Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

371 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Allow me to say (1)

savagedome (742194) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273519)

It's about fscking time.

Oh yeah. Now since the playing field is little even, let me get my catcher's mit.

Re:Allow me to say (4, Funny)

uberdave (526529) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273572)

Oh yeah. Now since the playing field is little even, let me get my catcher's mit.

Why did I just imagine someone grinning evilly whilst cocking a machine pistol?

Re:Allow me to say (4, Insightful)

Drawkcab (550036) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273617)

A bounty doesn't really make sense the way that spammers are currently prosecuted. Most spammers just get a slap on the wrist. Until spammers actually start getting serious hard time or huge civil penalties, then the value of the bounty would be greater than the cost to most spammers. This would make it beneficial for a small time spammer to partake in their own bounty.

If bounties given out were a percentage of the fines actually collected from spammers (which ideally should be really painful for big spammers), rather than some fixed range, then a bounty system would make sense. And spammers who manage to launder their profits so the fines don't stick need to get prison time.

Re:Allow me to say (5, Funny)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273771)

A bounty doesn't really make sense the way that spammers are currently prosecuted.

It does, however, make a *lot* of sense if the spammer gets to hang on my far wall encased in frozen carbonite.

I wouldn't consider paying a bounty hunter who brought in the spammer any other way.

What a waste. Next, Please. (5, Insightful)

KarmaOverDogma (681451) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273788)

I agree.

Further, I am very curious as to how many bounty hunters will have will and/or the ability to get foriegn spammers to US Courts.

This, of course, speaks nothing of the spammers who are already here.

Spammers being actively hunted in the post Soviet Bloc countries, China, Nigeria, etc would be a very interesting thing to see if it *ever* happened, which I sincerely doubt.

The war on spam reminds me of the war on drugs.

And, IIRC, the war on drugs has yet to be won.

Donald Rumsfeld, a man I am not very fond of, did correctly point out in my opinion that the war on drugs is a demand problem.

So is Spam.

As long as spam is profitable, it *will* continue.

This will mainly serve to make the FTC look good while doing little (VERY little) to solve the problem.

Our tax dollars at waste - again.

.

Hey, I'll turn you in and we'll split the bounty! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273520)

Gurgh.

Wake me... (0)

bizpile (758055) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273521)

...when it's "wanted dead or alive". I'll get my gun and we'll go a-huntin'. HEE HAWW!!!!!!!

Re:Wake me... (1)

DrLZRDMN (728996) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273786)

I don't think that it would be unreazsonable for them to allow cyber attacks on spammers....

Oh yea.... (5, Funny)

Krypto420 (652140) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273522)

Now these bastard are gonna make *ME* rich!!!!

Re:Oh yea.... (5, Funny)

nmoog (701216) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273655)

says he with a free-ipod spam sig.

Re:Oh yea.... (1)

idesofmarch (730937) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273732)

No kidding! What kind of a scam is that?

If it's "dead or alive" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273524)

I'd be happy to do it for free. Better yet, I'll be happy to pitch in $100-200 for the next spammer over.

Their Figures are a Little Off (4, Insightful)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273526)

What would it take to get someone to turn in one of those spammers who send millions of unwanted e-mails? At least $100,000, the Federal Trade Commission figures.
Really? If I knew someone who was spamming, I'd turn them in for free. Any cash would just be a bonus.

Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (5, Insightful)

bizpile (758055) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273567)

Really? If I knew someone who was spamming, I'd turn them in for free. Any cash would just be a bonus.

You make a good point. It's like when they double the bounty on Osama. Like people in Pakistan/Afganistan are sitting around saying, "You know, I'd turn him in for $50 million, but $25 million just doen't speak to me."

Actually, I'd turn in a spammer just to get a couple of free punches ;).

Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (3, Informative)

Veridium (752431) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273602)

I know how you feel... But now these [dogthebountyhunter.com] types of people will be looking for spammers.

Kinda funny and strangely satisfying at the same time.

Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (1)

Veridium (752431) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273649)

That should have been "would be looking for spammers."

Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (1)

Zordak (123132) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273668)

You know you're a wannabe when you have to say at the top of your webpage that you're "world-famous." You're not going to see "world-famous physicist" at the top of Stephen Hawking's webpage (and yes, I checked. It's not there).

Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273742)

Normally, you're right. However, there is a small detail you're over looking. Professional Bounty Hunters, aren't choosing between that job and Swiss patent clerk. It's pretty much bounty hunter or prisoner. In the case of Duane, both. You might recognize him as the bounty hunter who recently kidnapped a guy (who deserved it) from Mexico. He is world famous.... And he's not one of the bounty hunters who are as likely to get the address wrong, break into the wrong house and kill the occupants. World's greatest I don't know, but certainly there are worse.

Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (1)

gcaseye6677 (694805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273727)

Isn't that guy in a mexican jail right now? I heard about some obnoxious jerkoff getting arrested after illegally persuing someone in Mexico, and it sounds like him. Could his ego get any biggger? I counted at least 6 "muscle poses" on his website and at least one "mullet pose".

Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (4, Funny)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273696)

1. Send massive amounts of spam
2. Profit
3. Frame someone else for having sent the massive amount of spam
4. Get them on the "most wanted spammers" list
5. Turn them in for $100,000
6. Profit more

Six Figures? (5, Insightful)

josh3736 (745265) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273527)

I can understand six figure rewards for those on the ten most wanted list, but for spammers?

Surely there are things that money could be better spent on. Like say, the implementation of a new email protocol. Or (gasp!) things like Social Security or education.

Re:Six Figures? (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273543)

Well the question becomes, how much is spam costing us, and will knocking out these spammers actually solve the problem long enough to be worth the money, or will new ones just crop up to fill the void? This should be obvious but for some reason I feel a need to share anyway.

Re:Six Figures? (4, Insightful)

josh3736 (745265) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273603)

I'd say one could compare spam to P2P music downloading.

When Napster became big, the RIAA shut it down. But then 3 more P2P apps popped up to fill that void. Then the RIAA tried to shut them down. Rinse and repeat, there's now 64 different [zeropaid.com] filesharing apps just for Windows.

Now look at spam. Every time the FTC or whatever government agency shuts down a spammer, how many more will pop up to fill the void?

Free music or free money. There's a risk with both -- getting sued by the RIAA or having the Federal government on your ass.

What we really need to do is figgure out how to make it so that spam isn't profitable. Ever.

Re:Six Figures? (1)

CoolMoDee (683437) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273720)

yep, that is true. The market is full of spammers, bust one, and all of a sudden you have a few aspiring spammers in their place taking the old business. Personally, I have no problems with spam, unless it is sent from a zombied pc.

Re:Six Figures? (4, Funny)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273784)

What we really need to do is figgure out how to make it so that spam isn't profitable. Ever.

You'd have to legislate out stupidity.

Fools buy stuff via spam, the companies involved feel justified in hiring a central marketing firm, who in turn hires the spammer.

We have to get rid of the fools.

Re:Six Figures? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273609)

Like all red-blooded Americans, I'm all about someone doing something about that there (your problem here). My burning desire for change, however, stops just shy of my wallet. Aren't there any benevolent millionaires out there who will front the cash, rather than have the taxpayers fund it?

Re:Six Figures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273559)

Yeah but this is american's rather than fix the original problem they will just annihlate all effects of the problem and whack down some more laws.

Re:Six Figures? (3, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273560)

maybe they're trying to save money in the seven figures from goverment buro's and education institutions by decreasing amounts of spam.

(yeah it's kinda high especially with the quite easy frameup process compared to most other crime)

Re:Six Figures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273791)

Who knows, it maybe be that the compute power they save in eschelon from reducing all the spam they have to sort through will easily pay for the reward...

Or maybe they got a secret funding from the EU now that they have to archive everything transmitted over the internet...

Who knows, it could be true ;^)

Re:Six Figures? (5, Insightful)

savagedome (742194) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273592)

Top ten most wanted deserve 7 and 8 figures.

But seriously, screw these scum of the earth bastards. Remember those days when web was a nice place and everybody you knew had a cutesy little homepage and you would leave cute little message in their guest books and such with your name and email and such. DAMN I WANT THAT BACK. That was a nicer web instead of trying to take every bit of care not to leak your email EVEN ONCE. Coming up with NOSPAM crap in your email addresses while posting them somewhere in the hope that some bastard spammer's spider won't catch that. Putting all those funky signs and punctuation and ascii characters to fool those spiders. Using spam filters, white lists, black lists, bayseian etc. etc. Telling everybody not to send, forward anything and never to use your email except for personal reasons.

And then your girlfriend sends you that cute little card to your email account from that cutesy flowery website that is an email harvester.

