FTC contemplating bounties

[spaceman]

Maybe I'm dreaming about an ideal world, but what I was referring to was not sites automatically being added to a blocking list. The initial post was about the FTC paying bounties for fingering spammers. Well, if the FTC has the authority and ability to act against the spammers that they would pay bounties on, then surely they would have the ability and authority to act against the sites who pay spammers to spam. And the ability to discern between innocent sites reported by accident or with malice and those who actually encourage spam.

Do they have the resources to investigate and prosecute all of them? No more than they could investigate and prosecute all the spammers reported for bounties. If, however, it became widely known (and you could bet it would) that there was an agency with the ability to enforce legislation with teeth, I'm betting that it would have a serious impact on the volume of spam which we now are buried under.

Would it stop spamming completely? No more than traffic laws prevent all speeding and careless driving. But it sure would improve the odds against your 12 year old daughter getting emails promoting a site where women have sex with horses. It's a lot safer to go for a drive than it is to open your inbox right now.

[turetzsr]

Maybe I'm dreaming about an ideal world, but what I was referring to was not sites automatically being added to a blocking list.

<snip>

33991[/snapback]

...Right, but the conversation about sites being added to a blocking list are not in response to your point about the FTC but rather a part of the slight turn we took courtesy of evilgenius's suggestion 33709[/snapback]. <g>

[Jeff G.]

If this wasn't the Lounge, I might consider that turn to be the start of a new Topic.

[evilgenius]

You good folks are putting way, way too much thought into this. The way I see it, the way to end the SPAMMERS reign is to first go after the ISP's that continue to allow this garbage to be sent to it's clients. When you "very publicly" offer up the heads of a few "pink contract" writing ISP's, the others will get the message and place more attention where it is needed. Hit them where it hurts.....in the wallet, and don't let up....even for a second! Multi-million dollar fines and some time in a Federal Prison would certainly get a person's attention. A zero tolerance attitude should be given to this growing problem.

Second, the spammers themselves should be hunted down (Al Ralsky) and prosecuted in the very same way. If spammers like Ralsky were made to sit in a cage for a few years, and forfeit their million+ dollar homes, I'd bet they'd never pollute the internet with their garbage again. No slap on the wrist. Sue for millions and put 'em in jail!

Third, it should be made illegal for any company or website to use the "services" of a spammer to sell their garbage. Once again, using a zero tolerance attitude and enforcing the law EVERY TIME.....NO EXCEPTIONS! I'll bet you'd see a better than 80 percent drop in spam in less than 6 months.

In short, felony convictions for everyone involved in the "industry"

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?

Evil :angry:

[Merlyn]

You good folks are putting way, way too much thought into this. The way I see it, the way to end the SPAMMERS reign is to first go after the ISP's that continue to allow this garbage to be sent to it's clients. When you "very publicly" offer up the heads of a few "pink contract" writing ISP's, the others will get the message and place more attention where it is needed. Hit them where it hurts.....in the wallet, and don't let up....even for a second!  Multi-million dollar fines and some time in a Federal Prison would certainly get a person's attention. A zero tolerance attitude should be given to this growing problem.

Evil :angry:

38226[/snapback]

How does that apply for anything outside the U.S.?

How does that apply to these:

http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ARIN

[turetzsr]

You good folks are putting way, way too much thought into this. The way I see it, the way to end the SPAMMERS reign is to first go after the ISP's that continue to allow this garbage to be sent to it's clients. When you "very publicly" offer up the heads of a few "pink contract" writing ISP's, the others will get the message and place more attention where it is needed. Hit them where it hurts.....in the wallet, and don't let up....even for a second!  Multi-million dollar fines and some time in a Federal Prison would certainly get a person's attention. A zero tolerance attitude should be given to this growing problem.

38226[/snapback]

...Sounds great! Can you tell me how to do this (without spending my entire life and borrowing billions and billions of dollars for research, investigation and attorneys' fees)?

