Feds crash internext
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6812669/
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=6908
also on yahoo and cnn news amongst others
ok now does anyone else see the feds crashing the most popular industry convention as a LOUD wakeup call?

if they had served via knocks on the door thats one thing but to plan and execute at the biggest US based show .. well thats telling me something else.

from content to spammers to banking - the adult peaches are being squeezed in all areas imho

i've heard rummors of another 3rd party getting worried too .. things that make you go hmmmmmmmm

GG sorry sunshine .. they slipped past me *sigh*

Good - spammers deserve to be publically humiliated - makes it better for all us legit webmasters.

vicki - can you fix the yahoo & cnn links please :)

Might be time to pull those Sign Up 4 Cash links |couch|

Yeah, I'm not upset that they got the spammers, what concerns me are the conventions. There is already rumblings about sponsors not attending now that the gov has decided to target there.

Heck its a 'get em all in one fell swoop' type thing and makes for great publicity that they are so called saving the world *rolling eyes*

as ole granny mary used to say .. it makes me grit my teeth!

What strikes me as odd is why do it at Internext? The company is based in Vegas, why not go to their office & serve them there? Why pay $170 to get on the floor & hunt around for them (they had no booth according to the Internext site)

And they announced it today - why wait a week?

I'm betting that it happened during or near the time the convention happened (probably yesterday) and someone is trying to scare us away from the convention |couch|

More about this tonight on the Radio Show :D

Re: Feds crash internext
 

If I was doing something clearly illegal I'd worry. If g-men start breaking down doors during the dark hours of the night and average adult webmasters start disappearing - then I'll pack my shit. Otherwise, I'm just happy to hear that I'll be receiving a couple less daily spams.

I been attending BBS conventions in 1992, comdex turned adultdex, and webmaster conventions.

I always said, we wore an "X" on our forehead and attending the show was the most economical way for the gov't to get info all under one roof.

This latest action DOES NOT scare me, they shot their load, have no real prosecution budget, and are getting canon fodder from it all.

If your in this business, the risks have never gone away, so don't be surprised when you hear somebody got pinched.

Its the business we are in :-)

Would it end up on so many newspapers if it was served the "regular" way? More publicity this way :)

SwedeGuy, you are correct. They are relying on the scare tactic domino theory where our paranoia makes us self regualting and conservative.

So the FTC served some companies. I am HARD pressed to believe they did not think this could be their reality. If they had awareness that what they were doing could bring the heat down, they must have a legal fund.

Its amazing how the gov't can harrass for SPAM but cannot do much to stop child porn.

If you all did not know....sure the CP sites get shut down for a second but the Feds cannot prosecute unless the child in the pic can be identified....what are the chances?

The Feds made an entrance, they been at our show for years collecting info, and all this news should do is bring every webmaster the awareness our business is with risk.

Nothing more, nothing less.

One would think that the article on msnbc would have mentioned it if they wanted to use the "publicity" angle.

What I got from the link I read earlier was that the person spamming wasn't in compliance with can-spam; which is what made it illegal.

The sponsor(s) benefitted from the activity, which makes them liable as well under the law I guess.

So I'm wondering what the sponsor(s) policy on mailings is/was? Did they state that you cannot "spam" and that any mailers containing links to them must be compliant with can-spam etc etc etc?

You just made me click that old fart in your sig. God damn Gabboo teaser ;)

The other boards are saying this female is a tough cookie and she implied that sponsors have all the liability for their webmasters.

Personally, I just don't see how the US can hold us responsible for what a webmaster does when they VIOLATE our policies about spamming. This just does not alarm me.

I mean, really...if I have a bone to pic about Amazon, all I have to do is join their affiliate proggie, launch a spam, and watch them go into bankruptcy over legal fees? It is not going to happen this easily.

If the courts see you have a spam policy in place, they cannot possibly think you can handle how others misuse your products. Your already a victim of the webmaster and now a victim of the Feds....

Just don't see any follow thru potential here. They may try but as soon as the first adult company stands up and wins, they will never try to prosecute a sponsor based on a renegade webmaster.

It looks like the spammer worked for them.

Six businesses and five men have had their assets temporarily frozen by a Las Vegas federal court and are prohibited from sending out any deceptive spam as the case proceeds, the FTC said. Only one of the men charged actually sent out the e-mail, but the others are held liable because they hired him, said Eileen Harrington, associate director of the FTC's Marketing Practices Division.

"It's not just people who push the button to send the spam who can be held liable," Harrington said at a news conference.

I would really like to see a reputable news source mention where the subpoenas were handed out.

Anyway, here is what the ftc has
http://ftc.gov/opa/2005/01/globalnetsolutions.htm

This is correct. But let them make a case and get it to stick.

We have talked about 3rd party liability since 1997 with hardcore images, and I do not recall any cases "sticking".

I believe as long as a sponsor can show they did all they could to prevent this action, no judge is gonna lower the hammer.

