Nigerian Spammers Using TDD/TTY Telephone Relay Service
This weekend I received three or more cell phone calls from 800-855-0000, which said they were the AT&T Relay Service, which relays phone calls from deaf people using TDD or TTY or now internet webform services. They claimed to be a "Dr. Charles Ego" (or some name like that) asking to confirm that I'd received his email, and asking for my email address. I was a bit puzzled, because none of the deaf people I have known over the years are doctors, and one of the two signing people I know well was at dinner with me when the call arrived, and they were calling like this was a business call, but it was Sunday night before a US Monday holiday, so they were probably calling from somewhere that it was Monday daytime. The name sounded enough like the usual fraudulent Nigerian Email Scam, so I asked what time zone he was in, and he replied 12:00 GMT, which didn't make sense (either it's Atlantic Time, or he was just wrong.) So I poked around the AT&T Relay Service web site, and it sounds like we've got a new web-based interface to free telephone relay service and the spammers have discovered the potential for abusing it. Sigh. And it's got a privacy policy that sounds like it'll be difficult to track down these callers..... The web site says they deal with privacy issues by not storing call content, though at first reading it doesn't really say whether they do or don't store call record information like IP address, phone number, or call duration, though since it's free that probably means it's either government-subsidized or some other mandated program with accounting requirements like that, or if they have an "except for drugs or terrorism" requirement.
On Tuesday 27 May 2003 03:53 am, Bill Stewart wrote:
This weekend I received three or more cell phone calls from 800-855-0000, which said they were the AT&T Relay Service, which relays phone calls from deaf people using TDD or TTY or now internet webform services. They claimed to be a "Dr. Charles Ego" (or some name like that) asking to confirm that I'd received his email, and asking for my email address.
Interesting turn of events. I'd have expected porno spammers to blaze this new territory. But then, it seems that the Nigerian spam crew has more time to waste. Reports like the one at http://www.geocities.com/a_kerenx/ tell of pulling what is essentially the telemarketer timewaster maneuver on the scammers. Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't yet seen incidents of spammers following up via another comm channel to find out why their spam was ignored and/or repeat their pitch. For that matter, with all the First Amendment blather heard from spammers, I'd almost expect one of them to argue for proactively enforced delivery and some sort of "obligation to read" statute.
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 04:23 AM, Roy M.Silvernail wrote:
On Tuesday 27 May 2003 03:53 am, Bill Stewart wrote:
This weekend I received three or more cell phone calls from 800-855-0000, which said they were the AT&T Relay Service, which relays phone calls from deaf people using TDD or TTY or now internet webform services. They claimed to be a "Dr. Charles Ego" (or some name like that) asking to confirm that I'd received his email, and asking for my email address.
Interesting turn of events. I'd have expected porno spammers to blaze this new territory. But then, it seems that the Nigerian spam crew has more time to waste. Reports like the one at http://www.geocities.com/a_kerenx/ tell of pulling what is essentially the telemarketer timewaster maneuver on the scammers.
Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't yet seen incidents of spammers following up via another comm channel to find out why their spam was ignored and/or repeat their pitch. For that matter, with all the First Amendment blather heard from spammers, I'd almost expect one of them to argue for proactively enforced delivery and some sort of "obligation to read" statute.
No, absolutely _nothing_ in the First can possibly imply any "enforced delivery" or "obligation to read." I assume you are semi-joking, but this bears repeating, especially for those here who seem to be unclear on the concepts. Secondly, most if not all of the "anti-spam laws" are, in fact, directly in contravention of the First Amendment. (This applies to out of country spammers, such as our friends like Dr. Igaboo Umbalago, Director of Petroleum Resources of Nigeria. Why this is so is not because the Nigerians are Americans but because "shall not be infringed" means that neither Congress nor the cops can set up screening operations to examine the content of mail or telephone calls: there simply is no authority for such things, which means those who send letters or e-mail or who make telephone calls from France or Nigeria or Taiwan are all de facto and de jure covered by the First. The "penumbra," some might call it.) Several lists or groups I am are consumed by spam and anti-spam debates. Nearly all participants in the debate miss the importance of the First. The First does not allow government to be in the content examination business. Those who think otherwise need....well, you all know what they need. I am serious. I am fucking sick and tired of bureaucrats, legislators, and even people on lists like this thinking that they have some authorization to examine the letters or e-mails I receive. Perhaps rather than retaliating against spammers, as many here have written about, we should be talking about mail-bombing and spam-bombing any politician or lawmaker who supports anti-spam legislation. --Tim May
On Tuesday 27 May 2003 09:01 am, Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 04:23 AM, Roy M.Silvernail wrote:
Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't yet seen incidents of spammers following up via another comm channel to find out why their spam was ignored and/or repeat their pitch. For that matter, with all the First Amendment blather heard from spammers, I'd almost expect one of them to argue for proactively enforced delivery and some sort of "obligation to read" statute.
