Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTC Recommends Bounty on Spammers

Comments Filter:
  • Oh yea.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Krypto420 (652140) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:24PM (#10273522)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:25PM (#10273530)
    Like a good caning or flogging plus prison time and life bankrupting fines and I'm sold on this!!!!
  • by EodLabs (722242) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:25PM (#10273533)
    Bounty is a good idea, but I was hoping for more of a Mad Max scenario. You know, 2 Men Enter... 1 (non-spamming) man leaves
  • Bad Idea (Score:4, Funny)

    by ravenspear (756059) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:25PM (#10273535)
    This action will hurt consumers.

    You see, now I'm going to have to increase the cost of my penis enlargement pills to cover the increased risk this represents.
  • Bad (Score:0, Funny)

    by illuminata (668963) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:28PM (#10273556) Journal
    1. I can think of a lot of different types of criminals that would deserve a six-figure bounty before a spammer.

    2. Taxpayer funded? Bullshit. I don't care if it comes from a non-profit organization but there is absolutely no reason why taxpayers should have to fund six-figure bounties on the heads of people who cause an annoyance. Fuck, put it on Johovah's Witnesses first. I actually have to stand up to deal with them.
  • by uberdave (526529) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:31PM (#10273572) Homepage
    Oh yeah. Now since the playing field is little even, let me get my catcher's mit.

    Why did I just imagine someone grinning evilly whilst cocking a machine pistol?
  • by christopherfinke (608750) <chris@efinke.com> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:33PM (#10273588) Homepage Journal
    Just tell me where I can donate to the bounties.
    Chris Finke
    920 Delaware St SE #3003
    Minneapolis, MN 55414

    Thanks in advance!
  • Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:39PM (#10273627)
    Your post advocates a

    ( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

    approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

    ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
    ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
    ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
    ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
    ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
    ( ) Users of email will not put up with it
    ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
    ( ) The police will not put up with it
    ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
    ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
    ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
    ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
    ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

    Specifically, your plan fails to account for

    ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
    ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
    (x) Open relays in foreign countries
    ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
    ( ) Asshats
    ( ) Jurisdictional problems
    ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
    ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
    ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
    ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
    (x) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
    (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
    ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
    ( ) Extreme profitability of spam
    (x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
    ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
    ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
    ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
    ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
    ( ) Outlook

    and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

    (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
    been shown practical
    ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
    ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
    ( ) Blacklists suck
    ( ) Whitelists suck
    ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
    ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
    ( ) Sending email should be free
    ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
    ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
    ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
    ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
    ( ) I don't want the government reading my email
    ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

    Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

    ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
    (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
    ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
    house down!
    ----
    Also, finding spammers has never been a problem. [spamhaus.org]
  • by nmoog (701216) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:43PM (#10273655) Homepage Journal
    says he with a free-ipod spam sig.
  • by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:50PM (#10273696) Homepage
    1. Send massive amounts of spam
    2. Profit
    3. Frame someone else for having sent the massive amount of spam
    4. Get them on the "most wanted spammers" list
    5. Turn them in for $100,000
    6. Profit more
  • by pyrrhonist (701154) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @10:53PM (#10273716)
    FTC Recommends Bounty on Spammers

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

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

    Oh.

    Nevermind...

  • by GMFTatsujin (239569) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:00PM (#10273771) Homepage
    A bounty doesn't really make sense the way that spammers are currently prosecuted.

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

    I wouldn't consider paying a bounty hunter who brought in the spammer any other way.
  • by thomasdelbert (44463) <thomasdelbert@yahoo.com> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:01PM (#10273778)
    Your company advocates a

    ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (x) vigilante

    approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

    ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
    (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
    (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
    ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
    ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
    ( ) Users of email will not put up with it
    ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
    ( ) The police will not put up with it
    ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
    ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
    ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
    ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
    (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

    Specifically, your plan fails to account for

    ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
    ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
    (x) Open relays in foreign countries
    ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
    (x) Asshats
    (x) Jurisdictional problems
    (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
    (x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
    ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
    ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
    ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
    ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
    ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
    ( ) Extreme profitability of spam
    (x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
    ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
    ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
    ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
    ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
    ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
    ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
    ( ) Outlook

    and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

    (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
    ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
    ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
    ( ) Blacklists suck
    ( ) Whitelists suck
    ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
    ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
    ( ) Sending email should be free
    ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
    ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
    (x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
    ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
    ( ) I don't want the government reading my email
    (x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

    Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

    ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
    (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it.
    ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

  • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:02PM (#10273784)
    What we really need to do is figgure out how to make it so that spam isn't profitable. Ever.

    You'd have to legislate out stupidity.

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

    We have to get rid of the fools.

  • Re:Bad Idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by bluewee (677282) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:07PM (#10273809)
    Dear FTC:

    I am reporting a spammer, RAVENSPEAR, an IP will be provided by SlashDot, and the address will be provided by the ISP. Could I get the sum payed out to me in 5 installments of 20,000 USD over 5 years?

