FTC Comes Down Hard On Kodak With $26,000 Spam Fine
from the so-effective dept
The Federal Trade Commission has shown companies it means business when it comes to enforcing the CAN SPAM Act, reacting to Kodak's spamming of 2 million people with a massive $26,331 penalty. That'll teach people not to spam! This is the kind of no-holds-barred action that makes the FTC think its enforcement of CAN SPAM is effective, when it actually illustrates why it isn't. Kodak got stung for its emails not including an opt-out mechanism, which the company says was due to a technical problem. Slapping such a huge company with such a small fine for what appears to be a minor mistake really does nothing to stop the huge flow of spam from less legitimate sources, nor, at 1.3 cents per person spammed, does it represent much of a financial deterrent.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hmmm
my two cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spam is spam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Addressable fines
Like for stolen goods:
Scenario A:
Hey where did you buy this?
At National Retailer X. Hmm, looks like an inventory scam. Let's investigate them.
Scenario B:
Hey, where did you buy this?
From a scurvy lad in a parking lot downtown.
Hmm, uh, is he there often? Where does he live or work from?
I dunno.
Hmm... Uh... Hmm. I see. Oh well.
But seriously, if you slap a penny fine on someone, even if it's deliberate spam, it becomes just a marginal increase in the cost of doing business and not a very effective deterrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Enoug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe we should start thinking with our heads and not with our mouths?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spam will end when it's obsolete
Fines won't work either. First of all it's too hard to find them. Secondly, there will always be some country that our government can't reach them at. That's the problem with the internet being global.
Spam will end when it's ineffective. I dunno about you, but I get about 50 spam emails a day. I get about 1 a month that makes it past google's filters. If all email filters were that good, it just wouldn't be worth it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, we are now in a very Tech-Savy era, and if you dont know how to keep spam out of your personal inbox, well then, you just dont belong online.
And besides, spam is only sent to you when you sign p for something online. If you never sign up for anything online, or if you neevr input your email address into any online form, then you are safe.
Please stop complaining about spam, unless you are very old. SO kodak made a mistake, big deal.... I hardly beleive they did it intentionaly.... however, seeing how they only got a "slap?" on the wrist,(more like a light brush), they might be enticed to really start spamming
my 2cents and a dollar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
your take on this subject is niave and your solution is absured. The only real way to stop spam is to go after the corporations paying them to send the spam.
I recieve emails from Kodak once a week or so, but I signed up for their newsletter as I use their products. I don't believe Kodak spams and I do feel not having an opt out function was a mistake. The FCC needs to reorganize their efforts and go after the corporations that are actually contributing to spammers incomes, when there is no money being paid to spammers only then will the spam stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've monitored my mailserver's logs every day for the past 2 years and there is no indication that they are using much of a list of email addresses; usernames is another story however. What I am noticing is that they are trying every username on their list until they get a valid recipient which doesn't work on my setup because 2 bad commands(including invalid usernames) from the same host will get them blacklisted. And I know that's what they're doing because there never once has been a "andrew" or "cynthiam" on this host since it's only had a handful of email addresses on it ever but lots of those names pop up all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aint enouf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What difference does it make if includes on "opt-out option"?
Zero tolerence for it...the fine is too light...but it is a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless of course they use a dictionary attack and spam you that way..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do we really want...
You guys really like our gov telling us the people of the USA what we can and can't do?
Hey it's your freedom... You really like giving it away?
Hey spammers? Clean up your act, do it right... it's simple your lists would be worth more. Your services would be worth more. You would be able to charge more for a smaller broadcast. Less work. OR end up with the US Gov owning the whole dang thing just because we as the people couldn't figure it out and Big Bro needs to help us.
The future looks dim for all of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COOL! I'm gonna spam AMERICA!
Just more proff that CAN-SPAM was a waste of time. It has done far more harm than good.
Did you know anyone can gain access to almost everyone's e-mail address that doesn't want spam, BECAUSE of CAN-SPAM? How? Easy.
Sign up for an affiliate account at any web revenue site, such as CJ.com, advertising.com or valueclickmedia.com.
Look up any offer that allows email ads. Download their 'suppression list' A 'suppression list' is a list of ALL the email addresses who have 'opted out' of THAT OFFER in the past.
Viola, I now have THOUSANDS of email addresses to spam with whatever I feel like. I only break the law if I send them info on the offer the suppression list was for in the first place!
Think they have some secure way of keeping those email addresses safe? Think again - most don't. I have downloaded dozens of lists from the most obvious places - such as http://www.website.com/suppression.txt (most common location on sites)
With a simple script I could just search a few thousand domains for /suppression.txt and end up with tens of millions of free VALID email addresses in minutes....
Aren't you glad your elected officials are here to protect you from spam?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fines and charges in relationship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Human Stupidity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...or use a virus to harvest your address from a friend's address book...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Fine
Try looking up sarcasm in the dictionary. Might help you understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]