Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Gotcha! DNS Popup Scammer Fined $1.9 Million 328

Posted by timothy from the and-the-people-say-bite-me dept.
Mister B writes: "A scam artist who trapped surfers mistyping their URLs (including those for children's websites) and barraged them with popup ads for pr0n and gambling has been busted to the tune of about $2 million. Apparently the FTC got ticked after having to close 64 separate browser windows! The FTC has a sense of humour nevertheless: the case name is 'Cupcake Party' (the scammer did business under 'Cupcake') :-) . More details at MSNBC and the FTC."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gotcha! DNS Popup Scammer Fined $1.9 Million More

Gotcha! DNS Popup Scammer Fined $1.9 Million

Comments Filter:
  • Can they be jailed if they refuse to pay?
    • Can they be jailed if they refuse to pay?

      INAL

      If the case is criminal, absolutely. If you think the fine is excessive (which is unconstitutional), you could appeal it to a higher court. If you don't get the appeal and you don't pay the fine, you definitely could be jailed.

      If the case is civil, you can't be jailed for refusing to pay. However, they can send deputies to collect any property you have an auction it off. (remember OJ Simpson) However, some of your property is protected by law, for example, your house, and they can not take that.

      As stated before, this case is civil.

    • I use Opera, and I am not familiar with these "pop-up windows" of which you speak.
  • Finally, justice served... I've been waiting a long time to see this hapen.

    • Re:Sweet (Score:3, Funny)

      by dattaway ( 3088 )
      Justice servced? I don't think so.

      I was hoping to read it as 2 million lashes. Except these lashes wouldn't be served automatically by a script, but administered by real people who just don't like spam.
  • He must be getting paid per impression. What good is a pr0n or casino ad targeted at cartoon network fans? The don't have any money.

  • 1.8 Million ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fire-eyes ( 522894 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @12:27PM (#3584167) Homepage
    The court also has barred the defendant from participating in advertising affiliate programs on the Internet, and has ordered him to give up more than $1.8 million in ill-gotten gains.

    People like this will always keep doing shit like this as long as there are enough morons out there to manage to give this dude $1.8 million.

    Come on people, wake up.

    • Re:1.8 Million ... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by brinticus ( 581532 )
      The article noted that the guy "FTC nvestigators said Zuccarini makes from $800,000 to $1 million per year by charging advertisers whose ads appear on the browser windows." So he got banged for two years salary. If he's been at it for three years, then given the huge payoff, I'd say it was worth it. FTC needs to put more bite into its rulings.
    • People like this will always keep doing shit like this as long as there are enough morons out there to manage to give this dude $1.8 million.

      That's precisely the problem, people out there really do call Miss Cleo, buy "make my penis 25% larger" products etc... These schemes are nothing but looting of dumb people.

      Just because there is no shortage of dumb people, I don't think we all have to resign ourselves to death by porn spam. Maybe this actually exists, but I'd like to see some online division at the FBI or FTC which aggressively goes after SPAM groups which don't honor remove requests, and scams designed just to take people's money. I'd really like to see Miss Cleo, fake human growth hormone pseudoscience, etc.... all put out of business. I wonder what percent of the American economy is just bs scams.

      This may be an impossible problem, given it's global nature, but there is so much **** just in the US, there's plenty that could be done.

  • How is this illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Clue4All ( 580842 )
    Sure, it sucks that you get hit with a bunch of pop-up ads, but what did he do that's illegal? You typed in the wrong URL that led you to a perfectly valid site and pull down data from it. Be more careful typing next time.

    • Re:How is this illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by smart.id ( 264791 ) <jbd AT jd87 DOT com> on Saturday May 25, 2002 @12:30PM (#3584183) Homepage
      How about because it is illegal showing pornography to children under 18? There were porn pop ups on websites that children mistyped. You have to ask if the person is 18 before you can show them that content.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @01:37PM (#3584399)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • ...I typed in a URL in the form of "www.{product name}.com". I informed him that the URL contained a registered trademark.

