FTC Wants Secret Spam Investigation Powers 264
PingXao writes "Amidst the various anti-spam efforts underway in Washington, the FTC surprised lawmakers by saying they need to be able to secretly investigate the worst-offending spammers, according to a Washington Post article. I'm generally against government secrecy, but quietly investigating spammers isn't as bad as secret courts and arrests. Is this acceptable, or another mis-step down the slippery slope?"
well that's all well and good... (Score:5, Funny)
Mike
Re:well that's all well and good... (Score:3, Insightful)
another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:5, Funny)
The NSA is a secretive government agency, but it too is not secret (though they like to pretend)
A secret government agency is like the one SciFi's Invisible man worked for, their budget hidden in the Dept of Fish & Wildlife's budget.
I could name a real secret government agency, but then I'd have to kill you :^)
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
>
>The NSA is a secretive government agency, but it too is not secret (though they like to pretend)
And while we're at it, the evidence that should be sufficient to start a spam investigation ain't exactly secret either.
I mean, if Osama bin Laden's minions in Floriduh had been sending 50,000,000 mails a day saying "CL1K HERE 4 HOT PL4N3 THRUSTIN BETWEEN BIG DOUBLE TOWER SEKS!", every day for six months, maybe the INS would have wok
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems to be a common "concept" these days that one can fight evil with evil ,-)
it's like cutting your leg to save your finger...
Re:another mis-step ... (Score:3, Funny)
"There, isn't that better? I mean, at least you can't feel your finger any more..."
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Spammers are basically evil. Yet they must be dealt with through legal means and with respect for the same rights we all ahve.
As another poster already mentioned, the FTC is hardly a "secret government agency." They are not in the habit of doing surveillance. Nor should they get into it. They should need a warrant just like everyone else.
Or at least, like everyone else USED to need... *sigh*
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:4, Informative)
If you what to make a tax deductible donation to the ACLU, then donate to the ACLU Foundation. Fight Uncle Sam with your own tax dollars!
ACLU and ACLU Foundation, What is the Difference? [aclu.org]
Although both the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation are part of the same overall organization -- it is necessary to have two separate corporate entities of the ACLU to receive two separate types of funding. This allows for the over-arching support of all the ACLUâ(TM)s various activities. Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are fully tax-deductible to the donor; membership dues and gifts to the ACLU are not tax-deductible.
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right - "used to". If **AA doesn't need a warrant, neither should FTC. Why is it that private industry has more policing power than the government whose job it is to enforce the law?
You are also right that FTC is not in the secret s
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:3, Interesting)
The old way to deal with this was to make the public notices in places where you had to look for -- like the basement cork-board of some oddly-located government building.
"It seems like what FTC is asking doesn't even come close to those two."
True, but any comparison to some other wrongdoing is irrelevant. This one is wrong, and it should be fought j
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right - that would be an "old way". Last unneeded complication to add to this would be a "spammer early warning service" for some guy to take those notices and post them on his website, or charge for the service for relaying those notices to individual spammers.
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:5, Interesting)
Prior to obtaining this warrant, the police may conduct an investigation unbeknownst to their target. They may interview witnesses, collect crime scene evidence, etc, all without neccesarily notifying their target. The FTC, however, notifies targets before commencing formal investigations. Unfortunately, targeted spammers may use this notification to frustrate the investigation, destroy evidence, or otherwise interfere with enforcement activities of the FTC.
If the FBI were given jurisdiction over spam, perhaps investigations could be conducted with a modicum of secrecy. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Instead, the FTC, hampered by bureaucratic rules and procedures, must conduct preliminary investigations in the full light of day.
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
How is spam fraud different from telephone boilerroom fraud?
Point being, I don't see why FTC regs should get in the way of what in many cases should be an ordinary criminal investigation.
Maybe they need to run stings on the worst frauds??
follow your nose, toucan sam. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:3, Informative)
Very often spammers do break the law. If you RTFA you'll see that the 53 spammers already prosecuted were prosecuted under existing fraud laws.
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:3)
Re:another mis-step down the slippery slope (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh geez... "(Score:5, Insightful)" too... where to begin?
First of all, the FTC is not a secret government agency.