DAMN I WANT THE OLD WEB BACK BEFORE THESE SPAMMERS CAME AND TOOK IT OVER.

Re:Six Figures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273629)

Another stupid liberal response.

Re:Six Figures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273632)

Surely there are things that money could be better spent on. Like say,

Perhaps they could get redirect funding allocated for the DEA.

Legilators' thought bubble: (Hippies or Spammers... well I never got spammed by a dirty hippie! Demand money, and tell ashcroft to shove it!)

Pfft, like that'll ever happen.

Too good to be true? (1)

TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R (734295) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273529)

Seriously, am I the only one thinking that this is just... awesome?

Add physical punishment.... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273530)

Like a good caning or flogging plus prison time and life bankrupting fines and I'm sold on this!!!!

SPAM DIS (1)

Schwing84 (782710) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273531)

I think spamming should be stopped, but six figures is just too much. It'll probably just be given to Bill Gates to add to his collection.

Re:SPAM DIS (1)

sxtxixtxcxh (757736) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273546)

his collection of spammers or of six figure piles of cash? :P

Hoping For More... (2, Funny)

EodLabs (722242) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273533)

Bounty is a good idea, but I was hoping for more of a Mad Max scenario. You know, 2 Men Enter... 1 (non-spamming) man leaves

God Dammit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273614)

What I wouldn't give to be funny right now!

Here it is, a perfect set up for a comment that somehow involved Viagra-Town and Master-Blaster! It's so close I can almost smell it, but I just can't see it. Gaaah!

Re:God Dammit! (1)

EodLabs (722242) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273659)

I imagine something like ...
Embargo ON/Bandwidth Drops
Spam :"Who Owns Internet ?"
Tina Turner: "Spam Owns Internet"
Embargo Off/Bandwidth shrinks more

I see a Remake (1)

loid_void (740416) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273534)

What would it take to get someone to turn in one of those spammers who send millions of unwanted e-mails?

Paladin, Have Gun, Will Travel

Bad Idea (4, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273535)

This action will hurt consumers.

You see, now I'm going to have to increase the cost of my penis enlargement pills to cover the increased risk this represents.

Re:Bad Idea (1)

dbolger (161340) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273581)

lmao, first decent chuckle I've had on /. in a good while, mod parent up :)

We need to send the spammers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273537)

TO FEDERAL POUND ME IN THE ASS PRISON AND LET THOSE COCKSMOKERS ENJOY A COUPLE OF POLES "ON THE HOUSE"

*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_
g_______________________________________________g_ _
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o_ _
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a_ _
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t_ _
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s_ _
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e_ _
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x_ _
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*_ _
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g_ _
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o_ _
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a_ _
t_______/\_|___C_____)/_FUCK_\_(_____>__|_/_____t_ _
s______/_/\|___C_____)__SPAM_|__(___>___/__\____s_ _
e_____|___(____C_____)\_(TM)_/__//__/_/_____\___e_ _
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x_ _
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*_ _
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g_ _
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o_ _
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a_ _
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t_ _
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s_ _
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e_ _
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x_ _
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_


Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Donations (1)

ufoman (544261) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273539)

Just tell me where I can donate to the bounties.

Re:Donations (4, Funny)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273588)

Just tell me where I can donate to the bounties.
Chris Finke
920 Delaware St SE #3003
Minneapolis, MN 55414

Thanks in advance!

Innocent Spammers (3, Interesting)

Cat9117600 (627358) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273540)

What about the people who are unknowingly sending spam from their cracked computers? Is this basically saying that there is a 6-digit bounty for the grandmother who doesn't know enough to keep her computer secure?

Re:Innocent Spammers (2, Interesting)

alatesystems (51331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273596)

Of course. She is a terrorist then. Any "compassionate conservative" could tell you that, especially John Ashcroft. You might ask him how the USA PATRIOT act has saved the world too.

For the dense, all of the above was my cynicism exposing itself.

I don't support a bounty unless you can find the person who actually originated it, not the grandmother with the infected computer. This is impossible because of the nature of the internet(routed through zombie after zombie).

I think it's a really bad idea and opens the door for Ashcroft or whoever is to enforce this to say "you sent spam" and you to have no recourse.

Chris

Re:Innocent Spammers (1)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273693)

This is impossible because of the nature of the internet(routed through zombie after zombie).

You could probably pay some of those zombie machine owners to run something that would help you track who was connecting to those zombie machines. A 6-figure bounty makes spending that kind of money worthwhile, even for hundreds of machines.