I personally nor can any sponsor guarantee a webmaster can be controlled. We can teach, we can preach but I cannot reach in and break his fingers before he clicks, "send".

If this be the case, say bye bye to affiliate programs, and I don't see his happening.

She is talking about the company being responsible for an employee"s actions, Lee. Nothing mentioned about affiliates.

WTF!

Reflected was in the FTC complaint too.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0...w=wn_tophead_4

"The Nevada companies named in the FTC complaint were Global Net Solutions, Open Space Enterprises, Southlake Group and WTFRC, which does business as Reflected Networks. Also named in the complaint were Global Net Ventures of London and Wedlake, which the FTC said is reportedly based in Riga, Latvia."

http://www.reuters.com/audi/newsArti...toryID=7295482
"Dustin Hamilton, Gregory Hamilton, Tobin Banks, Philip Doroff and Paul Rose were charged as individuals."

I guees Phil didn't tell the whole truth when I asked him about the active spam blocks on their network |angry|


My bad before, I thought they would be all over that it was served at the porn convention.

There's something funny about that too - from http://www.reflected.net/ :

01/11/05 - The FTC's recent press release regarding the investigation of WTFRC, Inc. of Las Vegas alleges charges being brought forth against several individuals and corporations which operate out of the Las Vegas, NV area. While the FTC charges WTFRC, Inc., doing business as Reflected Networks, Inc., as a defendant in the case, the charges are not against Reflected Networks, Inc. of Illinois, with its presence at www.reflected.net. For more information please contact pr@reflected.net

http://ftc.gov/opa/2005/01/globalnetsolutions.htm

"based in Las Vegas; WTFRC, Inc., doing business as Reflected Networks, Inc."

How many Reflected Networks can there be in Vegas?

Lets get the wording straight here.

"based in Las Vegas" is the same as "operate", right? Not "registered"?

I don't buy Reflected's story that it's not them.

http://sos.state.nv.us/corpsrch.asp

Search for "WTFRC".

President: DUSTIN HAMILTON

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=105590

"Meet Your Host, Reflected Networks -
Las Vegas-based Reflected was founded by Dustin Hamilton, an entrepreneur with a background in the adult Internet, and Doroff, a techie with a background in the dot-com boom (and bust) of four years ago or so."

WTFRC, Inc and Reflected Networks, Inc has the same president/founder.

Plus the website for signup4cash.com has a nice like to reflected as a "business partner"...

It all goes together nicely.

The actually WHOLE complaint:

http://ftc.gov/os/caselist/0423168/0...omp0423168.pdf

In my opinion, the key to this situation is that the program owner / network owner / affiliate / employees all appear to be aware of the mailings, have paid for (an initiating act) for these mailings, and have rewarded the mailers for their actions. This isn't just a program accepting spam by accident, it would appear that the program's intentions from the word go are to work from spam traffic (as many programs have done in the past, I will add).

This is significantly different from a large affiliate program that might time to time have someone spamming their sponsor codes. A program that spots and takes timely action to stop accepting traffic and stop paying for it will probably not face legal issues any more than an ISP would if they take action to curtain the spam in a timely manner.

It's all about taking the appropriate actions. I hope that programs will learn to not only cancel the affiliate account, but to DECLINE THE TRAFFIC AS WELL.

Redirect spam traffic to google or something. Stop profiting from the actions that are clearly NOT going to be tolerated by the feds.

Alex

as if anyone's really going to redirect mail traffic to google...

Ror, if the FTC is going to end up seizing stuff and making people miserable, then, yes, traffic will end up getting redirected or otherwise moved off. Nobody is going to want the heat. If these guys cave and plead, then the FTC will be enboldened to come after each and every program that knowingly purchases spam traffic.

In that situation, what would YOU do with spam mail traffic?

Alex

I must get about 10 spams per day promoting the site "Give Me Pink"

I was amused when I searched for "can spam" on cnn`s site search and the alternative search said "did you mean 'can s&m' "!

Actually, I was at Internext in the legal seminar, when one of the lawyers who was on the panel, mentioned that the Feds were on the convention floor that afternoon and had served one of his clients. He wouldn't say who or why, but I am assuming it was because of the spamming issue. He was talking about protecting ourselves from the feds.

The interesting thing he said though, was that we need to be more careful what we offer on our sites for free. In other words what we offer that underage kids can get to easily, despite the over 18 warnings. He also said in his opinion the Feds will be going after the more explicit sites likes fisting and anal etc. rather than general sites. Who knows though. We can only wait and see.

I don't want any of us in trouble with the Feds. It's just not good for business. But, I really hate getting |spam|

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ck=3&cset=true
"Claiming a victory against X-rated spam, the Federal Trade Commission late Tuesday won an order to shut down illegal Internet advertising for six companies accused of profiting from sexually explicit e-mail."

Which means? Shut down internet ads?

