var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

Skin Art Squared

July 17, 2009 2:56 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

That's like, the Golden Rule. Never ever click on spam. Even if you're genuinely interested in it, type the url in instead so you're not promoting spam. And of course, never respond to one asking to be removed. Just filter it out and be done with it.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 2:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

When you start looking at the statistics regarding spam, you can see what a huge cost these messages have on the entire world. WikiPedia indicates that up to 97% of all email sent is spam. Then, on that same page it says the cost of spam worldwide might be $50,000,000,000 per year.
I think that even though spam usually does not do harm to an individual, so it seems that it is a minor inconvenience, that does not need to be punished. However, the spammers are making a lot of money off of the system, without paying anything back. Since, most of the spam costs are borne upon the receiver, rather than the sender, they get to illegally make money on everyone else's dime. Therefore, the spammers should, when they are found, be punished harshly, via fines and prison time, because if the trend continues as it is, spam will start putting noticeable strain on the global information infrastructure.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Brent Woodle

July 17, 2009 5:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cristiana: I call shens on the $50b estimate.

From TFA: A 2004 survey estimated that lost productivity costs Internet users in the United States $21.58 billion annually

I've been using the Internet and working in an environment with an e-mail client for a long, long time and I can't say that I've lost any productivity to spam.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 10:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Brent Woodle: Your quote references the US. Cristiana was talking worldwide. I think it's a reasonable estimate. Even if your spam filter is such that you never get spam, somebody had to program the filter. Somebody had to build and maintain the infastructure to handle all the spam. It adds up.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 2:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My IT director forwards us IT-looking spam because he thinks the products are worth looking into. He thinks some of it we should buy.

I'm the opposite. I don't care if it's the best IT item I've ever seen. If they spammed me to show me it, I don't want any part of it.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 17, 2009 8:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The_IT_Crone: If only everybody would adopt this line of thought. The more you try to annoy me into buying it, the less likely I'll buy it. Billboard on the side of the road? Nothing wrong there. Shouting TV/radio ad? I'll see if anyone else offers the same product. Spam? Go to hell. Popup/sound-playing/otherwise annoying web ad? I will make an effort never to do business with you.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

P_Smith

July 17, 2009 3:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The mortgage meltdown happened because frauds promoted bad loans to people who didn't know any better. Why be surprised that there are people dumb enough to believe spam? The spammers piss me off, but I get just as annoyed by \"free\" email services.

I have long suspected (though there's no proof of it) that these email providers sell the account names of users to spammers. I've created email accounts, never used them except to login once, and within days started receiving spam - the account name was never used or posted elsewhere. Some people tell me it's \"intercepted data\" or \"site cookies\" that are the problem, but it wouldn't surprise me if the email providers were deliberately selling addresses for revenue.

As well, most email provider still \"block spam\" by targeting email addresses, rather than the contents of the email; as long as the new address is forged, the same garbage will repeatedly show up. Even allegedly \"strong\" filters on certain sites (e.g. google) are somtimes/often bypassed and junk emails get through. No matter how many keywords you put in, the spammers still inundate you with their crap.

I've written to such email providers but all are too arrogant to respond and/or too lazy to implement filters that allow wildcards. Failing that, I'd like to have the choice of an \"approved\" list rather than a \"banned\" list: the only emails that get through are those you permit from specfic people, not possible \"cold\" emails from anyone.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 3:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@P_Smith: I once created an account with a name that has been assumed to be Chinese, based on the spam that arrives to it. I have never sent out mail with that address to anyone other than two family members. I still don't know how that address got out to the Chinese spammers.

$\"user-pic\"$

AreYouConfusedYet?HowAboutNow?

July 17, 2009 9:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@P_Smith: \"Even allegedly \"strong\" filters on certain sites (e.g. google) are somtimes/often bypassed and junk emails get through.\"

I've had Gmail for 3 years and I've had literally 3 spam emails out of thousands (I don't bother to look at them and let them pile up.)

I never got spam until I really used it (I had hotmail before I got Gmail and it took me a little bit of time to switch.)

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 3:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@P_Smith: I have long suspected (though there's no proof of it) that these email providers sell the account names of users to spammers.

This happened to me when I got an iTunes gift card for my birthday. Within hours of giving Apple a temporary email address (I do this for everyone) I was bombarded with Viagra, Cialis and advanced fee scams.