Re:Innocent Spammers (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273665)

I suspect that the bounties would be on the top ten spammers. Taking out grandma might be fun, but it won't substantially decrease the volume of spam, unless she's got a server farm sitting on an OC192 or something.

no bounty but maybe.... (3, Insightful)

zogger (617870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273690)

....confiscation and public destruction of zombie computers. Then just *perhaps* enough people would bingo to what they are running and how they are running stuff on their computers to treat them with a little more intelligence, and they in turn might go seek out those who supplied them with inadequate products that are sold with no warranties, the vendors and software makers who ship these easily zombified boxes.

It's way past time products that come brand new pre-borked got recalled and the vendors ordered to "not do that".

We as consumers and the government wouldn't put up with "acme doors" that failed to swing open and closed, failed to lock adequately, and anyone could open with a gentle shove when it was allegedly latched, but with computers connected to the internet they can ship totally insecure crap and profit from it to the tune of hundreds of billions with little recourse for the consumer when they get owned or the dang thing fails to function as advertised.

And really, the thought of a legion of whizzed off grandmothers who had their zombie computers confiscated descending on a computer and software marketing weasel convention and laying waste with brooms is rather a nice image.

YOUNG MAN *WHACK* DON'T YOU EVER *WHACK* SELL THAT SHODDY MERCHANDISE AGAIN!! *WHACK WHACK WHACK*

Re:Innocent Spammers (1)

imemyself (757318) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273789)

How about just making the idiots who let their computers get infected sit in stockade for a few days?

Yeah but (2, Interesting)

hypermike (680396) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273541)

Six-figure incentives are the only way to persuade people to disclose the identity of co-workers, friends and others they know are responsible for flooding online mailboxes with unsolicited pitches for prescription drugs, weight loss plans and other products, according to an agency report Thursday.

I dont think spammers run around telling coworkers and relatives they send spam. These people keep to themselves.

How does that quote go? The only way for 3 people to keep a secret is if 2 of them are dead.

It works for crime because most criminals like to brag, no incentive to brag here.

Hunting Spammers ... (1)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273550)

I would love to make an addition to my pages that talk about hunting vermin [komar.org] , bats [komar.org] , rats [komar.org] , and squirrels [komar.org] that would be called Hunting Spammers

Random Thoughts (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273552)

Can A Bounty System Cure Spam?

Unlikely. But, if the law actually get's off it's ass and actually hands out fines, spammers might be more inclined to stick the equivalent of "this is spam" (the opt-out message, etc.), which could make filtering more effective.

Perhaps we should be fining the ISPs who happily let spam-servers loose on their network?

"It would promote vigilantism on the Net and it probably would not catch any bad guys," said Louis Mastria, spokesman for the Direct Mail Association

There are plenty of technically-skilled knowledgable people out there who might otherwise not have bothered, but who could probably track a few people down.

'the FCC has so much information on their identities that to get anymore would be useless.'

We don't care whether they're known or not. We just want to bankrupt them and get the money we have lost* due to spam.

--
* Most end-users don't lose money, but the amount of stress and anger caused to me by spam has probably shortened my lifespan, and can you put a price on that? --
9569643

Re:Random Thoughts (2, Insightful)

essence (812715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273702)

Can A Bounty System Cure Spam?

Unlikely.

I would say definitely not. Has heavy prison sentences, death penalty, stopped murder? No.

that's hardly fair to the taxpayers (5, Interesting)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273555)

Why make the taxpayers pay for cleaning up the internet of spam?

Make the spammers pay out the bounty. There's absolutely no reason to make taxpayers (you know, citizens) suffer and go further in debt (via the nation) for the crimes to humanity that spammers have perpetrated.

Re:that's hardly fair to the taxpayers (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273646)

Presumably the spammers' assets will be seized. Maybe some of that money can go back into the system to pay the bounties, et cetera.

Re:that's hardly fair to the taxpayers (1)

acceleriter (231439) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273679)

Why make the taxpayers pay for cleaning up the internet of spam?

The taxpayers pay for it now--what's the difference, save for the deterrent?

Re:that's hardly fair to the taxpayers (3, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273708)

Make the spammers pay out the bounty. There's absolutely no reason to make taxpayers (you know, citizens) suffer and go further in debt (via the nation) for the crimes to humanity that spammers have perpetrated.