No, absolutely _nothing_ in the First can possibly imply any "enforced delivery" or "obligation to read." I assume you are semi-joking, but this bears repeating, especially for those here who seem to be unclear on the concepts.
I understand the limitations of the First, but I wasn't exactly joking. And while I agree that the First cannot be said to imply such obligations, it seems to me that, on the surface, it would not preclude them, either. "Obligation to read" does not directly infringe upon the right to free speech. A deeper examination would probably show that it would infringe on the implied "right to be left alone" that is usually referred to as the "right" to privacy, but I don't think that would be enough to prevent such a law from being enacted. One would hope that it would be thrown out after an appeal reached the proper altitude. But until a properly deep-pocketed party could pursue it that far, many of the more shallow-pocketed would suffer.
Secondly, most if not all of the "anti-spam laws" are, in fact, directly in contravention of the First Amendment.
Does this include descendents of the junk-fax laws? (are there any of those, or haven't the lawgivers made the connection between fax paper and CPU cycles yet?)
The First does not allow government to be in the content examination business. Those who think otherwise need....well, you all know what they need. I am serious. I am fucking sick and tired of bureaucrats, legislators, and even people on lists like this thinking that they have some authorization to examine the letters or e-mails I receive.
How about simply holding companies absolutely responsible for the methods used to distribute their advertising? Couldn't Truth In Advertising be extended to email solicitation? The one thing that *all* UCE has in common is the attempt to sell something, and that requires an identifiable business presence. After all, people can't buy from a company if the company doesn't provide *some* method of contact to accept orders. I'd think that would at least reduce the flow of UCE on behalf of US concerns. It wouldn't touch the foreign-based spam, but how many people are going to order their bootleg toner cartridges from Botswana? The advantage is that the complainant is examining the content, not the Gummint (provided there aren't unreasonable barriers hindering complainants).
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 04:41 PM, Roy M.Silvernail wrote:
On Tuesday 27 May 2003 09:01 am, Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 04:23 AM, Roy M.Silvernail wrote:
Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't yet seen incidents of spammers following up via another comm channel to find out why their spam was ignored and/or repeat their pitch. For that matter, with all the First Amendment blather heard from spammers, I'd almost expect one of them to argue for proactively enforced delivery and some sort of "obligation to read" statute.
No, absolutely _nothing_ in the First can possibly imply any "enforced delivery" or "obligation to read." I assume you are semi-joking, but this bears repeating, especially for those here who seem to be unclear on the concepts.
I understand the limitations of the First, but I wasn't exactly joking.
I guess I nailed it when I said "I assume you are semi-joking." Too bad, as there is certainly nothing which supports an "obligation to read" or "enforced delivery." More on this below.
And while I agree that the First cannot be said to imply such obligations, it seems to me that, on the surface, it would not preclude them, either.
??? The First quite clearly says that government can't be in the business of writing law about words, speech, etc. This then precludes any such laws by any branch of government. In other words, if the State of Georgia passes a law saying that recipients of letters or e-mails have an "obligation to read" them, this would rightly be struck down as a violation of the First. And if some radio station or printer were told he has an "enforced delivery" requirement, e.g., that he must print something or broadcast something, this would also be struck down. Ditto for e-mail. Granted, most ISPs will not pick and choose which e-mail to deliver, for various customer happiness and practicality reasons, and because they don't typically examine content. But there is no "obligation to carry" traffic. Nor should there be. In fact, some ISPs throttle traffic when too many e-mails have been sent or received. (By the way, speech laws about advertising, FCC rules, pornography look like counterexamples to the general point, allowing speech regulation, but they are not. One involves "commercial speech" (though I disagree completely). One involves allocation of the broadcast channels. And the pornography case has been contentious in First Amendment cases for well over a century. And to real First Amendment supporters, such laws are anathema. Of the three examples, only the FCC rules have any plausibility, having to do with scarcity of the broadcast spectrum...and there are some interesting free market/auction ideas there. With nonbroadcast channels, whether cable or fiber or DSL or whatever, there are no such scarcities: the owner of the channel charges for use of the channel. This is important to the spam problem.)
