FTC Recommends Bounty on Spammers 371
joke-boy writes "AP reports that as part of the CANSPAM legislation, the FTC has issued a report recommending placing taxpayer-funded 6-figure bounties on spammers, much like the bounties placed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted."
Oh yea.... (Score:5, Funny)
Now these bastard are gonna make *ME* rich!!!!
Add physical punishment.... (Score:3, Funny)
Hoping For More... (Score:2, Funny)
Bad Idea (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
Re:Allow me to say (Score:5, Funny)
Why did I just imagine someone grinning evilly whilst cocking a machine pistol?
Re:Donations (Score:5, Funny)
920 Delaware St SE #3003
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Thanks in advance!
Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
( ) 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]
Re:Oh yea.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (Score:5, Funny)
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
Bounty on Spammers?!? (Score:3, Funny)
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...
Re:Allow me to say (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Here we go again... (Score:4, Funny)
( ) 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!
Re:Six Figures? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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
Re:Allow me to say (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Donations (Score:4, Funny)
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...
Sincerely,The International Brotherhood of Spammers and Unsolicited Bulk Email Advertisers
Re:Allow me to say (Score:3, Funny)
Make Money Fast (Score:4, Funny)
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)
Do you need a new mortgage? Do you want to earn your d1pl0ma? Do you want a Nigerian penis? Send $1 to:
Sincerely,Darl McBride
Lousy Republicans. (Score:5, Funny)
Now our tax dollars are going to go towards keeping our penises small. Great.
Do they need the whole spammer? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh yea.... (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry iPod boy, it is a scam, it's called a pyramid scheme.
Re:What a waste. Next, Please. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Funny)
Simpler (and cheaper) solution (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:California spammer running for Senate (Score:3, Funny)
Kind of like lawyers making laws?
Re:What a waste. Next, Please. (Score:3, Funny)
You are free to use any methods necessary, but I want them alive...no disintegrations!
$$$ MAKE MONEY QUICK!!! $$$ (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Nice bounty... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (Score:2, Funny)
> 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/
Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (Score:5, Funny)
I'm glad they're ADA compliant.
Re:Their Figures are a Little Off (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Allow me to say (Score:4, Funny)
What you gonna do?
What you gonna do,
when we ping for you?