        And what, exactly, is wrong with that? (Please tell me you're not one of those people who believe that such domain names should automatically go to the owner of the trademark?)

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • I was worried that your only beef with Mr. Zuccarini at the time was that he held a domain name with someone else's trademark in it, and "you can't do that -- some nice company owns that word!" (not your words, obviously, just an argument I've heard here before, and one I was concerned you were making).

            I agree completely that he was using the name in bad faith, and that's the point that needs to me made against him, not just that he was using the name at all.

  • Warez (Score:5, Funny)

    by 3ryon ( 415000 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @12:31PM (#3584190)
    From the article:
    The new windows returned to the screen even after they were closed, the FTC said.

    "After one FTC staff member closed out of 32 separate windows, leaving just two windows on the task bar, he selected the 'back' button, only to watch the same seven windows that initiate the blitz erupt on his screen," FTC lawyers said in the complaint.


    Just wait until the FTC goes surfing for warez. Maybe they'll shut the bogus warez sites down as well and we'll finally be able to download Microsoft Bob by doing a search on Google.
    • I thought that quote in the story about the back button was a little bizarre. "I loaded this page, and it popped up these windows. Then I loaded this page again and it popped them up again!"

      Well, duh....

  • What I fail to see is this..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chardish ( 529780 ) <chardish.gmail@com> on Saturday May 25, 2002 @12:32PM (#3584192) Homepage
    This website pops up 64 popups every time you visit it. Which is likely to be once, after you realize your mistake, you won't come back.

    This is considered criminal behavior. But what about companies like X10 or Casino-On-Net that you see about 30 ads an hour for, every time you try to use the web? In the end it is those companies that make you close more ad windows. I think that those are far more guilty. What about the pr0n ads that won't let you use the back button to leave, and if you try to close the window, they re-open themselves? I shudder to think how many thousands of popups from those companies I've closed in my lifetime.

    Of course, it's the browsers themselves that are allowing these popups to happen. I would bet that companies like Doubleclick are paying M$ and Netscape not to develop protection from popups within their browsers. But I'm a conspiracy theorist.

    -Evan
    • I would bet that companies like Doubleclick are paying M$ and Netscape not to develop protection from popups within their browsers

      Then use Opera.

      1. www.opera.com

    • So use Mozilla... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Inoshiro ( 71693 )
      Or write something yourself, yeesh. There are solutions. Life is not a conspiracy theory.

      • Re:So use Mozilla... (Score:3, Informative)

        by yorgasor ( 109984 )
        This is called competition. If mozilla allows you to block bandwidth-sucking ads and prevent malicious pop-ups, that is a huge feature! I personally just visited the site to see how mozilla handled it. I was redirected a couple of times, but saw only the last page. When I hit back, I returned to slashdot.

        Now go tell all your family and friends that Mozilla can protect them from having their web experience from being hijacked by malicious users, that they can save their precious bandwidth by blocking annoying ads and that it has beautiful tabs so they can multitask the web. No, they don't have to change browsers, but once they see all the neat things they can do with it, they'll want to change browsers. And then if Microsoft discovers they're losing customers because they don't have these features, only then will they change.

      • Or if you really want to use the IE engine try CrazyBrowser [crazybrowser.com].

        It uses the IE dll's for rendering and it's what IE should have been. It's also free (as in beer).

    • Microsoft doesnt need any outside incentive to ignore that feature, msn is loaded with popups as well, and they are getting their fair share of income. Besides, as someone said earlier, as disabling ads becomes easier for regular users, the advertising companies will make it harder for all of us to get around.
    • That's why I surf for pr0n using lynx...
    • Disable javascript. Or use the security zones to block javascript on every site except for sites that you explicitly enter as trusted. Or download popup stopper. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but it's not that difficult to stop that sort of activity.
    • Say what you like about the annoying X10 ads. Yes, they're annoying. Yes they're smutty. But they do have one redeeming feature that I have yet to find in any other popup ad. They give you the option to disable it, without resorting to technical measures that otherwise limit, even in some small way, the capabilities of the browser.

