading between the lines on the Mindshare article (and confirmed by the Computerworld article), the case simply survived a motion to dismiss. This simply means that the case isn't frivolous or defective as a matter of law, and in by no means a ruling on the merits.
I do note that the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and typically such a ruling does require the judge to examine the merits of the case.
"This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them."
-- Alexander Hamilton (speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 17 June 1788)
Reference: The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., vol. 2 (28)
Wow, I was just talking to somebody about getting one of these to clear out my local surf spot (Swami's, better known as "Swarmies"). Actually, my first idea involved two power boats and a large net, but this would be much more humane.
I missed the part about Microsoft suing Mr. Richter in Microsoft Court under the Microsoft Civil Code.
Since when is it "taking the law into your own hands" to ask the government to enforce the law?
Well said. Moral relativism has its limits. The factual and legal scenarios with RIAA and with spammers are very different.
I could make a strong argument that the following could apply to spammers:
"A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or
1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from
any debt... (2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or
refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by -
(A)
false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud...
Most spam contains false representations. Heck, I will go for it if the spammers I am suing try to BK me.
IAAL here in San Diego, CA. I just wanted to reply quickly to say that Adobe is by far the most widely used format. Both the states courts and the fed courts make their forms available in Adobe PDF format.
The fed courts also make many of their forms available in WordPerfect format. I have never seen a downloadable form in MS Word!
The idea that the Constitution is a "living document" is not uncontroversial.
It is hugely controversial. As Scalia point to in many of his dissents, it is simply an excuse for five D.C. lawyers to make the 14th amendment say whatever they want it to say.
So would it adversely affect spam profitability if we started deliberately following those links and putting in fake names, nonexistent addresses and numbers of payphones?
Absolutely it would. I have come to discover that the mortgage lead business is one of the sleaziest legal businesses around, fueled by salespersons' needs to have somebody, anybody to call.
I am pretty sure that the first lead company to buy straight from the spammer mixes those leads with leads from other sources. However, reputation gets around in quickly in this business, so if a company's leads are consistently junk, they will lose customers.
I am not sure how many junk leads it would take. But if you have a minute, fill out a few - it can only hurt them.
Because with mortgage spam, the consumer is not actually buying anything. They are clicking on the link and submitting their information. In the course of litigating a California mortgage spam case, I have discovered how many layers of "lead companies" there are between the actual spammer and the end user, who is not the consumer that clicked on the link, but is rather the mortgage broker who ultimately makes the call to the consumer who clicked on the link.
In the course of my pre-suit investigation, I did several canary traps. Just one response to one piece of spam resulted in calls from over 40 mortgage brokers. These brokers had paid between $30 and $50 dollars for that lead. They had purchased it from a "lead generator" company who had paid between $20 and $30 dollars, and these companies had in turn bought it from another lead generator company! And I haven't even reached the actual spammer yet.
So, one response to one piece of spam funded an entire chain of companies selling leads, generating well over $1000 in income for various persons. The consumer had parted with no cash...
And please keep note as to whether Ebay stops this practice before the court requires them to as an indication of the confidence in their innocence.
Of course even if they do change it won't be admissable as evidence (California Evidence Code 1151). Subsequent remedial actions are not admissable to prove liability (otherwise people wouldn't remedy potentially harmful conduct for fear of it being construed as an admission of culpability).
Slashdot Mirror
1. The script writer who writes the script to compromise the PC ... ... the middlemen who buy the spam leads from the lead generator and in turn represent themselves as "lead generators" to mortgage brokers and banks, promising the mortgage brokers and banks that the leads were generated legitimately through their web sites.
2. The idiot whose unprotected PC spews forth the spam
3. The ratfuck who controls the botnet and rents it out to the main spammer
4. The main spammer who serves as the point of contact with the "lead generators"
5. The asshat individual spammer "affiliates" who spam at the direction of the main spammer
6. The lead generators who buy the spam leads knowing they were generated by spam and the greywash them by selling them to
7-9.
10. The mortgage brokers and banks who buy the leads from the middlemen without asking too many questions, but have read the terms of the contract which state the leads were generated legitimately.
11. The foolio who replied to the mortgage spam and is now getting calls from dozens of mortgage brokers wanting to give him a quote.
The broker paid probably $1.00 per lead, but stands to make $5,000 to $15,000 in commissions.
I sued some mortgage spammers, and when I got to their bank records through discovery, these fuckers were grossing $90,000 per day. You read that correctly.
Before you go off on the idiocy of people who respond to these mortgage spams, take into consideration their victims. Many of these mortgage spams say things like "Thank you for your refinance request ..." etc. Victims include otherwise intelligent people who may not be internet savvy who are in the midst of a refinance. Imagine a grandmother or a person for whom English is not first language who has recently started the refinance process. Then they get one of these emails that pretend to be from someone with whom the recipient is already dealing, and respond to the link. Sure, they may think it a bit odd, but whatever. Within hours they are deluged with calls from dozens of different lenders and brokers who have purchased the spam leads.
Now, I have no great respect for the intelligence of the average internet user, but I would just like to point out that someone can be intelligent and honestly duped by mortgage spam, but more to the point the spam recipient paid no money but the spam is successful. It is the middleman purchaser of the lead generated by that spam who is funding the spam.