Second, the spammers themselves should be hunted down (Al Ralsky) and prosecuted in the very same way. If spammers like Ralsky were made to sit in a cage for a few years, and forfeit their million+ dollar homes,  I'd bet they'd never pollute the internet with their garbage again. No slap on the wrist. Sue for millions and put 'em in jail!

38226[/snapback]

...Same question as above.

Third, it should be made illegal for any company or website to use the "services" of a spammer to sell their garbage. Once again, using a zero tolerance attitude and enforcing the law EVERY TIME.....NO EXCEPTIONS! I'll bet you'd see a better than 80 percent drop in spam in less than 6 months. 

 

In short, felony convictions for everyone involved in the "industry" 

 

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?

38226[/snapback]

...We already have laws against spam -- the crimes are called trespass and conversion. We just can't seem to get law enforcement authorities to enforce them! Any ideas how to get that to happen?

[evilgenius]

...Sounds great! Can you tell me how to do this (without spending my entire life and borrowing billions and billions of dollars for research, investigation and attorneys' fees)?...Same question as above....We already have laws against spam -- the crimes are called trespass and conversion. We just can't seem to get law enforcement authorities to enforce them! Any ideas how to get that to happen?

38228[/snapback]

I have to admit that I was considering U.S. spammers only since according to SPAMHAUS ROKSO, the U.S. is the leading offender wordwide. As for spammers outside the US, that problem, once again, would be best addressed by the ISP's. I use Road Runner (broadband cable), and I believe they are the listed as either 3rd or 4th as the worst ISP's. To give you an example, I conducted an experiment by establishing a new email addy. I never sent any email, or gave the addy to anyone. Within 2 hours, I had 6 junk emails at the new addy. The ISP's simply have to be more attentive to this problem. Blocking entire countries from sending email to the US would have an almost immediate effect. The legitimate email senders would create such a fuss that their respective governments would have to do something. I realize all of this is just me dreaming, and in a perfect world, it would be so. I can say that it's a very good thing that I'm not in a position to pull the plug on an ISP. I have a list that I'd sh**can immediately. Once again, the ISP's, spammers, and everyone connected with them are motivated by greed and money. Take that away and there's no reason to stay in business! Hit 'em where it hurts!

[StevenUnderwood]

I use Road Runner (broadband cable), and I believe they are the listed as either 3rd or 4th as the worst ISP's.

38229[/snapback]

Why are you feeding the pocket book of a known spam harborer? Kind of undermine your argument, doesn't it? (I don't support spammers, unless it affects me directly)

[evilgenius]

Why are you feeding the pocket book of a known spam harborer?  Kind of undermine your argument, doesn't it? (I don't support spammers, unless it affects me directly)

38231[/snapback]

Actually, I don't have a choice. It's either Road Runner or dial-up. DSL is not available in my area, and I will not go back to dial-up. There's no other broadband service available to me.....yet. As soon as something better becomes available, I will drop them like a bad habit.

Evil

[StevenUnderwood]

Actually, I don't have a choice. ... I will not go back to dial-up.

38238[/snapback]

That is a choice. A choice to support a company you know is helping spammers. I understand why it is being made, but please don't go off touting you want spamming ISP's closed down when you are using one. You are enabling RR to continue allowing spam from their network. Have you even approached their support people with the facts that too much spam is leaving their network?

I'm thinking of the phrase: Think Glabally, Act locally.

[evilgenius]

That is a choice.  A choice to support a company you know is helping spammers.  I understand why it is being made, but please don't go off touting you want spamming ISP's closed down when you are using one.  You are enabling RR to continue allowing spam from their network.  Have you even approached their support people with the facts that too much spam is leaving their network?

I'm thinking of the phrase: Think Glabally, Act locally.