      Other ad companies should pay attention here. Since X10 ads are so prevelant, its only safe to assume that X10 is profiting from them. Its also safe to say that the site owners are getting paid from the impression of them, otherwise you wouldn't see them everywhere. So X10 had a great idea to win on both fronts. For those people who most certainly do not want to see them, X10 can save impression costs. And after disabling the ads, a whole lot of people will quit bitching about those annoying X10 ads. X10 gets to keep advertising to an audience that's a more willing potential customer than those who curse the day X10 was born everytime another ad pops up.

      At least this is a better form of market research than gathering random bits of private information about people. And probably far more effective.

      -Restil
    • I would bet that companies like Doubleclick are paying M$ and Netscape not to develop protection from popups within their browsers. But I'm a conspiracy theorist.
      Now the monopoly status of Microsoft begins to get interesting. Seems like there are laws about doing something on a computing device contrary to the intent and desires of the owner of that computing device. The problem with being a monopoly is that "everybody does it" is no defense when you are "everybody".

    • ...and Netscape not to develop protection from popups within their browsers.

      Uhhh... they did.

  • This guy isn't new.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by kylus ( 149953 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @12:33PM (#3584197) Homepage
    About time they did something about him. He seems to be fairly (in)famous. Looking up his name on Google [google.com] and you find a slew of articles, mostly about his cyber-squatting tactics. Seems the FTC has been after this guy for a couple of years now. Nice that they finally canned him.

  • Some random thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fleeb_fantastique ( 208912 ) <{moc.beelf} {ta} {beelf}> on Saturday May 25, 2002 @12:36PM (#3584205) Homepage
    Hmm.. I can't help but feel that the article is leaving some information out. I'm curious about the nearly $2 mil in 'ill gotten gains'. Pop-ups don't lead to any monies unless someone purchases something through them

    Based on what the article is (not) saying, I'm lead to believe that some of these popups cause folks to purchase goods that were never delivered.

    If I were the FTC, I would see that this gentleman continue to pay for all the URLs he purchased, and ensure each of them redirects people to the correctly spelled version of the URL he tried to fake, for a period of ten years.
    • Most companies only pay for purchases from your link... But some pay per 'impression' which is basically just a unique ad view.
      • Hmm... perhaps, but even so, if he delivered that ad view (however scummily), he's fulfilled his part of the bargain; the person contracting his services should ensure they produce a contract that gets the desired results. It doesn't mean, necessarily, that he got his gains illegally (if that were the case, most businesses, like Microsoft, should also get hit for several million dollars).

        I still feel something is left out of the story.

  • jeez (Score:5, Funny)

    by natefanaro ( 304646 ) <natefanaro@gmail.com> on Saturday May 25, 2002 @12:39PM (#3584212) Journal
    I love how when you go to the MSNBC article, a pop-up ad arrives and there's a huge ad in the beginning of the web page.
  • From the article: FTC investigators said Zuccarini makes from $800,000 to $1 million per year by charging advertisers whose ads appear on the browser windows.

    In this case the advertisers are getting screwed more than the poor sap who fat-fingered the URL. My question is "Do companies who advertise on the web have any control over how their ads are used?" Cupcake is getting paid by the popup and is really sticking to these advertisers and even moreso because the ads aren't really reaching a target market. I would think the advertisers have more to lose than the person browsing. With that in mind, how hard would it be to script a browser to feed off these popups by creating false hits and start bankrupting advertisers who really don't care how their ads are used.

  • Some of the scamms (Score:5, Informative)

    by loconet ( 415875 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @12:59PM (#3584285) Homepage

    Here are some of the scammed domains they are talking about ..

    http://www.caroonnetwork.com
    http://www.cartoon networ.com
    http://www.artoonnetwork.com
    http://w ww.cartoonnework.com
    http://www.cartoonnetork.com
    http://www.cartoonnetwrk.com
    http://www.catoonn etwork.com
    http://www.cartoonnetwok.com

  • How ironic (Score:3, Funny)

    by corbosman ( 136668 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @12:59PM (#3584287) Homepage
    What's funny is that MSNBCs website actually pops up an ad when you go to that URL ;)

    Rather ironic.