RTFA. Not enough money is recovered from spammers, even the few that are prosecuted. There is a small number of big spammers, who are smart enough to keep their money safe from seizure, and a lot who live in trailer parks. The benefit to society as a whole is worth the cost if it deters.

Bad (2, Funny)

illuminata (668963) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273556)

1. I can think of a lot of different types of criminals that would deserve a six-figure bounty before a spammer.

2. Taxpayer funded? Bullshit. I don't care if it comes from a non-profit organization but there is absolutely no reason why taxpayers should have to fund six-figure bounties on the heads of people who cause an annoyance. Fuck, put it on Johovah's Witnesses first. I actually have to stand up to deal with them.

Will it work? (1)

echeslack (618016) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273558)

Not to be negative, but I feel like this probably won't work.

I think a lot of spammers are out of the US, so it won't matter to them.

But even those that are in the US, are probably doing a fine job covering their tracks. They wouldn't put out the bounty if they could easily take care of the problem.

Re:Will it work? (1)

nzkoz (139612) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273591)

Sure it will. Just look at what happened when Osama was put on the top 10 most wanted list.

Oh Wait ...

Re:Will it work? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273682)

Sure it will. Just look at what happened when Osama was put on the top 10 most wanted list. Oh Wait ...

Osama doesn't give an address for people to send money to. Spammers ultimately have to give a route to find them, or at least their bank account.

waste of money (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273570)

complete bullshit. Follow the trail of money, lock up their ability to perform commerce, and you shut down the spammers. Last thing we need is to fund a bunch of vigilantes.

Lessig (1)

The Famous Brett Wat (12688) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273571)

Lawrence Lessig has been pushing a bounty system for spammers for a long time. See this Interesting People post [interesting-people.org] , for example. He was still pushing the same concept recently at his talk at the Conference on Email and Anti-Spam [www.ceas.cc] (July 2004). I'm surprised that he isn't mentioned in TFA.

They didn't recommend it (5, Informative)

po_boy (69692) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273573)

I think that they determined that it would take $100,000 - $250,000 for people to turn in people that they knew were spamming, but according to the article: The FTC, in a report requested by Congress, did not take a position on whether such a system was a good idea. To me, that sounds like the refrained from recommending it.

I guess it's up to us to convince them that it's a good idea.

Note: they recommend that this money come from taxpayers, but in an effort to try to cut down on that, can I suggest we find another source of it? Perhaps we need to not only look to civil penalties from the spammers, but also from the ISPs who behave negligently toward spammers.

Like the 10 most wanted?? (1)

Snover (469130) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273574)

I'm sorry, but I find it a bit disturbing that the FTC is likening spammers to violent criminals. As much as we hate 'em, making such correlations is extreeeemely dangerous, and despite how much I hate spam, I'd rather have my money be spent on fixing the system so that it can't be manipulated instead of just finding the people that are manipulating it, because... once one goes down, there will be another to take his/her place.

Never mind 6-figure rewards (1)

neosake (655724) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273580)

I'd like the death penalty applied to all serial-spammer scum.

Hooray! (1)

graveyardduckx (735761) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273582)

With $###,### who needs herbal viagra or the youngest hottest teens on the net!?!

Does this mean that (1)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273594)

we can shoot them when they flee?
Yeah baby! I can see a new career for me here.
Let's see, plastic cuffs, a box of 9mm ammo, oh, and a badge too! Oh boy! I can't wait to shoot some spammers in the back as they run away!

Won't do much (5, Insightful)

Dorsai42 (738671) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273598)

When there's a bounty on the advertisers who use the spammers, then we'll see a reduction in spam

Re:Won't do much (3, Insightful)

thomasdelbert (44463) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273711)

Would be a nice way to catch one - pose as an advertiser. Now spammers don't know who to trust.

- Thomas;

tax dollars (1)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273605)

I for one would be happy to see my tax dollars go towards something I really care about as opposed to killing more brown people or helping ceos out with their yacht payments :-p

Tax funded? (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273624)

Sorry, I have a problem with that. We can easily raise millions in voluntary contributions for a Ralsky Kneecapping Fund.

-jcr

Obligatory (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273627)

Your post advocates a

( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) 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
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) 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
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) 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
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
(x) 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
( ) 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
( ) 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
( ) 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!
----
Also, finding spammers has never been a problem. [spamhaus.org]

Any restrictions? (1)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273636)

So is this one of those "Wanted: Dead or Alive" bounties?