Second, saying it's merely "something that most of us don't like" isn't being quite honest. This will mark a long overdue attempt to stop wholesale destruction of a public resource. Unlike the sillier things we declare "wars" on (e.g. drugs, terrorism), law enforcement activity here may actually accomplish something. It may even increase my quality of life. Lord knows nothing else has worked so far, and we're clearly becoming desperate for anybody to do something. This problem is getting exponentially ridiculous with time.
Third, cops do stuff like this all the time to stop non-Internet-related crimes. You can't pick up a hooker or buy drugs without having to worry that you might be talking to a cop. Small time con artists in real life have to worry about undercover cops all the time. Why should crimes involving the Internet be any different? How does involving SMTP at some point in your criminal activities magically exempt you from having to worry about this? It makes no sense.
Mention law enforcement and the Internet in the same breath and everyone gets all defensive, as if this is the same network as it was in the 80s and early 90s, with only scientists and researchers having access. I remember when it was like that, and it was great. But it isn't like that anymore. Now it sucks. It's full of people who can't fucking behave themselves. I say let the damn cops in already. It's not like they're not already here pestering people who don't deserve it. Christ, you can't even buy a bong online anymore! Wouldn't you rather they spent their time chasing down spammers?
Secretly investigate? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Secretly investigate? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Secretly investigate? (Score:5, Funny)
How bout investagating them in the open first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How bout investagating them in the open first? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
How can we get all riled up about the one government organization spying on us, and be completely neutral towards (or should that read in favor of?) another government agency spying on someone else, just because that someone does something we don't like?
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but if we want a chance of keeping our privacy private, it has to be unconditional.
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh? Show me where it says in the (US) Constitution you are entitled to unconditional privacy?
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This is certainly not unconditional (and I don't believe that's what the previous poster intended with those words), but the key point is that probable cause is required for the issue of any warrant. The FTC, like any other investigative agency, needs a warrant to probe personal files/information. Publicly sent spam, obviously, is open for investigation as it always has been.
Finally, keep in mind the 9th Amendment. The Bill of Rights' purpose is not to enumerate the only rights which we hold, but instead lay out some of those which the government may not trample upon. Just because some are not enumerated does not "deny or disparage" their being "retained by the people."
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The real solution is to un-define "the corporate person". It is not a real person and should not have any such rights. In fact, it has far more rights that a rea
Indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh? Show me where it says in the (US) Constitution you are entitled to unconditional privacy?
Although I'm not a privacy nut, that's the wrong question to ask. The 10th Amendment [findlaw.com] specifically spells out that the constitution does NOT grant rights (particularly inalienable rights). In other words, what isn't specifically granted or prohibited by law is power reserved by the people.
That said, it would be absurd to argue that privacy is an inalienable right (although, there are a lot of absurd people on S
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
So, after giving it some careful thought, I'm going to argue. As long as any one entity claims the right to privacy, then all entities must share that right to privacy. This is a classic "who watches the watchers" case. Lets go way out on a limb here and propose a completely one-sided transparent society. Citizens' e
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think all the secrecy necessary is already provided to them to the maximum extent possible (and arguably even beyond that). Looks like just another government organization trying "ride the wave" of a popular legislation to grab a bit more power (that they don't even need).
For comparison, remember the not-so-old antiterrorist bills that had everything-and-a-kitchen-sink in them. Since the antiterrorist bill is obviously going to pass no matter what, why not cram something totally unrelated (and hard to get passed otherwise) into it? Everyone, from FBI to RIAA tried to put their own little pieces in. Now we have a different popular legislative wave - this time for a righteous case of SPAM fighting.
There will be tons of people who will try to cram privacy-invading clauses and amendments into any legislation under the anti-SPAM banner. Since SPAM is arguably becoming the biggest legislative target after terrorism, it's a good vehicle to drive your little privacy-invading amendments into becoming the law.
They seem to be required to do more than a citizen (Score:2)
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
To PingXao: Secret warrantless spying is bad. It doesn't matter if they are investigating a suspected terrorist cell, a suspected pot smoker, a suspected communist, or a suspected annoying spammer.
You can't allow the secret spying because who they're spying on is "bad". Remember the whole reason you don't want them spying on you is that even if you "have nothing to hide" right now, that can change as what is "bad" changes. What good
A little irony anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if he got that job just on the basis of his name...
Re:A little irony anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
No, I don't think the previous FTC commissioner was named Orson, too.
secret investigations are commonplace (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, most spammers are not organized criminals. I doubt that they have concealed themselves and their activities so well that a few well placed subpoenas can't get at them.