38243[/snapback]

O.K. Mr. Underwood. Let me suggest that you not jump my ass when you do not have all of the facts. First, I have been with RR for 5 years. In that time, I have had many, many conversations with both Corporate and Tech support people at RR concerning the spam issue. I have made it very clear that I detest spammers, and have also let them know that I will be leaving as soon as something better comes along. No, I do not have a choice. Dial-up is not a viable option for me. I've grown used to the speed and convenience of broadband, and could never, ever go back to dial-up. I am not enabling RR to do anything. In fact, I am doing my part to help eliminate the problem. Every single piece of spam that I get is forwarded to both SpamCop and spam[at]uce.gov. My reason for posting the suggestions that I do is just me putting my 2 cents worth in. If you don't agree with my posts, fine. I'm not really interested in hearing your negative attitude. This forum is to discuss spam and how to eliminate it, not to snipe at one another. Keep your negative comments to yourself.

BTW, what are YOU doing to help combat the parasite spammers? Judging by your attitude, you've got it all figured out. I'm sure everyone would love to hear all about it!

Evil :angry:

[Miss Betsy]

My reason for posting the suggestions that I do is just me putting my 2 cents worth in. If you don't agree with my posts, fine. I'm not really interested in hearing your negative attitude. This forum is to discuss spam and how to eliminate it, not to snipe at one another. Keep your negative comments to yourself.

When people are discussing anything, everyone has the right to disagree and 'put hir 2 cents worth in' Mr. Underwood was simply putting his 2 cents worth in as you were. If you don't like it, that's fine. You can disagree and present your arguments. He may not like to hear them any more than you like to hear his. I haven't really read this topic carefully, but another way of saying what Mr. Underwood said is 'put your money where your mouth is' which is another way of "Thinking globally; acting locally." Following is my $.02 USD.

There are a great many people in your shoes - some of them who actually need the speed of broadband, not just prefer it.

Life is often about the choice between two evils. Since you have voiced your dissatisfaction with RR's policies, you have been 'acting locally' - not as forcefully as sacrificing the speed and convenience of broadband would be, but still not being indifferent.

You are absolutely correct that affecting the *senders* (which include RR) are the way to control spam. And the only way to affect *senders* like RR is for their customers to lobby for more responsible behavior - in much the same way that Ralph Nader got large companies to change a few years back.

If someone did 'pull the plug' on RR, then they might listen. Since there is no way to do that (without compromising the freedom of the internet), the ONLY way is for customers to insist on responsible behavior and make a big stink so that large corporations who have a monopoly listen.

Miss Betsy

[evilgenius]

Go back and read the post Miss Betsy.....carefully this time. One should not make comments when one is not completely informed. Mr. Underwood states that I am enabling RR to continue spamming. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I run a small business out of my home and broadband is a necessity.....not a preference. I live in a small town, and no other broadband ISP is available. The phone system around here is not equipped for DSL, and dial-up would put me out of business in a week. As I said in my post, I have had many heated conversations with RR concerning the garbage I recieve in my email, and I report every piece of spam (25-50 per day) to spamcop, and uce. I have promised RR that I will be an ex-customer the second another option becomes available. How is that enabling?

Once again, what are YOU and Mr. Underwood doing to combat these parasites?

Evil

[StevenUnderwood]

Go back and read the post Miss Betsy.....carefully this time. One should not make comments when one is not completely informed. Mr. Underwood states that I am enabling RR to continue spamming. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I run a small business out of my home and broadband is a necessity.....not a preference. I live in a small town, and no other broadband ISP is available. The phone system around here is not equipped for DSL, and dial-up would put me out of business in a week. As I said in my post, I have had many heated conversations with RR concerning the garbage I recieve in my email, and I report every piece of spam (25-50 per day) to spamcop, and uce. I have promised RR that I will be an ex-customer the second another option becomes available.  How is that enabling?

38280[/snapback]

By providing money monthly, you are enabling them to stay in business and continue to allow spamming.

Do you have a business account with RR? For a business, broadband is NOT the only choice you have. Have you investigated getting a T1 connection? Those have been available for years and I have yet to find an area where they are not available. I must admit, prior to this statement, I was assuming this was for personal connectivity.

Once again, what are YOU and Mr. Underwood doing to combat these parasites?