6 figures? (1)

vsigma (154562) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273638)

relatively speaking, 6 figures is just a drop in the bucket of social security.

i'd gladly cough up an extra dollar to the government (and im sure others would too!) if we can stop these idiots from continuing to flood our mailboxen.

I really *can* make $1,000/day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273639)

Course I'll have to move to Florida.

Sounds all right. (1)

NthDegree256 (219656) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273642)

Just as long as they don't decide to promote the system with spam. I can see my inbox now...

"EZ money! Get $100,000 CASH NOW!!!--znsdfjk" ...ad infinitum.

I'm in favor . . . (1)

acceleriter (231439) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273664)

. . . so long as it's payable whether the spammer's delivered dead or alive. Preferably dead.

After thinking about it... (4, Interesting)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273686)

I have, in the past, made a handful of comments w.r.t. the spam problem. After thinking about it for a bit, I've come to realize that the solution is not so much in applying new technology but applying new people.

Think about it: Right now, almost everything that lands in the spammer's inbox is signal because right now, no one in their right mind responds to offers for the hottest young teens on the net and herbal viagra. Thus, it's trivial for them to send out a hundred million e-mails and it's also easy to sort through the maybe one thousand people dumb enough to respond: It's almost ALL signal.

But, suppose that of those hundred million people, ten million clicked the link and a million responded. The S/N ratio goes from 10:1 to 1:1000 or 1:10000. It's no longer going to be economical for the spammer to sort through so much static. It should be possible to respond to, perhaps, 1/10 or 1/20 of the spam you get. It won't take much... Just something like "I'm very intrigued by your offer. Please tell me more." You can't use a computer script to generate responses, because they can easily be filtered out just like you filter 99% of spam. You'll maybe spend 30 minutes a day to respond to 60 spams.

Before long, the bastards will spend so goddamn much time sorting through the static that they won't be able to send more! The only problem is, what do we do to reedcuate the millions of idiots (ie the ones who create the problem in the FIRST PLACE!!!) who are (mostly) trained to pound the delete key?

I can see it happening... (1)

pdaoust007 (258232) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273694)

People spamming just to be turned in, doing a bit of jail time or paying fines or whatever (after all it's not like you killed someone or stole anything etc.) and then splitting the bounty with whoever turned them in.

I smell a scam...

Sounds like a lot to pay to remove an annoyance (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273698)

If having to occasionally delete a junk message that thunderbird missses can save taxpayers those six figures, then I think I can put up with what good filtering has made into a trivial annoyance.

Bounty on Spammers?!? (2, Funny)

pyrrhonist (701154) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273716)

FTC Recommends Bounty on Spammers

Well, I am just outraged! Why does the FTC want me to put paper towels on spammers? Are they going to microwave them or something? Furthermore, why does it have to be Bounty, in particular? I know it's supposed to be the, "quicker picker-upper", but, come on, can I at least use a bargain brand like Marcal? This is just insane...

What?!?! A reward offered by the government for acts deemed beneficial to the state...?

Oh.

Nevermind...

Big picture (2, Interesting)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273722)

You know, sometimes it's good to take a step back from our collective geekdom and look at the bigger picture. I'm thinking of this from my Mom's perspective, a woman who once didn't know what the O and I on opposide ends of a power switch meant: is this a sign of the times or what?

We just comapred spammers to the FBI's Ten Most Wanted. Spammers are, on some level, comparable to druglords and serial killers. Isn't that true, though? Especially druglords. I can so picture a spammer sitting back with his small army of a spammed-up crew protecting him.

The end result... (1)

mehaiku (754091) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273725)

It's spammers the FTC warns
Their business will surely be torn
Yet if this becomes law
It will be the last straw
How the hell will we get daily porn?

How about privately funded bounties? (2, Interesting)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273729)

I wonder if it wouldn't be better (certainly more efficient) if large ISP's gave bounties for identifying spammers on their lines. At least it would cut out a little good ol' government waste.

Oh hell (1)

Tethys_was_taken (813654) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273739)

the last thing we need is a bunch of geeks running around with sniffers and spoofers thinking they are cowboys (er, spammerboys).

Ready... Set.... Go... (1)

Darkon06 (714661) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273746)

Let the finger pointing begin!! Seriously though, who is going to sort the noise from the signal??

