FTC Levies Fine Against Big-league Spammers 82
An anonymous reader writes "The FTC said it has closed down a spam operation in California that sent millions of unwanted messages to online users across the country and fined the companies involved about $2.4 million. The settlement doesn't shut down the businesses and, based on the financial records of the defendants, the judgment will be suspended upon payment of $475,000."
CAN not stop SPAM? (Score:5, Insightful)
-- contained false or forged header information;
-- included deceptive subject headings;
-- failed to identify e-mail as advertisements or solicitations;
-- failed to notify consumers they had a right to opt out of receiving more e-mail;
-- failed to provide an opt-out mechanism;
-- failed to include a valid physical postal address.
If this can't get them shut down what can? Sending out spam email that totally destroys your computer into tiny little pieces?
Re:CAN not stop SPAM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Licensing spam is like allowing people to break into your house and steal your stuff provided they leave you a business card and offer you an opportunity to opt out for the future.
Re:CAN not stop SPAM? (Score:3, Funny)
Not sure since noone seems ot be complying.
But if it would actually work, email providers could offer a simple checkbox "no spam unless whitelisted" and block ALL of these whithout the user even knowing how to set up filters.
Good providers would probably include this checkbox (pre-checked) with the signup process.
Re:CAN not stop SPAM? (Score:2)
Years ago, I signed up with a provider with such a no-spam checkbox. Even though I saw no way how they could possibly enforce this (especially at that time...), I checked it, thinking "what possible harm"...
A week later, when I wanted to set up my web site at the provider, I found out: actually what the checkbox did was not publish me in the provider's address book. Problem: the web server machine also relied on tha
Earthlink Spamblocker (Score:1)
Re:Earthlink Spamblocker (Score:2)
this filters ALL mail that is not in your whitelist, which would include many of my non-spam mails.
what I meant was a filter that filters all CAN-SPAM compliant spam that is not in your whitelist, which would be quite usefull if spam were actually can-spam compliant.
Re:CAN not stop SPAM? (Score:2)
But:
1. is it feasable to send spam from a legitimate address? Having been on the receiving end of a joe-job I know first hand how big the hate-mail and bounce flood is. (Does the US (you-)can-spam law require this address to be monitored?)
2. you should be able to filter complient spam on the headers - spamming is no good if everyone is dropping it in the bin at the MTA.
I'd like to know if it's legal to invoice
Re:CAN not stop SPAM? (Score:2)
Let's cross that bridge when we come to it, shall we? If we can get to the point where all spam follows these rules, it will be a lot easier to do something about it. In the mean time, these rules make it easier to prosecute violators, which is very helpful right now.
Re:CAN not stop SPAM? (Score:3, Insightful)
Misleading as hell (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA headline:
Then in the third paragraph:
So they shut down the "spam operation" but didn't shut down "the business".
Fat lot of good that will do.
Re:Misleading as hell (Score:1)
Re:Misleading as hell (Score:1)
Re:Hand-written apology (Score:1)
Re:Misleading as hell (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a 100K judgment against them. (Score:3, Interesting)
3 spammers down, too lots left.
C'mon FTC (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if the FTC will turn around and use the fine money to pay the people who were affected by the spam? Nah!
Re:C'mon FTC (Score:1)
Re:C'mon FTC (Score:1)
Yes. (Score:1)
Re:C'mon FTC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How to fix this (Score:2)
They'd get off then, on the cruel-and-unusual thing. Infinite jail time isn't fair play.
I'd go for 'one minute per unsolicited mail'. Not per mailing, you understand: per mail. It's hardly draconian, is it? Can't say fairer than a mere minute per mail. But it adds up ;-)
Re:How to fix this (Score:2)
To be really fair, sentence them to the time a recipient will have to spend to deal with one spam message. Say 1 second to read the subject and hit delete. 600 million spams sent (an amount easily achieved by most spammers) would equate to about 20 years of jail time. I would suggest the minute-per-spam rule to st. Peter as a guideline of the time to be spent in purgatory.
I think it's a good idea to make the attractive side of bulk spamming (the more you s
uce@ftc.gov (Score:2, Interesting)
Ever since I heard about the FTC's spam address I forwarded all my spam to it, (what made through the school's filters at least,) even after hearing detracting opinions about it. Good to know my contribution to the effort may not have been entirely in vain.
Re:uce@ftc.gov (Score:2)
The amount of spam I received dropped drastically when I stopped forwarding it to the FTC.
Denmark: $6200 fine for 950 spam e-mails (Score:2, Interesting)
I think this is the way it should be. As long as it pays to send SPAM, it will be sent - it's a plain and simple business calculation.