Re:It's the internet (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't designed to spy on an amway salesman that CC's everyone in his contact list, but the advanced spammer that does a good job covering their tracks.
And just wait...I'm sure Ashcroft will come out with a terrorism/spam link soon.
Ashcroft (Score:2)
Their porn saps American manhood!
Their adverts for 9-inch dicks make the average American feel inadequate by 50%!
Their 419 scams are designed to exploit American stupidity!
Damn - their natural Viagra doesn't even work! Why, I jumped on Mrs Ashcroft the other night, after a whole packet of herbal Viagra, and never even touched the sides!
The devil is in the details. (Score:2)
I'm suspicious about any additional powers being granted. The same arguments can be made for any crime in the public eye, "We must violate your rights in order to combat this_daterdly_deed" All criminals hide their assets. That does not make me want my tax money paying government clerks to read my email.
I'm waiting for the big sting that shows
freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
If we all have the right to face our accuser - NOTHING should get in the way. Nothing short of the threat of further murder, at least in my book.
Freedom is the right to voice your opinion.
Re:freedom (Score:2, Interesting)
If you had bothered to read the article, you would know that in this case 'secret' means that the FTC would be allowed to investigate someone with out first informing them and giving them a chance to cover their trail and
I know a better authority! (Score:2, Funny)
The US military!
Spam viagra to people? Expect a B52 carpet bombing your estate into something which resembles the lunar surface. Selling CDs with email adresses? Say hello to your new friend, Mr Daisy Cutter. Running spam servers or operating an ISP which turns a blind eye toward spammers? Duck and cover! Don't forget the iodine!
I have a hard time with it.. (Score:2)
"Secret investigation" powers aside, the commisioners quoted don't seem to get it - spammers shouldn't need to be forced to "honour remove requests" - spammers need to be forced to shut down completely.
If I didn't ask to be added, I shouldn't have to ask to be removed.
This is a bad thing.
Re:I have a hard time with it.. (Score:3, Informative)
If you read the article, that was in reference to e-mail marketers since there is a legal and moral way to simultaneously be an e-mail marketer (e.g. to people who have explicitly or willingly subscribed to receive special offers from specific sources) and not be a spammer.
Is this acceptable? (Score:2)
No, it is not acceptable.
Slipper slope is not the proper phrase (but please excuse some of my improper spelling), this is a bad policy.
Slippery-slope implies some difference between the top and the bottom.
Umm, backiiing up a little, since when do lawful investigations need to be anounced to the targets anyway?
Is this anything new? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they use every dirty trick in the book and think nothing of emailing paedophilic pictures to anybody and everybody, don't spammers deserve the same level of attention as other criminals? Why should they be any different from other people who openly break the law for personal profit?
Re:Is this anything new? (Score:2, Interesting)
>If they use every dirty trick in the book and think nothing of
> emailing paedophilic pictures to anybody and everybody, don't
> spammers deserve the same level of attention as other > criminals?
s/spammers/FBI/ , and it reads more clearly.
Re:Is this anything new? (Score:3, Interesting)
Journalism 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
Woodward and Bernstein would presumably be rolling over in their graves if they were dead.
Re:Journalism 101 (Score:2)
humor aside..
This is a problem with many journalist. They don't seem to ask why.
no way...not a good idea at all... (Score:2)
so what exactly is the definition of a spammer?
i could see this used against anyone that sends e-mail, just label them a 'spammer' and the FTC gets open doors?
IF they set up very clear(and accurate) rules of what a "spammer" is, then
Secrets can be good (Score:4, Informative)
Secrets lead to abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Interstate Fraud/Illegal Activity (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see this as being very different from quietly investigating people who use the U.S. Postal service or telephone system to try and commit fraud or execute other illegal activities like ponzi or pyramid schemes. I don't think they intend this to be a way to investigate peopl
Are they really terrorists? (Score:2)
Of course I'll leave it up to you to define the term for yourself, but the way I see it, it's spammers today, hobbyists tomorrow.