"Obligation to read" does not directly infringe upon the right to free speech. A deeper examination would probably show that it would infringe on the implied "right to be left alone" that is usually referred to as the "right" to privacy, but I don't think that would be enough to prevent such a law from being enacted.
A law requiring that words be read _is_ a law about speech. Whether the law requires or forbids the reading of words, it is a law about speech and thus an abridgement of the freedom of speech. Nonspeaking and nonreading are precisely isomorphic to speaking and reading. As a reminder: --AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Secondly, most if not all of the "anti-spam laws" are, in fact, directly in contravention of the First Amendment.
Does this include descendents of the junk-fax laws? (are there any of those, or haven't the lawgivers made the connection between fax paper and CPU cycles yet?)
Of course. Much as my personally dislike receiving faxes I did not expect to get, any law about "unwanted speech" is a law restricting the freedom of speech. If it becomes a criminal matter for someone to receive an unwanted telephone call, or e-mail, or fax, then the First Amendment is lost. (This space reserved for Choate to claim that I am saying people can stand outside my bedroom window at 3 a.m. sending me speech messages. No, I am not saying this. This is covered by other laws, and is a reasonable limit. But "unwanted communications" when no public disturbance is involved is not the same thing.)
The First does not allow government to be in the content examination business. Those who think otherwise need....well, you all know what they need. I am serious. I am fucking sick and tired of bureaucrats, legislators, and even people on lists like this thinking that they have some authorization to examine the letters or e-mails I receive.
How about simply holding companies absolutely responsible for the methods used to distribute their advertising? Couldn't Truth In Advertising be extended to email solicitation?
You are well and truly lost. Their should be no "truth in advertising" laws whatsoever. Advertising is just speech. Government is not, and cannot be, in the business of determining which speech is true and which is not. Will praying to the baby Jesus bring salvation? Will using Bowflex make you a babe magnet? Will eating Twinkies increase your sex drive? None of these are matters for government to decide.
The one thing that *all* UCE has in common is the attempt to sell something, and that requires an identifiable business presence.
Anathema to nearly every technology we advocate, notably remailers and proxies.
After all, people can't buy from a company if the company doesn't provide *some* method of contact to accept orders.
You are oblivious to the technologies we discuss here. I cite my own system, BlackNet, from 1993, as a counterexample to your claim. Practically, even physical items can be shipped when no identifiable legal nexus exists. A lot of porn companies work this way, with cutouts and shell companies to escape regulation, taxes, etc. This doesn't mean customers don't receive the DVDs they order, though, even if the legal nexus is unreachable. Again, a matter of continuing repuational capital, however imperfect. I know there are a lot of statists now on this list, but, really, at least try to relate your proposed statist laws to technologies we have discussed (and even implemented) here so many times. UCE laws _are_ speech laws. Period. The solutions are technological and economic. And, no, they don't necessarily involve some HashCash token. In fact, this flies against fundamental economic principles of markets, to establish arbitrary schemes and rates. The fundamental ontology is what needs fixing. If a Nigerian spammer can pay his 100 oogaboogas per month (equivalent to $6.50/month, or whatever) and then send ten million messages out, this is between him and his ISP and all upstream carriers, a la standard economies, a la the silk road, a la the Digital Silk Road. That his ISP offers him this free access, or that someone he connects to does, is no different from having a broken ontology where paying 100 oogaboogas a month entitles a Lagos-based shipper to fill as many cargo ships as he wishes with product. And the solution is NOT to regulate the cost of either cargo ships or ISP rates. This is not my problem, not my government's problem, and not the U.N.'s or WTO's problem. This is the ontology of that particular market and those players will solve it in time. See Greg Egan's "Permutation City" for a near-future scenario, as a bit of background to the main story, where spammers use sophisticated A.I. methods to try to get past the A.I.-based filters of customers. Egan is wise enough to realize that none of the ill-considered A.U.C.E. schemes are going to make any real difference, long-term. Filters and systems where people _voluntarily_ charge to look at incoming messages, will be the main approaches. I don't know precisely what the rates will shake out to be (in fact, they will vary widely) or how many other measures (filters, A.I.) will be used in conjunction with payment schemes, or how bandwidth providers will charge (and how much), but I sure do know that this free market approach is both more practical and more constitutional than the statist approaches are. --Tim May
At 06:41 PM 5/27/03 -0500, Roy M.Silvernail wrote:
How about simply holding companies absolutely responsible for the methods used to distribute their advertising? Couldn't Truth In Advertising be extended to email solicitation? The one thing that *all* UCE has in common is the attempt to sell something, and that requires an identifiable business presence. After all, people can't buy from a company if the company doesn't provide *some* method of contact to accept orders.
