BusinessWeek has a great article about the FTC and how they’ve evolved to become a fixture in the war against spam and online fraud. They have a server that holds over 314 million spam messages and receives over 200,000 more a day. Investigators analyze the messages in their efforts to track down spammers and prosecute them under the CAN-SPAM law. Successful investigations lead to spammers being fined and sometimes jailed. They’ve also begun moving into the areas of social networking and identity theft.
I wonder though, of all the spam messages they collect what percentage originates from somewhere other than the U.S. Most hardcore spamming operations are safely overseas on bullet proof hosts in countries that don’t investigate or prosecute cybercrime either due to lack of understanding, lack of resources, or law enforcement corruption. Since these spammers can be convicted and fined without having to actually appear in court, yet can’t be made to pay up unless they enter the U.S., it seems such investigations could all be done in vain. Suing spammers doesn’t work well either – they just declare bankruptcy and move on to a new scam. There have been a few cases lately about spammers who’ve gotten themselves pretty hefty jail sentences but again, it doesn’t really work when the spammer is overseas somewhere.
So yes, the FTC is doing a great thing by investigating spammers and holding them accountable under the CAN-SPAM Act, but fighting spam will only be truly effective when all countries do so together and have similar anti-spam laws.




Online jewelry retailer Bidz.com has announced that the FTC has decided not to pursue charges related to its investigation of the company’s email practices. The investigation, which was in response to numerous consumer complaints regarding the company’s alleged refusal to honor opt-out requests, began in 2009. The CAN-SPAM Act mandates that businesses must include clear and easy to follow unsubscribe instructions on all commercial email and honor all opt-out requests or face stiff fines.
There is a growing sentiment in some business circles that spam can be clearly defined by what is and isn’t allowed under the typical anti-spam legislation enacted by governments these days.
usually call themselves direct marketers, have found a loophole to get around the requirements placed on them by the law.
Australian financial services firm CommSec was fined $55,000 (roughly $48K US) for violating that country’s Spam Act. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) levied the fine after it launched an investigation into the company’s mail campaigns and found they were in violation of the Spam Act. That Act, like the CAN-SPAM Act, requires that all commercial email include a way to unsubscribe and that emailers honor those requests. The ACMA’s investigation, prompted by numerous consumer complaints, found that the company’s emails had no unsubscribe directions and that they ignored requests from consumers who asked to be taken off their mailing list.

