Feds crash internext

[Robbo]

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' "!

[serenity]

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

[swedguy]

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?

[LeeNoga]

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.

[RawAlex]

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

[lassiter]

Originally posted by RawAlex

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.

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.

[venturi]

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.)

[lassiter]

Originally posted by venturi

(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.)

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

[RawAlex]

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

[Greenguy]

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

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Greenguy
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.

[Greenguy]

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

[Greenguy]

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

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