Nearly all the spam I ever see (when cleaning out my "probably spam" folders to make sure I'm not losing real correspondence) is transparently fraudulent, advertising illegal or stolen products, from forged or hijacked sender addresses, etc. The fact that the spammers are violating laws right now, but prosecutors can't be troubled to do anything about it, makes me deeply skeptical that passing an antispam law would change that much. And when you think about it, spending a lot of police resources to go after spammers probably wouldn't make much sense, at least beyond shutting down really large organizations. It's the same problem as fighting the war on drugs or the war on music piracy, or trying to deal with your kitchen ant infestation by mashing each ant you see with your fingers. This is aside from the first amendment problems (it's commercial speech, so it may be possible to get around those problems, but who really knows?) with antispam laws. --John Kelsey, kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 02:07 PM, John Kelsey wrote:
This is aside from the first amendment problems (it's commercial speech, so it may be possible to get around those problems, but who really knows?) with antispam laws.
It's useful to remember that newspapers are commercial operations, e.g., the New York Times Corporation, and that the same arguments that commercial speech can be regulated would thus apply to newspapers....except this is not "regulate commerce" was intended to mean. And of course book publishers and authors are engaging in commerce. By the logic that commercial speech is subject to regulation, very few things would be beyond the reach of censors and regulators. (My informal understanding of the commerce clause is that it says only Congress may regulate tariffs and fees for commerce, that individual states may not do so. This was to preclude Virginia, say, from imposing a tariff on goods from Maryland. The commerce clause does not say that if a book publisher makes money ("commercial") that the words in the book can be regulated, censored, prior-restrained, etc. Of course, what has happened in the past several decades has been the extension of the commerce clause into areas it was not intended to go, such as laws restricting freedom of association (First A.) by claims that interstate commerce is affected by certain kinds of freedom of association, e.g., that a restaurant barring negroes would thus affect the purchase of napkins which would reduce business in nearby states which would affect interstate commerce. Of course, the same argument would imply that people should not be able to choose which motels to stay in or which restaurants to eat in or which books to buy, because all of these choices may affect "interstate commerce" and by the brain-damaged rulings of our courts only Congress may affect interstate commerce.) The solution is of course to restate boldly that the commerce clause in the Constitution refers clearly to regulation of actual transport and shipment, of the sort between nations. Meaning, taxes and tariffs and import quotas and whatnot. And that the states do NOT have the power to act as nations do, that is, they have no power to regulate commerce...only Congress has that power. All uses of the commerce clause involving limitations on free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc., would be ended. --Tim May
I'm actually having fun with these fuckers. Most of their spams contain a request for a contact. So I give them the phone number of the FBI, CIA, WhiteHouse, and other agencies as a call back number with a note saying "Yes, I'd love to help you, please call me back at _____ as soon as possible!" ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ <--*-->:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD. \|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Tue, 27 May 2003, Tim May wrote:
Perhaps rather than retaliating against spammers, as many here have written about, we should be talking about mail-bombing and spam-bombing any politician or lawmaker who supports anti-spam legislation.
participants (6)
-
Bill Stewart -
John Kelsey -
Roy M.Silvernail -
Sunder -
Thomas Shaddack -
Tim May