Only shuts down the business, not the people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only shuts down the business, not the people (Score:3, Insightful)
How exactly does that work? I'm sure the IRS would be interested in talking to them about their financial practices. How is that even legal if the company is incorporated? I was under the impression you couldn't just move money back a
Re:Only shuts down the business, not the people (Score:2)
You can extract money from your business to your private account (it's called "profit", d'oh). Of course, obviously there are limits to this if you are under bankruptcy proceedings. But if the spammers are any smart, they take their profits before they get in debt...
As for taxes, most places charge higher taxes to private individuals (especially if they earn much) than to bus
Re:Only shuts down the business, not the people (Score:2)
Re:Only shuts down the business, not the people (Score:5, Interesting)
*shrug* I'm not sure how true that is. I used to work for a pretty big, just-barely-legal, bulk email farm. The overhead can actually be pretty high, since you have to keep several networks ready in case too many spam complaints get your upstream to shut you down (and keep in mind, these were mailings that the people did actually request and confirm to receive and had our physical address and phone number in every footer -- I can't imagine how many more complaints the really illegal shit must get). Unless you can talk your provider into making you the abuse contact for your block (at which point the stakes get really high, because you can go to jail if you start screwing around then), you have to move about once every six months.
We basically had two kinds of clients: people who essentially wanted a cheaper Lyris for their mailing list (things like music groups sending out their tour announcements, churches sending out their activities announcements, demagogic political blowhards sending out their vitriolic screeds, etc.), and people who were hawking products (everything from frozen crabcakes to cool little mouse-cord-holder-stands -- I still have one of those -- to "Get Free Money From the Government" books). The first kind of customer was pretty steady and almost never gave us spam complaints (we ended up giving them their own network). The second kind of customer not only generated a lot of spam complaints (and contractually had to pay us $100 for each one), but usually went broke after a few months. They got good receive and open rates, and even OK click-through, but people just didn't buy the shit.
I left the "industry" a while ago in a fit of conscience, but what I learned might be a bit sobering for those who suggest we attack the companies advertising via spam. If my experience is normal, that won't matter because they all go out of business anyways. There's money in bulk email for the companies sending out the email, and for their carriers (who get to charge more for pink contracts), but rarely if ever for the people selling stuff. It's just there's always some new jackass ready to take his place once a seller fails.
Re:Only shuts down the business, not the people (Score:2)
I wonder how effective a scam someone could come up with based on selling these people spam mailing service and then not actually ever sending the emails...
Re:Only shuts down the business, not the people (Score:2)
fine the hell out of the companies in the spam.
When they were angry aboutthe chalk ad's from IBM they did not go after the company putting them on the ground, they went after IBM.
Ignore the spammers, nail the companies having their products/ services advertised by the spammers.
Re:Only shuts down the business, not the people (Score:2)
1. Send out millions of spam emails advertising for my competitor.
2. Wait for fines to put them out of business.
3. Steal all of their customers.
4. Profit.
I don't even need a ??? step.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only shuts down the business, not the people (Score:1)
That is only one reason. A much simpler and much bigger reason that spam is hugely profitable, because people buy from spammers. This seems to go way over the heads of the vengeful people looking for blood. Like the old cliche says, it's the same as blaming the spoon for making Rosy O'donald fat".
Never mind the fine... (Score:5, Funny)
and to memorize and pronounce the words made of random letters they include to try to evade spam filters
and to change their names to the one in the "from" field. That is, legally change their names to names such as... let me check my mailbox for a second... "Recipe 4Living", "Approval Dept", "Content Paradise", "Your Mngr. mosettamay", "Sr. Loan Specialist" and "Always Savings".
Now that's justice.
Re:Never mind the fine... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Never mind the fine... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see it now...
Hello. This is Mr. Spammer, a.k.a. Happy Dude. The court has ordered me to call everyone in town and say that I'm sorry for my telemarketing scams. (pause) I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, please send one dollar to "Sorry Dude," 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the power.
Spam (Score:1)
No surprise here (Score:1, Insightful)
The FTC is now taking the same approach to spammers as they do telemarketers, in a theoretical sense.
They rather fine these companies just enough to get some money out of them but not shut down their business or cause them to go under. Just another revenue stream for the FTC.
It goes to show they could really care less about these companies sending out spam, they would rather just fine them and make money off of them.
Like I said in the subject, no suprise here. The
And there was much rejoicing. (Score:2)
Hardly a condign punishment (Score:2, Insightful)
The REAL Punishment (Score:1)
$475,000 = just the cost of doing business (Score:3, Interesting)
Toxic waste dumpers used to this also. It was cheaper to just pay the fine for dumping toxic waste, than to pay for the expensive process of correct disposal.