Evil

38280[/snapback]

I am reporting the spammers I get and getting them listed so I don't see them any longer. And I even mentioned that I understood WHY you made the choice you did. I just find it contradictory to state:

The way I see it, the way to end the SPAMMERS reign is to first go after the ISP's that continue to allow this garbage to be sent to it's clients.

while you use one of those ISP's. You are basically asking that "someone" put your own ISP out of business.

I also use one of the ISP's in the top 10, Charter, and found the majority of the reports is about end user IP addresses, probably infected machines. This is probably the same for RR.

The only thing I was bringing up was the contradiction I see between your statements and your actions.

[Miss Betsy]

Go back and read the post Miss Betsy.....carefully this time. One should not make comments when one is not completely informed. Mr. Underwood states that I am enabling RR to continue spamming. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I run a small business out of my home and broadband is a necessity.....not a preference.

I would suggest that you go back and read my post....carefully this time.

Both Mr. Underwood and I had only this fragment to go on

I've grown used to the speed and convenience of broadband, and could never, ever go back to dial-up.

as to whether you 'needed' broadband.

Mr. Underwood has defended his argument himself now.

I was merely pointing out that in a debate, there may be two sides to the argument - each being 'negative' to the other side.

There is nothing in the rest of my post that is directed at you, but my $.02 USD on how spam can be controlled.

As I said, sometimes one has to make choices between two evils - or in some cases, to weigh the results of one's efforts. Thinking globally, acting locally or Simple living so that others may simply live and other slogans along the same lines are not easy to do - usually involving quite a bit of sacrifice and discipline. I do what I can to contribute to the anti spam fight.

Miss Betsy

[evilgenius]

As I said, sometimes one has to make choices between two evils - or in some cases, to weigh the results of one's efforts.  Thinking globally, acting locally or Simple living so that others may simply live  and other slogans along the same lines are not easy to do - usually involving quite a bit of sacrifice and discipline.  I do what I can to contribute to the anti spam fight.

38286[/snapback]

OK, I understand both of your respective points. I am not willing to pay $1,000 per month for a T-1 connection. Why should I pay to keep parasite spammers at bay?

[btech]

The same could be said for Comcast... I have broadband through them, but by me paying for the service, I don't think it's fair to consider me guilty by association.

Every big broadband provider is going to have zombies and Id10Ts at home that don't know what a firewall or virus scanner are... that doesn't mean that I, who DOES know what these things are, should be considered a bad person, because I like a fast connection that happens to be on the same ISP as those dolts.

[turetzsr]

The same could be said for Comcast... I have broadband through them, but by me paying for the service, I don't think it's fair to consider me guilty by association.

Every big broadband provider is going to have zombies and Id10Ts at home that don't know what a firewall or virus scanner are... that doesn't mean that I, who DOES know what these things are, should be considered a bad person, because I like a fast connection that happens to be on the same ISP as those dolts.

38294[/snapback]

...And I am a Comcast cable customer, as well, but I don't see that anyone has said that we are bad for that reason. StevenUnderwood was, IIUC, taking evilgenius to task for what he (Steven) considered (not entirely justified, I think, but that's just IMHO) her/his (evilgenius's) hypocrisy. You have not (at least, not here) condemned providers like yours (Comcast) as evilgenius condemned providers like her/his (RR).

[btech]

touche.

[Miss Betsy]

The same could be said for Comcast... I have broadband through them, but by me paying for the service, I don't think it's fair to consider me guilty by association.

Every big broadband provider is going to have zombies and Id10Ts at home that don't know what a firewall or virus scanner are... that doesn't mean that I, who DOES know what these things are, should be considered a bad person, because I like a fast connection that happens to be on the same ISP as those dolts.

38294[/snapback]

As I said before I have not read this topic carefully, but I think that the OP's original contention was that if the ISPs who allowed spam (particularly the big ones) were made examples of (in some way), then that would go a long way towards stopping spam.

