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"