$\"user-pic\"$

Etoiles

July 17, 2009 3:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@P_Smith: I've created email accounts, never used them except to login once, and within days started receiving spam - the account name was never used or posted elsewhere.

I've received a lot of spam on various e-mail addresses that you can tell they just went through alphabetic permutations, and my particular combination of letters happened to be a valid e-mail address.

(Although weirdly enough, one never-yet-used e-mail account -- I created it in my married name, and I won't be married for another 10 weeks, it's just a placeholder -- seems to attract loads of spam but ONLY in Chinese. I have yet to figure out this mystery.)

$\"user-pic\"$

nybiker

July 17, 2009 3:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@P_Smith: Some sites and email programs have a whitelist option. That way only email addresses in the list get through.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 3:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Is it me, or is there just more spam coming in? I mean, on Monday I pulled emails from my company's email server and a pop up notified me that I had 49 emails from xxxxx@xxxx.hu. Took me 10 minutes to resolve them from the system.

Oddly enough most of our spam is in Russian or Hungarian.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Rectilinear Propagation

July 17, 2009 3:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It says that 12% have responded to spam because they were \"interested in product/service.\"

NO! NOOOOO!

These people need to be beaten in the head with a ClueBat®.

ClueBat®
When idiots need to get a f---ing clue.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Brent Woodle

July 17, 2009 6:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Don't judge me man. Where else can I get \\/1agra without a prescription?

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 3:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Actually my theory is that 20% of the population is very clueless. Clueless enough to realize that they are clueless.

The fact that only 12% of computer users are that clueless is a bit of a step up in my opinion. Maybe regular computer users are a slight shade better than the general populace?

My theory stems from a rather idle observation of various polls and statistics on a number of topics.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 3:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Damn Typo:

\"Too clueless to even realize that they are clueless.\"

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 3:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder how they defined spam - I've never bought anything from a spam email, but I have bought stuff from legitimate advertising emails sent by companies I've done business with in the past.

The 12% figure seems awfully high for actually spam...

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

oldtaku

July 17, 2009 6:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: There were 18% of the population who thought Bush was still doing a great job when he left, too. I usually run with a 15-20% rule for how many people will be actively, self-defeatingly, gullible. So 12% is a little low - maybe it's because teens never read email?

$\"user-pic\"$

Hooray4Zoidberg

July 17, 2009 5:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: I was thinking maybe that was a little high as well, but that's probably about the same percentage of people who fall for 419 scams and cash checks from phone companies that randomly arrive in the mail so I can believe that same group really does think those emails are special offers to them.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 3:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: Spam is basically unsolicited emails. If you sign up for a company's product, and check a box allowing them to contact you for future promotions, its not spam.

If you did not give the permission explicitly, AND there is no way to unsubscribe from their emails, that is spam even though you regularly use their products. (Though admittedly, it is not the \"impress her with your Klingon\" kind of spam, and is in more of a gray area.)

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 6:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless:

no, I know what spam is. But what I wonder is if the people filling out the survey did.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 4:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: There's one merchant in that latter category that I'd love to report under the CAN-SPAM act, but they've taken down the webpage for reporting. Thanks, .gov.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: the act says:
\"can spam\". it clearly is living up to its name :P

$\"user-pic\"$

Michael Belisle

July 17, 2009 3:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: That's just one of the things. There's spam, spam, and then there's spam. Not everyone defines and treats those different kinds of spam equally.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 3:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm curious, the \"the 18-24 crowd has a strong desire to \"see what would happen\"

This may generate pay-per-click revenue, but unless they actually buy a product, the company makes no money, only the promoter of the company.

So how do they stay in biz?

And a few times, I am guilty of clicking on spam, (to tell the widow of the Nigerian prince I am VERY interested in helping her...). 100% of the time, the email is returned as invalid.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Skin Art Squared

July 17, 2009 6:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SkokieGuy: \"This may generate pay-per-click revenue, but unless they actually buy a product, the company makes no money, only the promoter of the company.