"The FTC sought an injunction halting the network's illegal e-mail ads. The judge agreed Jan. 5 to a temporary ban, which he extended Tuesday."


This is the only explanation I found of the temporary ban:

http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/3457841
"The TRO prohibits the defendants from engaging in what the FCC claims are deceptive practices and freezes the defendants' assets, pending a preliminary hearing for a permanent injunction hearing. "


So all of them have basically got their assets frozen?

The very issue you talk about is correct. We have been taking about the 5 hot buttons since 1997, and we had a very loose time for 8 years under Clinton Administration and Janet Reno.

Ashcroft came in wanting to encourage all States attorneys to bring prosecution to adult webmasters and then 9/11 hit and then the war in Iraq and he is now bye bye.

This issue is still a bomb laying dormant. This business is with risk and the more you show to all the more legal budget you need to set aside.

The Feds are not going to pick on big companies only, they will pick on small and medium as well to send the message that NOBODY is immune from prosecution.

But even if we had not potential bomb lurking, taking precautions is always a wise business decision because 90% of webmasters have NO LEGAL budget and feel dealing in porn is their right.

Skewed thinking at best.

Serenity, there are certain acts that have either been found to be obscene in the past, or are borderline enough that they could be argued. Fisting, bizarre insertions, etc. Anal sex is, well, one of those weird areas that nobody wants to talk about.

The problem in the US is the obscenity is based on "community standards". So first off, before they can come after you for obscenity, they would have to figure out what community you are a part of. Merely having your place of business or servers in a location would not be a certain selection of community. It could be where it was VIEWED, so it could be anywhere including Bible Thump, NC or Salt Lake City, UT. There really isn't any case law on this issue.

Some people would suggest that the lack of direct obscenity prosecutions is because the feds don't want to lose a community stand case in court. So they are instead writing new rules for 2257, spam, and whatnot in an attempt to get us all on more concrete and measurable terms, not on areas of pure judgement.

Remember, the internet is a community of it's own, and most of the acts you refer to have been available online for more than 5 years (which is the common standard for determining what is accepted by the community). As a such, I think there might be a good legal case to argue that fisting is NOT obscene to the internet community, as it has been tolerated for this long.

I think the pressure is on programs and processors now to push away the spammers - can-spam is going to get used, and every one of you is going to get swept up if you don't keep your houses clean.

Alex

I agree, but I also suspect that full legal protection will take more than just posting a "do not spam" clause in a sponsor's ToS. There are, or at least have been, sponsors who appear to do a "wink and a nod" about allowing their affiliates to use email spam, even though their public ToS forbids it. I imagine a judge in such a case would want to see some proactive evidence of policy enforcement, such as you mention - deleting spammers' accounts in a timely manner, etc.

To backtrack the discussion a little, ok quite a bit... I'm not surprised in the least that the FTC used a venue like Internext to pull this "sting". Aside from the obvious publicity, it was economical too. With one leg of the "company" in England and another in Latvia they stood a good chance of nabbing all the key players without the expense of sending agents abroad and wading thru any international extradition proceedings.

(Note to self... keep an eye out for clean cut looking dudes wearing hawaiian shirts, bermuda shorts, white socks and sandles and Aviator sunglasses at the Phoenix Forum.) |waves|

Have they finally stopped wearing tiny gold coke spoons around their necks? |rasta|

Lassiter, I agree - it isn't just putting "do not spam" in the ToS, but also actively monitoring ALL refering traffic and looking for the patterns of spam and such (like looking for heavy traffic from a redirect only page, newly registered domains, and such. Plus also taking active steps to not only kill the accounts, but to stop taking the traffic.

No matter what, the internet cannot be held to a higher standard than real life - affiliates and resellers of all sorts of products do very deceptive things in their marketing, it is the wise company that distances themselves from this stuff ASAP and stops doing business entirely with the crooks.

It will always come down to "did you do enough" and "did you really try". In the current case, I think the feds are trying to show that the left and right hands (and the other hands, for that matter) all knew what was going on, and as such, neither the sponsor, the network, nor the mailer themselves took action to stop the non-compliant mailings. That is the sort of thing they are looking for.

NOTE: The boys from e-piccash might want to pay attention to this case, their epicnutz domain is hitting me hard, like an elephant with stomache problems. Lame ass "it's an affiliate" answers just don't cut the mustard.

Alex

I just got my last check from them returned from the bank as REFER TO MAKER

I guess that's the code for when an account is frozen :(

Or it's a way of telling you that praying to the divinity is now your only hope. :(

Well, this is interesting. I just got another check in the mail - dated Jan 11th, postmarked Jan 21st.

I'm a bit hesitant about cashing it :D

I got a reply:

They are safe to cash now. The account was frozen but isn't anymore. Sorry
about the problem.

I'm a daring kinda guy - I think I'll deposit them :D

(sorry I brought the Doom & Gloom back to life)