    Alex

  • by tempest2i (763762) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:07PM (#10273811) Homepage
    I'm waiting for the day we get a reality show based on the bounty hunters out searching for these spammers. *Cut to a scene of 2 large men bursting in the door and some fat balding man infront of his computer trying to eat memory keys of information before getting caught* now that's tv I'd watch!
  • by pyrrhonist (701154) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:07PM (#10273812)
    Chris Finke 920 Delaware St SE #3003 Minneapolis, MN 55414

    Dear Chris,

    Thank you for posting your home address in a public forum. Now we know where you live. Do you have any idea what we are going to do to you? Do you? We're going to...

    SEND YOU UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL JUNK MAIL!!!!!

    MUH, HA, HA, HA!

    Sincerely,
    The International Brotherhood of Spammers and Unsolicited Bulk Email Advertisers
  • by FuzzyFox (772046) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:09PM (#10273824)
    Now spammers will let you MAKE MONEY FAST!!!
  • by skribe (26534) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:13PM (#10273855) Homepage
    Dear subscriber:

    As you may know the CANSPAM legislation now includes a SIX FIGURE bounty on spammers. I am willing to share with you a list of known spammers for a paltry sum of $US10. Please send money to...

    skribe

  • Great idea! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gzip Christ (683175) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:32PM (#10273935) Homepage
    Dear Slashdotters,

    Do you need a new mortgage? Do you want to earn your d1pl0ma? Do you want a Nigerian penis? Send $1 to:

    Happy Dude

    355 S 520 W, Ste. 100
    Lindon, UT 84042
    Sincerely,
    Darl McBride
  • by Gannoc (210256) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:35PM (#10273953)

    Now our tax dollars are going to go towards keeping our penises small. Great.

  • by AJWM (19027) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:44PM (#10273997) Homepage
    Or just the pelt?
  • by G-funk (22712) <josh@gfunk007.com> on Friday September 17, 2004 @12:11AM (#10274135) Homepage Journal
    Oh it's not a scam! What you do is, see- you give them aaaaaall or your credit card numbers, and if one of them is lucky, they send you a prize

    Sorry iPod boy, it is a scam, it's called a pyramid scheme.
  • by TykeClone (668449) <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Friday September 17, 2004 @12:42AM (#10274257) Homepage Journal
    Don't forget Col. Mubutu and his money laundering - that's important too!
  • by jfengel (409917) on Friday September 17, 2004 @12:55AM (#10274304) Homepage Journal
    Maybe we can get two spammers to turn in each other. Sure, they'd both get the bounty, but then we'd sentence them to the same jail cell. That's reality TV I'd watch.
  • Bounties are silly -- most geeks would do this for free.

    How about legalizing (or promising to look the other way) vigilante attacks against spam sites? If they give a phone number, set up an auto-dialer. If it's a website, launch a DoS attack. If there's a physical address, mail them a bomb. If this stuff was all legal, I guarantee the problem would solve itself.

    Seriously... bounties that are marked "dead or alive" are far more effective.

  • So we can have a spammer deciding the laws for spammers. Sort of like the fox guarding the chicken house.

    Kind of like lawyers making laws?

  • by Robber Baron (112304) on Friday September 17, 2004 @01:15AM (#10274356) Homepage
    "Further, I am very curious as to how many bounty hunters will have will and/or the ability to get foriegn spammers to US Courts.

    You are free to use any methods necessary, but I want them alive...no disintegrations!
  • Federal programs are available to you! You can make THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS with a simple email or phone call!

    1. Find a spammer
    2. Turn him in
    3. Profit!!!

    The Federal Government wants this message to get out to all InterWeb users! So send this mail to all your friends and family!
  • by roadrunnerro (800862) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:14AM (#10274711)
    Is that dead or alive?
  • by Threni (635302) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:41AM (#10275065)
    > You're not going to see "world-famous physicist" at the top of Stephen
    > Hawking's webpage (and yes, I checked. It's not there).

    Yes, but he DOES claim to be "The dopest shiz-nit in the universe":

    http://www.mchawking.com/

  • by stephanruby (542433) on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:30AM (#10275149)
    "From 18 to 80 Blind crippled or Crazy If they can't walk or crawl we'll Drag Em Back".

    I'm glad they're ADA compliant.

  • by Ronald Dumsfeld (723277) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:22AM (#10275391)
    Now picture a spammer having to deal with him. Perhaps the FTC is going too far?
    They didn't say "dead or alive", so they're not going far enough.
  • by SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:24AM (#10275406) Journal
    Spam Boys, Spam Boys,
    What you gonna do?
    What you gonna do,
    when we ping for you?

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...