There is a Bell Curve on responsibility toward social issues. There are those who will sacrifice everything to not in any way contribute to what they consider is 'bad' for society. At the other end of the scale there are those who do exactly as they please without regard for larger social concerns (either because everyone does it or because it doesn't matter what I do or who cares about anyone else?). Most people are somewhere in between - making some practical choices.

But, the fact is that if you pay someone for connectivity who is irresponsible about controlling users who are dolts or scammers, then you are tarred with the same brush to a certain extent.

IMHO, exactly what the OP wants to be done, could be accomplished if there were enough broadband customers that, as a group, demanded responsibility of the large broadband companies. For one person to object or sacrifice by not using broadband is not going to make a lot of difference - except to that person's conscience. And one's conscience has to weigh lots of things. If I am making a living on the internet (and particularly if that's the only way I have to make a living), then perhaps using broadband is something that I have to do even though I don't approve. OTOH, to pay for broadband to play games and surf the internet knowing that one is contributing to the support of a corporation who is irresponsible about spam is definitely on the downside toward 'who cares about other people?' How far down is another question.

Another way to look at it is what have you done to educate those dolts or to prevent them from using the internet?

Note: I am debating this issue, not trying to criticize or persuade anyone to another viewpoint.

Miss Betsy

[loafman]

How does that apply for anything outside the U.S.?

How does that apply to these:

http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ARIN

38227[/snapback]

Not public enough. Put their names in the newspaper, on the air, and anywhere else the public might look. No one but spam fighters even know about Spamhaus or their friends. That makes the problem almost anonymous to 99% of the population.

[evilgenius]

Not public enough.  Put their names in the newspaper, on the air, and anywhere else the public might look.  No one but spam fighters even know about Spamhaus or their friends.  That makes the problem almost anonymous to 99% of the population.

38333[/snapback]

Touche! An excellent example is Al Ralsky who is (or was) known as the world's most prolific spammer. He resided in Michigan (U.S.) in a multi-million dollar home. SPAMHAUS and other spam fighting entities published his address, and the end result was that he was harassed both by phone, and by spam hating people actually driving to his home and pelting it with eggs, tomatoes, feces, and all other sorts of garbage. The home was situated in an upscale neighborhood, and eventually his neighbors requested (in very succinct terms) that he find another place to live. But the best part of this story is that spam hating folks around the world added his name and address to thousands of junk mail lists. The end result was Ralsky getting nearly 10,000 pieces of junk mail delivered to his house daily. Ralsky cried foul, and said that his rights were being violated. Geez, what nerve this parasite has!

Now this is the kind of action I advocate!

[Telarin]

Touche! An excellent example is Al Ralsky who is (or was) known as the world's most prolific spammer. He resided in Michigan (U.S.) in a multi-million dollar home. SPAMHAUS and other spam fighting entities published his address, and the end result was that he was harassed both by phone, and by spam hating people actually driving to his home and pelting it with eggs, tomatoes, feces, and all other sorts of garbage. The home was situated in an upscale neighborhood, and eventually his neighbors requested (in very succinct terms) that he find another place to live. But the best part of this story is that spam hating folks around the world added his name and address to thousands of junk mail lists. The end result was Ralsky getting nearly 10,000 pieces of junk mail delivered to his house daily. Ralsky cried foul, and said that his rights were being violated. Geez, what nerve this parasite has!

Now this is the kind of action I advocate!

38335[/snapback]

That's one of those stories that just gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. Scum getting a little taste of their own medicine.

[dra007]

That's one of those stories that just gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. Scum getting a little taste of their own medicine.

38336[/snapback]

Not to mention a good dose of healthy l aughter!

[Devilwolf]

We can't crack down on the pink contract ISP, Payment Processors, Banks, and the big bandwidth providers because its not good for their profit margins, and that is not good for Congress.

spam is like crime, its more profitable to allow it up to a certain level. spam profits banks, shipping companies, credit card processors, ISP, major bandwidth sellers, etc. These groups give millions to (in the US) our rulers to maintain the status quo.