Comments on: FTC to Congress Lawrence Lessig Was Right http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/ftc-to-congress-lawrence-lessig-was-right/ Internet Safety, Windows Updates, Internet News, and More Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:14:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Joe blow http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/ftc-to-congress-lawrence-lessig-was-right/#comment-307 Joe blow Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:59:06 +0000 /?p=92#comment-307 A bounty would be cool, but the right solution is private right of action for statutory damages. That's what's worked for junk faxes. A stupid/misleading report. Nearly all spam is UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email) It's easy to find the sender of UCE. The purpose of UCE is the C in UCE - Commerce. You buy what the spam is advertising (usually purchasable with a CC or check), and you follow the money. Buy it with a CC, request a chargeback and the identity of the seller. Check has the seller's bank info on it when you get it back with your statement. (The latter is very convenient when you get a judgement against the spammer in small claims court and they don't pay.) BTW, I've seen proof the above works. I disagree with each of the recommendations of the FTC report, which are based upon false conclusions : * tie eligibility to imposition of a final court order, rather than to collection of civil penalties; * fund reward payments through appropriations, rather than collected civil penalties; * restrict eligibility to insiders with high-value information; * minimize eligibility disputes and associated costs by exempting the FTC’s decisions on reward eligibility from judicial or administrative review; and * establish reward amounts high enough to attract insiders to provide high-value information. A bounty would be cool, but the right solution is private right of action for statutory damages.
That’s what’s worked for junk faxes.
A stupid/misleading report. Nearly all spam is UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email)
It’s easy to find the sender of UCE. The purpose of UCE is the C in UCE - Commerce.
You buy what the spam is advertising (usually purchasable with a CC or check), and you follow the money.
Buy it with a CC, request a chargeback and the identity of the seller.
Check has the seller’s bank info on it when you get it back with your statement.
(The latter is very convenient when you get a judgement against the spammer in small claims court and they don’t pay.)
BTW, I’ve seen proof the above works.

I disagree with each of the recommendations of the FTC report, which are based upon false conclusions :

* tie eligibility to imposition of a final court order, rather than
to collection of civil penalties;
* fund reward payments through appropriations, rather than collected
civil penalties;
* restrict eligibility to insiders with high-value information;
* minimize eligibility disputes and associated costs by exempting
the FTC’s decisions on reward eligibility from judicial or
administrative review; and
* establish reward amounts high enough to attract insiders to
provide high-value information.

]]>