Explain this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Explain this... (Score:5, Informative)
So I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to spy on them. The people don't go to court when we sue them and they don't pay up when they lose... so if the government wants to help stop the problem, I'm all for it! (And yes, I'm a Washington citizen too)
Re:Explain this... (Score:4, Informative)
From what they say in the article, it seems that are trying to track down people who are, in fact, committing the crime of fraud. The article also says they are asking for the anti-spam powers to be modelled after the powers they already use to fight fraudulent telemarketers.
If these secret investigative powers are harmful, it seems that it's a little late. They already have them and are simply attempting to apply the same standards to electronic commerce that are applied to telecommerce.
It seems highly unlikely that the FTC will be sending brute squads to our houses, even those of us who send out lots of email pretending to be hot teenage girls. Provided, of course, that in said e-mails you are not trying to sell your used panties as a penile enlargement/cancer treatment tool, particularly if you are actually a fat, balding, middle-aged man.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I don't think this should be handled by the FTC at all. Rather than having the FTC go after spammers for "misleading advertising", we should have the police go after spammers for fraud and theft of services. Still, given the current regulatory situation, where the FTC seems to have the best chance to shut down spammers, I see nothing wrong with changing the rules which govern the FTC to help them.
Empire Building. (Score:5, Interesting)
Have the representatives of the people once again intentionally forgotten that little fact: they represent the will of the people, and they govern solely at the sufferance and will of the people?
Has anyone checked the watering schedule for the tree of liberty recently?
Re:Empire Building. (Score:2)
This is just yet another attempt by a government agency at empire building. SPAM is nowhere NEAR a level of importance or National Security that would require investigations or legal proceedings to be held in secret.
I am guessing you say that based on your extensive experience and the knowledge that a .gov or .mil mailserver has never ever been spammed. While I agree that in most cases the powers the FTC is asking for are unnecessary, your blanket statement is equally as bad. There are times when, in
Mixed blessing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering the fact that (SPAMMER bullshit excuses aside) SPAM amounts to Theft of Service, it strikes me as appropriate for the FTC to treat it as an illegal act and use appropriate Law Enforcement techniques.
With proper oversite (important in ANY situation where The Man is watching someone) this is almost certainly more of a Good Thing (tm) than Big Brother in Action.
Too slippery (Score:4, Funny)
If we let them do it to spammers, who will be next? P2P file sharers? Oh wait....
And they need this because... (Score:2)
Paranoia (Score:2)
The Answer is ... Unacceptable (Score:3, Insightful)
It's my personal opinion that playing Big Brother is SUCH a dangerous intoxicant, that it is no way ever acceptable. However, this does not mean some times it is not necessary. (The conculusion to draw is that it is sometimes necessary to do unacceptable things.)
I used to know this guy, well, let me just say he built a lot of airfields in Honduras in the 80's okay? I asked him: "Is Big Brother here?" He said: "When he wants to be."
We cannot avoid that sometimes our government *needs* to do sneaky, underhanded, yet wonderfully effective shit. This ain't one of those times.
First they came for the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
-- Alara Rogers
(why did the lameness filter try to block this?)
This is silly... (Score:2)
The solution is to replace e-mail, with something that requires authentication and encryption. Anyone have suggestions to what is out there already to solve this problem?
Too late... (Score:2)
The only plus side might be that a few of those foaming-at-the-mouth ultra conservatives might give themselves a heart attack when they see some of the sites that are spamvertised.
Slippery slope? (Score:3, Interesting)
After reading the last story about spammers hijacking address space in order to support their efforts, I can only say that spamming at this level is quickly becomming a very high-profile crime.
I am beginning to think that not only should spammers be prosecuted as a first degree felony at certain levels, but the people who pay spammers should also be held responsible for the actions of spammers as well.
Simply put, there is no justification for spamming. If you have subscribed yourself, knowingly or otherwise, to some advertiser we, as users, should have the right to block any unwanted email.
There are many approaches to the problem. Some suggest revising the protocols email servers operate under might be an appropriate suggestion. I actually agree with this idea in spite of the obvious difficulties deployment will cause. Other angles include legal [criminal] strategy which I also support. It's clear the senders recognize their emails are unwelcome and go through great pains, illegal or questionably legal. They know what they are doing is unwanted, unwelcome and in the morally inappropriate. It's time to put the law behind this as well.