    Cor
  • What's wierd about this is that whenever I, er, my friends go to pr0n sites, loads of windows pop up in much the same fashion as described in the article...heck, I, my friends I mean, think it's just more quality content than they truly deserve.

  • A Day In The Life Of Cupcake's Lawyer (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @01:11PM (#3584327) Homepage


    Cupcake's lawyer: "Good news, Cupcake. I just got back from a meeting with the prosecution.

    Cupcake: Ok, and what did they say? I'm anxious to know just how bad off I am. Fill me in."

    Cupcake's Lawyer: Sure thing. Here's the deal -- The have decided to SEE HOT CHIXXX WITH YOUR NEW X10 CAMERA!!! FREE!!!!!!!!! HOT!!! FREE!!

    Cupcake: Yeah, very funny. Now get serious, i'm paying you by the hour. What happened at the meeting?

    Cupcake's Lawyer: "HOT!!! HOT NOW!!!! FREE HOT!!! NOW FREE!!!! NOW FREE HOT!!! "

    Cupcake: "Stop it!!"

    Cupcake's Lawyer: "So, we're not going to have to worry about the fact that the judicial process in these sorts of matters can tend to take HOT XXX HORNY SLUTS!!!!! "

    Cupcake: "STOP!!!!"

    Cupcake's Lawyer: "HOT!!! HOT HOT FREE HOT NOW!!!! NOW!!! NOW!!!!!!!! FREE NOW!!!! so, you wont be going anywhere for a while. In the meantime, i've asked the presiding judge to look into the prosecutions CASINO ON-NET!!!!!!"

    Cupcake: "STOP!! STOP IT!!! JUST STOP IT!!!! NOW!!"

    Cupcake's Lawyer: "HOT!!! HOT FREE XXX!!!! XXX NOW!!!! XXX NOW FREE!!!! FREE!!! HOT CASINO!!! HOT CASINO FREE!!!!!!!!!! FREE HOT XXX NEW CASINO!!!! FREE CASINO!!!, so gimmie a call when you decide what to do, and we can go from there. Talk to ya HOT!!!! XXX!!!! FREE HOT!!! then."

    Cupcake: But wait a minute! You havent told me......

    Cupcake's Lawyer: "HOT!!!!!!!!! HOT XXX CASINO!!! FREE CASINO HOT!!!"

    Cupcake: "But!.... But wait!! Dont go yet! You havent..."

    Cupcake's Lawyer: "HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

  • Not a troll, or a flaimbait, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @01:17PM (#3584351) Journal
    No, i'm sorry but i don't see the crime here. Sure the guy is a complete f*cking asshole, but thats still legal (unfortunately, as there are many many assholes around). If you type in the wrong url, thats your fault. If he was spoofing other sites or using they're graphics, thats a copyright issue. But opening pop-ups no matter how many is the fault of the browser.. and seeing as most people use IE, its Microsofts fault, just like with vbs virii (funny how its always their fault)

    "Victims of the scam should contact the commission"

    What victims??!? the stupid users who used stupid browsers that have bad security? (yes pop-ups are a security issue when they start eating your resources). What about the stupid advertising companies? he was in breach of their contract, they should have cancelled it.

    Apparently the FTC got ticked after having to close 64 separate browser windows! - judging by the use of the word "task bar" lets assume he was using MS Windows

    Well thats what you get when you use MS windows and IE. I would be pretty ticked too, but not at the site, at the appalling software design of Microsoft who hand the responsibility off saying "ohhh trusted system" no it isn't, its simple. Don't let sites spawn 100's of windows with your browser. Put in the necessary function to filter this, let the user say yes or no, let them close all the spawned windows at once, make the browser scan the script for this stuff. stupid developers.
    • If you type in the wrong url, thats your fault. If he was spoofing other sites or using they're graphics, thats a copyright issue.