So how do they stay in biz?\"

They're not on a pay-per-click system for bulk spam. At least not the smart ones. You buy spam services from someone that can provide it. Someone may for example say, \"I can provide you with whatever you want. 1 million per hour, 2 million,...\" etc. Different price points depending on the package. Buyer buys a spam package, spammer spams for a fee. The fees are usually pretty substantial because maintaining bulletproof servers for spam is expensive. And it does pay off. You send that much out, you will get a return. Guaranteed.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 4:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SkokieGuy: Sounds like you're emailing back rather than clicking on a URL in the second case.

I actually think that the promoter/spammer/botmaker is often the one making money rather than the merchant anyway--they promise some schmuck that they'll get the email out to millions of people, and the fact that most of 'em block it and nobody buys anything doesn't change the fee.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 3:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Interestingly enough, in a 2007 study, researchers ordered prescription pills and other spammy medical products from a bunch of spam emailers, and found that most of the time they actually got what they ordered, no problems.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 6:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DePaulBlueDemon:

Maybe you should put a sign on the computers saying to beware of ID theft, not to give out ANY personal information etc.. Not that he would read it, but at least you wouldn't have to babysit him all the time. You could simply say did you read that sign? and he'd say well yeah, and you say that is a RULE not a suggestion heh

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 3:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Thanks, small dicked damn mofos.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Starfury

July 17, 2009 3:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This just goes to prove that there are people that are too dumb to own/use a computer.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 4:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

And to continue our report on \"Duh\" Science Results, telemarketers continue to call because someone, somewhere is buying their sh**.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

sardonicbastard

July 17, 2009 4:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Sadly, I can say that my mother was part of that 12%. A couple of years ago for christmas, she had the idea to buy a bunch of those little mini RC cars for everybody to play with after christmas dinner. They were a hit, and a lot of fun to play with. Afterwards, I was talking to her and the conversation went something like this:

\"Hey mom- those cars were a great idea! Where did you think of that?\"

\"Well, I got an email about them a few weeks ago, and I just ordered them right then and there.\"

(suspicion growing)

\"...You got an email from one of your friends?\"

\"It was some advertisement.\"

\"Noooooooooo!\"

You can imagine how the rest of the conversation went after that.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 7:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sardonicbastard: It was probably from a legit firm she's done business with before. Like Toys \"R\" Us or Amazon, right?

$\"user-pic\"$

sardonicbastard

July 17, 2009 7:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HurtsSoGood: Unfortunately not. It was some spammer, who ended up charging about 25% more than she would have paid if she had just bought them at a local store. Boo.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

DePaulBlueDemon

July 17, 2009 5:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I work in a public library and we know a gentleman who uses the public computers here on a daily basis. He doesn't understand the concept of spam, and always wants to know how he can get in on some amazing \"deal\". He's of limited capacity, and we have to always remind him not to give out his SS number, etc.

When he gets an unsolicited email stating he has won X amount of money, he gets really excited and wants to know right away how he can claim it. When we tell him it's not real and he should delete it, he gets angry and frustrated, as if we're impeding his chances of striking it rich.

We have these conversations on a daily basis with him.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 5:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I used to volunteer with special needs adults in a computer lab. Some of them just did not understand the concept of spam, no matter how much you try to explain it. They're just excited that someone is emailing them and will read every single word. Sometimes they'll click on them, sometimes they'll reply.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Hooray4Zoidberg

July 17, 2009 5:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's my assumption that these must be the same people (or descendants of ) who kept the telemarketing business profitable for the past 40 years. Nobody would waste the time and money on telemarketing if it didn't turn a decent profit. Ditto on the spam.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Shoelace

July 17, 2009 7:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Can someone get their hands on email lists of people who respond to spam? Then anti-spammers can write to them (doubt they'd mind more mail from unknown senders) and let them know the dangers and costs associated with responding to spam.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ceez

July 17, 2009 10:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace:
that's an excellent idea!

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

ceez

July 17, 2009 10:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I bet that 11% of those \"clickers\" are the users of the company I work at!

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 10:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

10% of your costumers will buy 90% of your products.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 6:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

But only if they're related to your costume or making another costume for another client.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

jcargill

July 18, 2009 9:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Am I the only one who wants to kill that Valtrex guy?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 19, 2009 9:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I sat next to someone for three hours once in a college computer lab. The entire time the guy was clicking and entering his personal information to EVERY spam email he had. He left, and came back in three hours later. To a whopping 2,000 new emails. He was still there another two hours later when i left. Why was I there? Mechanical Engineering Degree Projects Suck...

","","");