DMA scumbags (1)

DSP_Geek (532090) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273747)

And of course the weasels from the Direct Marketing Association don't want this to happen. They're the same sacks of sh*t who fought long & hard against the Do-Not-Call list. Imagine that, they don't want spammers turned in either.

EZ-Scam (1)

chill (34294) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273752)

1. Contact the site advertised by the spam.
2. Agree to split the $100K 50/50 with the site owner if he fesses up on who he paid to send the spam. Odds are it was a hell of a lot less than $50K.
3. Profit!
4. Repeat!

Of course, there is no guarantee the advertising site won't cut you out of the loop...

Bounty hunter (1)

m00nun1t (588082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273754)

This sounds like a great plan to me. Catching spammers isn't easy, and requires specialised skills that I'm guessing the government is fairly short on. An amount like this makes it viable for an appropriately skilled person to make a living out of it. Spend 3 months full time hunting down a spammer & putting a case together, and get $100K. Sounds like a good living to me. It's probably far cheaper than getting the government to do it - a motivated individual will always work much faster that a salaried person in a large organisation.

Easiest way to stop spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273756)

Read their mails and look at their sites... If everyone did that the bandwidth costs alone would cripple their buisness and would more than likely put off anyone hosting them.

Sounds like a great idea! (1)

shigelojoe (590080) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273759)

So, do they need 51% of the corpse or will just a head on a pike do?

How can this work? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273768)

I don't see how this can possibly work. The fines levied against spammers are piddly. Imagine this scenario:

1. Send out 1 million spam messages
2. Get my mother to turn me in
3. I'm ordered to pay a $15,000 fine, or something like that
4. My mom gets $100,000 and gives me half
5. PROFIT!!!
6. Go to step 1

Notice the distinct lack of a mystery step in this plan.

So the only way this can possibly work is if the fines/penalties levied against spammers exceed the value of the bounty.

Here we go again... (3, Funny)

thomasdelbert (44463) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273778)

Your company advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (x) 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
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) 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
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) 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
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) 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
(x) 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 company for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Spam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10273780)

The Operation Officer For Foreign Payment, Private Banking, National Bank,
Ref: A/c # 1072514588 of Mr. Steven Williams.
RE: APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS.
Consider my request! Sir.

Mr. Steven Williams Levitan was my relative, who died in the plane crash of Ethiopian airlines, flight No.801, along with some of the passengers and crew on board.

On checking the various records of my relative, I his brother, Mr. Benson. Realized that he maintained an account with a bank with the account number! A/c # 1072514588

Some of the deceased's and managers suggest that there was a credit balance of the sum of (USD$20,000.000.00) (Twenty Million, United States Dollars) in the account.

As next of kin, I would now like to submit my application to your esteemed bank for a release of my brother! Sir Steven. Into your bank, in the concernment of your bank, for my safety purpose

Sir, kindly consider my information's, let me keep you in tough, if you need anything, please do Contact me. Hope you wouldn't mine if provides some back up my claim.

You may note that these funds are needed to pay off Mr. El Mir Hsu Ben's liabilities, and also to complete some of unfinished urgent projects started by Mr. El Mir Hsu Ben. Therefore, I would request you to please process my claim and release the funds as early as possible.

Thanks for your co-operation.

Yours faithfully
Mr.Beson Williiams

Good to see some momentum (4, Insightful)

bigberk (547360) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273781)

Let's review the facts:
  1. Spammers use stolen resources (hijacked zombie computers, DSL/cable connections) in order to further their business.
  2. Spammers do not seek consent before bombarding email systems with their marketing information.
  3. Spammers generally disrespect requests for them to stop sending unsolicited email, and in fact often send more mail after such requests (selling 'confirmed' addresses to colleagues)
  4. Spammers deliberately conceal their location of 'business', mislead consumers in their 'marketing campaigns' and forge their identities.
It's good to see these people increasingly treated as what they really are, criminals that have been harming society and getting away with it because our current laws are too slow to catch up. What they're doing is not only annoying, but harmful to innocent peoples' systems.

SCO math (1)

Lost Penguin (636359) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273794)

$ (figure 1) 1 (Figure 2) 0 (Figure 3) 0 (Figure 4) . (Figure 5) 0 (Figure 6) 0 (Figure 7)

So you see $100.00 is seven figures

Announcement strategy (0)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 9 years ago | (#10273795)

I got an idea: Let's announce the bounty to the world by sending emails to everyone we can scrape an email address from.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>