Of course I have no sympathy and little respect for that scummy level (usually multiple levels) between the actual spammer and the recipient of the spam lead, but I will also point out that the contracts between the broker making the call and the lead generating company that sold him the lead usually state that the lead was not generated illegally, is being sold exclusively to that broker, etc.
I guess my point is that the economics of spam vary from product/service to product/service being spammed. Penny stock pump-and-dump schemes have very different economic mechanics...
CC
I have also litigated a few spam cases, and have faced different reactions from different judges. One judge did appear intimidated because I had named some of the biggest banks in California (for buying mortgage spam leads) and she had attorneys from some of the biggest law firms in town defending their clients with exceptional zeal. She also did not appear to have even a limited understanding of the technical aspects of spam, so my allegations seemed seemed far fetched to her (despite pointing out for her the California legislature's findings regarding spam.
However, when she saw that I was not a nut job, I was not out to simply get nuisance settlements, and that my pleadings were actually very detailed, and met every element necessary to constitute a cause of action, she eventually ruled in my favor and allowed my case to go forward on the merits.
BTW - seen much mortgage spam lately?
Then ... uhhh, don't you mean, "Follow the Federal Reserve Notes"?
As someone else note, Google's owners own 100% of the company - I believe you meant "founders" or perhaps "directors."
When a large entity like Disney files a lawsuit against a small blogger like this, the blogger's defense is an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Instead of answering Disney's complaint (if there is one), the blogger files an anti-SLAPP motion. The judge will then make some preliminary determinations and, if the blogger is successful, will throw out Disney's suit.
The beauty of it is that if the blogger wins, he gets his attorneys' fees paid. (If he loses, he does not have to pay Disney's attorneys fees.)
This encourages attorneys to defend individuals without the resources to fight big companies. There are many attorneys like me who get EFF's emails asking to help individuals like this on a contingency basis. If the blogger really is in the right then that is some good money.
I note that the link discusses a "Rule 11" motion, which would be in federal court. I don't know if there is a similar motion in fed court.
As someone who has mostly overcome my natural procrastination, the best way I have found to counter procrastination is by writing my goals down in a pen-and-paper journal. YMMV, but I have found that the act of writing them down (and the visceral act of crossing them off when complete) brings them to the fore of my consciousness in a way that my computer "tasks" reminders don't...
He could always just sue him in small claims court (no attorneys allowed). He would lose, but he could do it.
The crime of assault is defined by statute. In California it is defined in Cal Pen Code 240 "An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another."
The difference between the tort and the crime is that in the tort you need only intend to cause apprehension of even the least unwanted touching, even if you didn't actually intend to touch the plaintiff. In the crime the defendant must actually attempt to cause a violent injury.
Yes, we did get a goldmine of information out of the spammer against which we got the stipulated judgment. I knew there was money in spam, but to see one spammer taking in $90,000 - $110,000 every day was an eye opener.
If any of you hate spam, you should thank Mr. Sorehands ... he is a one-man litigational nightmare to spammers and the kooks who use them to market their crappy products.
(Yes B, I will call you back ...)
I do note that the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and typically such a ruling does require the judge to examine the merits of the case.
-- Alexander Hamilton (speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 17 June 1788)
Reference: The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., vol. 2 (28)
... it's what happens when you sniff it.
I always wondered why Luke didn't just stick his light sabre in the snow to create a nice, toasty light sabre Jacuzzi.
Of course, there is much to be said about first page ranking.
The First Amendment, Scalia and Thomas.
Wow, I was just talking to somebody about getting one of these to clear out my local surf spot (Swami's, better known as "Swarmies"). Actually, my first idea involved two power boats and a large net, but this would be much more humane.
Well said. Moral relativism has its limits. The factual and legal scenarios with RIAA and with spammers are very different.
I could make a strong argument that the following could apply to spammers:
Most spam contains false representations. Heck, I will go for it if the spammers I am suing try to BK me.
The fed courts also make many of their forms available in WordPerfect format. I have never seen a downloadable form in MS Word!
D'oh!
It is hugely controversial. As Scalia point to in many of his dissents, it is simply an excuse for five D.C. lawyers to make the 14th amendment say whatever they want it to say.
I am pretty sure that the first lead company to buy straight from the spammer mixes those leads with leads from other sources. However, reputation gets around in quickly in this business, so if a company's leads are consistently junk, they will lose customers.
I am not sure how many junk leads it would take. But if you have a minute, fill out a few - it can only hurt them.
In the course of my pre-suit investigation, I did several canary traps. Just one response to one piece of spam resulted in calls from over 40 mortgage brokers. These brokers had paid between $30 and $50 dollars for that lead. They had purchased it from a "lead generator" company who had paid between $20 and $30 dollars, and these companies had in turn bought it from another lead generator company! And I haven't even reached the actual spammer yet.
So, one response to one piece of spam funded an entire chain of companies selling leads, generating well over $1000 in income for various persons. The consumer had parted with no cash...
Of course even if they do change it won't be admissable as evidence (California Evidence Code 1151). Subsequent remedial actions are not admissable to prove liability (otherwise people wouldn't remedy potentially harmful conduct for fear of it being construed as an admission of culpability).