      But how would you feel if Slashdot started directing extra pop-up ads at posters who can't spell "that's" and "their" correctly?
      • But how would you feel if Slashdot started directing extra pop-up ads at posters who can't spell "that's" and "their" correctly?

        Then there'd be no more Slashdot, as Cdr. Taco and crew would be too lost in pop-up windows to post any new stories!

    • Re:Not a troll, or a flaimbait, but.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by pjrc ( 134994 ) <paul@pjrc.com> on Saturday May 25, 2002 @08:04PM (#3585500) Homepage Journal
      No, i'm sorry but i don't see the crime here. Sure the guy is a complete f*cking asshole, but thats still legal

      As a matter of fact, it IS A CRIME. Laws have been passed with very specifically make it illegal to do register domain names in bad faith and deceive users for commercial gain.

      This particular criminal lost other cases and appeals and there was slashdot coverage (well, linking to real news sites, who themselves just rehash the AP wire). If you search, you'll find those articles and the linkage to the appeal court's findings of the specific law that was broken. (If I cared more about slash moderation, I'd go to the trouble to find the old article and links, but you can easily do this yourself)

      The point is that there is a law against this specific actitivity. He broken it. It IS as crime. It's about time the FTC finally got around to persuing criminal charges (he's lost dozens of civil cases and knew very well he was breaking the law).

    • What's worse, getting 64windows popup when typing in a wrong URL, or , actually buying something from one of the 64 windows and being scammed?

  • When you know what you're doing is very wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @01:29PM (#3584384) Homepage
    ...you should be punished to a VERY VERY high degree and with severe criminal penalties.

    It is inexcusable for people to be able to perpetrate such fraud and deception against people and expect to get away with it through denial and clandestine methods.

    He KNOWS he was doing something wrong and took extensive measures to hide himself from prosecution. These are not mistakes. These are not errors of judgement. These are not crimes of passion nor momentary lapses of reason. This is an evil bastard who, without remorse wanted to turn a buck at everyone's expense.

    People who unintentionally kill someone are more severely punished than this malicious person. It just seems to me that people don't "hate" crime enough to care about really addressing the problem.

    And it's also sad that with the millions of complaints by millions of citizens (and consumers) that it takes some annoyed government official to really get the ball rolling to address the problem of scum on the internet.

    So the message is that it's okay to piss off anyone except the people who can personally do something about it. The government doesn't represent the people any more... the government just represent themselves for their own purposes.

  • Excellent. This guy is a scumbag. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25, 2002 @01:33PM (#3584391)
    A few weeks ago, my boss' 8-yr-old daughter was at school, in the computer lab. She went to go to Yahoo's kid site, Yahooligans, but mistyped it - www.yahooligons.com. She got the porn ad page. So, to her credit, she backed out. To her ANTI-credit, though, she went back, called a friend over to check it out. I can imagine this girl going "Look! BOOBIES!" *laugh*. Another nearby kid saw this, and told a teacher. The principal wanted to suspend her for a week - the parents (who rushed to the school when they heard about this) managed to talk them down to a day.

    A couple of days later, I start sniffing around WHOIS records, and whose name do I find attached to the domain? John Zuccarini.

    Glad to see this scumbag getting what he deserves.
    • Funny thing is, this still happens. The guy got bagged, and still, I just tried typing in that URL, and sure enough, was still bombarded with porn. A f'ing kids site?!? Legal or not, that guy is a jerk. I hope HE doesn't have any kids.

      And ironically, I probably just made him a half cent. But maybe I am eligable for returns on a class action suit!!

    • The principal wanted to suspend her for a week - the parents (who rushed to the school when they heard about this) managed to talk them down to a day.

      The parents allowed the student to get suspended for a day? That's just ludicrous. If it was an honest accident (and there may be more to the story than we see here, like using it to make a big disruption in the class), then there should be zero punishment.