I find it difficult to imagine a case where "innocent" people could be hurt by legislation that aggressivly criminalizes spamming. Can anyone think of a scenario where innocents could be hurt?
secretive.. so they can do nothing (Score:2)
Send the spammers to Guantanimo with the terrorists. Can you say MILITARY TRIBUNAL? If Ashcroft can suspend due process for those suspected of terrorism, then surely he can suspend due process for those caught spamming. if he can't, let's amend the constitution... 5th and 14th amendments shall not apply to anyone involved in direct marketing, and the 8th shall not apply to anyone involved in spamming. Who's with me?
Bad phraseology from Washington Post? (Score:2)
Go FTC I say - and you all are forwarding your spam to "uce@ftc.gov [mailto]" and 419s to "419.fcd@usss.treas.gov [mailto]", yes?
Yep (Score:2, Funny)
How is this Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
The FTC is involved because the Internet has become a way to trade. The Internet though isn't solely a money venture, it's a library containing a great deal of information (among other things). The only reason this is a "privacy" issue is because of this information. If the sole purpose of the Internet was to make money it might not even be an issue of privacy.
The ability to keep criminal investigations private isn't a new thing. There is no reason that the FTC should have to divulge information about on going investigations regarding spammers. The FTC should have the ability to say, "Yes, we're investigating a number of spammers." and not have to tell Congress and the public who.
The only thing that really concerns me is this:
"The FTC also said Congress should revoke an exemption in the law that restricts its authority over telecommunications firms and other 'common carriers'."
If Congress decides to let the FTC do as it wishes with common carriers that might unknowingly harbor spammers it could be very, very bad for Internet users and ISPs. The FTC should not become the RIAA/MPAA. The FTC should go after the people generating the spam, not the networks the spam traverses.
Comparisons (Score:2)
NSA: I want INVISIBILITY AMULETS!!!
Homeland: Then I want a +5 Ring of DOOM!!
FTC: If they get that then I want a secret +8 Sword of SLICING!
GM: *Moves to Canada*
IF (Score:2)
If they want a blanket policy that they get to secretly pursie whomever they want, then NO WAY!
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism (Score:2)
Number 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are
how do they intend to investigate (Score:5, Insightful)
And another question is what happens once the investigation is done. If punishment can be handed down with due process, then that is seriously troubling. But if after the investigation, an open court proceeding is still required, then I don't see this taking us down an Orwellian path.
"as long as its the other guy" (Score:2)
OF COURSE its a slippery slope.. any time you give the goverment more power.. ' as long as its not me'.. it will be you the next time and who is going to stand up and say no for you?
Hellllllo...how can we help you? (Score:3, Funny)
Hello...this is Anxious Arnie's Aircraft Painting and Renovation Service. Arnie speaking. How can we help you today?
Hi....thanks...this is um....Bob, from the FTC. Do you guys paint...say...helicopters?
Why yes, we do. In fact we have a special running this month. One free with every six orders. How many helicopters do you have and what color did you want?
We have ten helicopters and we want them painted all black.
Oh...I see. Well, we're all out of black right now, sorry...the new Homeland Security Department just had us do a dozen choppers for them. Paint's still wet, as a matter of fact. If you can wait a week, we can do them for you then.
Ok, I understand...let me check with my boss and someone will call you right back, thanks! [click...bzzzzzz]
Spammers have rights too (Score:2)
If convicted though...time to push the limits of the 8th Amendment.
Let them get a warrant (Score:3, Interesting)
RTFA? (Score:2, Interesting)
It looks like they're just asking to be granted law enforcement powers ("you're under arrest for f
BY GOD I WANT A STARCHAMBER (Score:2)
The FTC should have the ability to slap these people in irons and flog them. If theyre in foreign countries send in the marines, remember Nooriega.
Why investigate secretly? (Score:2, Informative)
when you see headlines like these... (Score:3, Funny)
you just know the third millenium has arrived.
Investigate? Okay... (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article, it seems as though the FTC is asking for powers beyond its regulatory charter, and that makes me a more than a little nervous. No government agency has ever relinquished a power that has come into its possession, at least not any that I know of.
Hell, I've got a much better solution. Rather than turning spammer's PII over to law enforcement, it should be posted on a public forum, as some of the hackers have resorted to doing with one or two of the worst offenders. How many Fingerhut and Lillian Vernon catalogues do you think it'll take before the spammers collectively yell "Uncle"??