My guess in a $475 fine every five years, or so, is worth it. I expect the spammers to be right back at it.
Re:$475,000 = just the cost of doing business (Score:1)
Re:$475,000 = just the cost of doing business (Score:1)
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/04/
Or Bart Simpson:
Homer: Bart, you're grounded for a year.
Bart: I'll just pay the fine.
Homer: That'll be $3.
Re:$475,000 != just the cost of doing business (Score:1)
So if I understand correctly... (Score:2, Interesting)
They could make it completely illegal with penalties up to and including taking every
What an impact! (Score:1)
I can't believe people still fall for this (Score:2, Interesting)
I understand that a lot of people aren't particularly computer-savvy, but if someone came up to you on the street and tried to sell you a dozen spy cameras you wouldn't think twice before saying no.
Glimmer of hope (Score:3, Informative)
But then I got to this, near the end of the article:
It's easy to see what happened here. The spammers pleaded with the court, "But we don't have two million dollars!" The court was wary and said, "Fine, we'll just charge you the full worth of your company" (which wipes them out, effectively "shutting them down") but it appears the judge added a provision that if the spammers are lying to weasel out of the fine, they will be held accountable.I have a feeling the spammers will flee the country when it becomes clear they were lying. But at least they will have been forced to give up their nice American lives and their nice American bandwidth. That just might make other spammers question whether the price is worth the profit.
Re:Glimmer of hope (Score:2)
We call that perjury in this country. I believe it is accompanied by lengthy jail sentences. I don't see the need for this at all, except perhaps making the
Insane (Score:1)
Now, if theese guys don't get the full $2.4-million fine, there's a serious problem here.
"The FTC and California charged that the defendants e-mail:
-- contained false or forged header information;
-- included deceptive subject headings;"
I don't expect any financial records handed over by them to be any better.
Treat spammers like drug traffickers (Score:5, Insightful)
The FTC should hook up with the IRS to go after spammers.
Basically, if you're caught spamming the Feds come in and make you account for all of your income over the last year. Any money derived from spamming is forfeited, plus penalties. I'd also like to see the penalties weighted so that if the spammer gives up the identity of who paid him or her to spam, the penalty is reduced if that person is successfully prosecuted as well. This way the number of spammers and the companies which contract them get slapped.
Any legitimate business should be able to account for all its income. If a spammer can't prove his income is clean, it is no different than a drug trafficker having piles of cash around which just magically appeared. Anything which can't be documented as coming from a non-spam source should be considered profits of a criminal enterprise, and should get seized.
This is a normal FTC settlement (Score:3, Informative)
Typical language: "Defendants are enjoined from engaging in business practices violating the XYZ act in the future."
Of course, there are those that accept the settlement, and then go right back and do the same damn thing again. When that happens, usually the FTC goes directly to court and obtains an injunction against the whole company, and the offender is completely barred from whatever business they were in. Example: "Defendents are permanently barred from owning, operating, or being employed in any operation that involves the sending of e-mail for marketing purposes."
If they violate this, or try to hide, or the conduct is particularly nasty, they get referred to the justice dept. for prosecution.
Everyone's favorite late-night infomercial moron, Kevin Trudeau (speed reading, memory improvement, etc.) got slapped twice by the FTC, so he wised up and instead deceided to promote a completely bogus book instead. Since it a book containing opinions instead of a worthless physical product, the FTC can't stop him, despite him being as full of B.S. as ever.
SirWired
Getting away with paying one fifth? (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but I have trouble understanding how this fine works. Do I understand correctly that the company was fined $FINE, yet the fine will be suspended upon payment of $FINE/5 and everybody can go on as they please? If you can get away with paying $100, why fine $500 in the first place?
Hey! I have an idea. (Score:1)
Bogus Fines (Score:2)
There was an AP investigation a few weeks back about how frequently the state & federal governments publicly announce huge fines that they have no intention of collecting -- http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? A ID=/20060326/BUSINESS/603260365/1003 [dailyrecord.com]
Hell, why not announce an 800 Quadrillion dollar fine? That'll show the public we're serious! Of course, you're off the hook if you c
Stop SPAM ? (Score:1)
Here's a question for you. How much SPAM would be eliminated if people's home computer could not be compromised by trojan SPAM agents that spammers use to send out their e-mails?
It seems that spam is difficult to sto
Re:Stop SPAM ? (Score:1)
Dreaming ? yes. Right track ? Yes.
Anyone who survived the onslaught of Nimda and CodeRed will agree. These two ground the 'net to almost a complete halt *precisely* because of the volume of default, "everything on" Win2K installs that were out there. Precisely why an enduser workstation used as a wordprocesser needs to have all IIS services running has no justifiable answer