      If it was me, I would have said something like, "Tell you what. How about NO punishment, or I sue the school for not having the proper blocking software to prevent my daughter getting exposed to porn." :)

      • Where in calling another kid over to see it and going back forward do you find an accident?


        hawk

  • FBI (Score:2)

    by Skyfire ( 43587 )
    Agent K: No, ma'am. We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor we're aware of. May we come in?
  • it prevents someone from using javascript to open widnows by giving you the option not to allow this. I guess IE does not have this functionality. Ever since this came in mozilla I no longer get ANY popup add at all.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @03:25PM (#3584721)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • How can you kneejerk for 9 paragraphs? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Fair enough, in the seventh you say he is a sleezebag, but what on earth does this have to do with free speech? Next thing you'll say, free speech means you can shout louder or broadcast white noise louder than anyone else; URL I dunno but there is also the argument against shouting 'fire' in a packed theatre which doesn't belong to you.
    • There is a difference between making the porn in question available and deliberately marketing the porn in question to children.

      It is not a question of free speech but a question of boundaries; he crossed my boundaries and violated my space when he typo squatted this domain name in a form that my nieces could easily accidently access.

      I guess you don't have kids (nor nieces), so you can't understand.

      - Sam

    • Re:What a joke... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Theodore Logan ( 139352 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @08:47PM (#3585607)
      There are no exceptions, ever. None.

      *Ahem*

      There are a gazillion exceptions (think child pornography, nazi propaganda, copyright...) I hate to break it to you, but the world isn't black and white. There are exceptions to every rule, even this one.

      Besides, pretending like there is some profound ideological difference between a) fining this man for using pop-ups and b) removing the means for this man to use pop-ups is just plain silly.

      But this rant is pointless, since the obvious point of course is this: this has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with the medium he uses to convey his "message." He is entitled to say "FREE XXX PORN!! HORNY XXX SLUTS!!" all he wants, he just can't do it this way. Very much like someone can't be allowed to go to a schoolyard where 7-year olds are playing and start screaming "HORNY TEENAGE SLUTS."

      Were this not moderated to 5 it would not be worthy of a reply. Actually, it isn't now either. I should have modded you to hell instead of writing this tedious rant.

    • This is not about free speech. It's more like free typos which is NOT up for grabs by sleazeballs. It's more like misleading billboards which look like hiway signs. It's more like false and deceptive advertising which doesn't look like advertising. Free speech does not include my right to sell your email address to spammers and your home telephone number to telemarketers.

  • scary precedent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Saturday May 25, 2002 @03:59PM (#3584832)
    Sure, it isn't nice to pop up dozens of pages when people mistype web addresses. But if you aren't completely clueless (like the guys at the FTC apparently are), you should be using a web browser that doesn't allow that sort of thing to happen.

    I just find the precedent that someone gets fined $1.8M for having domains that are kind of similar to the domains that some big companies have scary. A figure that large seems to come out of thin air. I mean, who got harmed? The advertisers got their money's worth, and no kid is going to confuse the product of "cartoonnetwork.com" with a bunch of big breasted women.

    Particularly chilling is that WIPO considered registration of "guinesssucks.com" [wipo.int] a trademark violation in his case (trademarks are only intended to identify a specific product; they are not intended to let trademark owners control what people say about the product).

    I think this is a dangerous threat to free speech. Sure, this particular guy isn't particularly nice. But what if you or I want to create a web site "sony-service-sucks.com", where we exchange grievances about Sony service and perhaps organize a class action lawsuit? What if your domain name happens to be confusingly similar to someone's trademark and they don't consider your business legitimate and have the legal dollars to "prove" it?

    Trademark holders are trying to expand their right from being able to merely control that a trademark refers without confusion to their product to a right of complete control of who uses the trademark under what circumstances in any domain, and to prohibit any kind of negative speech about their product. And they are succeeding. That should worry us all.

  • Someone who obviously missed the CS ethics class.

    It does pose a very interesting question. If you could become quite wealthy due to sleezy and underhanded action(s) which would ultimately damage your reputation and that of the Internet, would you? Perhaps this would make a good poll question.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Close