Isn't this the way it's supposed to work? (Score:3, Insightful)
At that point, the suspect are quickly told what they are being accused of, shown what evidence has been collected, and given the chance to challenge any evidence that may have been improperly gathered, and if evidence is found to be improper it is ignored. Any witnesses that are brought forward to accuse them are made available to be questioned by those representing the suspect, and those representing the suspect's side also get the same ability to force a witness to testify as the government for use in their defense.
Investigations secret, accusations public... seems to be working well enough so far.
And why don't providers implement proper filters? (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution to spam isn't going to be in letting big brother take care of it for us, I'm sorry. The solution is in the use and proliferation of the proper technologies that are designed to block spam and the creation of a community throughout humanity that can coordinate to stop the problem. Yes, spammers will find a way around them eventually, but making it much harder to do something means that less people are going to try, and one guy in nigeria spending 24/7 to figure out a way to get past a bayesian filter isn't going to defeat a hundred or so fathers who are good programmers who also don't like their kids getting porn and other junk.
The only kind of law I would like is a law that punishes companies who hire spammers, the threshold of proof being at least X number of e-mail advertising the company in question and no proof on the part of the advertising company that they didn't hire anyone. The fine being around to the tune of $50 a e-mail. It doesn't leave the term spam out in the open, and it doesn't keep protesters and free media places from spreading their word.
This kind of legislation is obviously brought up by worried companies who think this will help or solve the problem, and offset some of the the cost of blocking spam onto citizens. Kind of sad really, I'd rather see them targeting telemarketers.
Spam TIA? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a case where abundantly redundant evidence can easily be gathered if hundreds of thousands of pissed off citizens can report. Set a threshold of, say 1,000 complaints to jail any particular spammer, and employ people who know how to analyze e-mail headers, and the chance of frameups will closely approach zero. At that threshold, set a minimum sentence equal to first time sales of crack cocaine, and impose a three strikes=life penalty beyond that. Make some exception for minors, but impose the death penalty for employing minors in the act of spamming. Provide the same penalties as for spamming to those who knowingly sell network resources directly to a spammer (with a threshold for "knowingly" that also reflects a certain number of citizen reports - say 100).
Technology and citizen vigilance can make this the most fairly enforce set of laws in history. We need to free ourselves from this climate of anything-goes commercial abuse of honesty and business standards. Criminal law belongs here as much as anywhere - but unlike most of criminal law, citizen vigilance can be particularly effective, cost-saving, and preclusive of a government agency itself achieving too much power or secret police status. Because the crime is computer- and internet-enabled, so can be the solution, using the strengths of our systems and online community to put these bastards beyond all access to the net and the streets.
Definately Not! (Score:3, Insightful)
The possibility for abuse is far too great. Every single extra bit of power given to the government has been abused. WITHOUT EXCEPTION!
Re:Come on people use logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Give powers to the government and they WILL be abused.
Repeat after me, trying to keep a straight face:
DMCA will only be used against pirates
RICO will only be used against drug dealers
Hey, a good use for RICO! (Score:2)
Speaking of which, why can't RICO be used against spammers?
I mean, there's plenty of police departments and schools in every county that could use a fresh set of computers.
In impoverished states like Floriduh (which seem to have higher concentrations of con artists of all stripes, including spammers), there's probably even more need at the local level for a reliable source of "used" hardware.
(Just make damn sure to wipe the disks. And use some lysol
Re:Come on people use logic (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm against them being able to blanket spy on everything everyone does just in case someone might intend to or commit a crime. The difference being that in this (FTC's) case, they've identified people they want to investigate - they're not fishing quite as much.
Re:consistency (Score:2)
Re:This is absolutely unacceptable (Score:2)
Re:spammers are evil, so all is okay! (Score:2)
Re:MOD THIS UP (Score:2)
> I'm generally against government secrecy, but quietly investigating spammers isn't as bad as secret courts and arrests.
And secret courts and arrests aren't as bad as automatic imprisonment on suspect of sending spam, which isn't as bad as automatic imprisonment on suspect of infringing the DCMA, which isn't a bad as public execution, which isn't as bad as holocost.
Slippery slope indeed.
Law is law. Law is dictated by the government. Infringement of the law deserves punishment. 'Secretly inv
Re:Make spam illegal! (Score:2)
A lot of SPAM is fraud, in some states forged email headers are illegal, etc...
In California SPAM any unsolicited email that is an advertisment for a product its spam, and its illegal.