Hi, we have been getting porn emails that say we are recieving them because we 'opted in' to receive them. However, my husband and I share an email address and have a no porn agreement. We have a key checker and both of us are pretty on to it, so it would be completely ridiculous for him to go into a porn site on our home computer and opt in to recieve such emails. He is hardly ever on the computer and mostly I am. I know I havent visited porn sites or requested porn emails. Is there a chance that these emails are lying saying that we 'opted-in'? And, if so, how do they find us?
Porn Emails that claim to be opted-in
Started by
TrickyChicky
, Aug 31 2005 11:06 AM
2 replies to this topic
#2
Hunter
-
- General Admin
-
- 12,465 posts
The Flying Dutchman
Posted 31 August 2005 - 11:34 AM
QUOTE (TrickyChicky @ Aug 31 2005, 07:06 AM)
Hi, we have been getting porn emails that say we are recieving them because we 'opted in' to receive them. However, my husband and I share an email address and have a no porn agreement. We have a key checker and both of us are pretty on to it, so it would be completely ridiculous for him to go into a porn site on our home computer and opt in to recieve such emails. He is hardly ever on the computer and mostly I am. I know I havent visited porn sites or requested porn emails. Is there a chance that these emails are lying saying that we 'opted-in'? And, if so, how do they find us?
Dump all the emails..do not even open them. Also if you think you have problems with your PC then this will help.
http://gladiator-ant...showtopic=10517
then post a hijackthis log in this forum section in a new post
http://gladiator-ant...p?showforum=170
#3
Hunter
-
- General Admin
-
- 12,465 posts
The Flying Dutchman
Posted 31 August 2005 - 11:51 AM
January 12, 2005
Feds Hit Porn E-Mail Ring With Can Spam Law
By Roy Mark
Armed with new rules to supplement the Can Spam Act, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has won a court order to temporarily halt a pornography-related spam ring that stretches from Las Vegas to Latvia.
According to the FTC, the network spammed "hundreds of thousands" of consumers with -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually explicit or -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually suggestive e-mails, all without the consumers' consent. The FTC also claims the defendants failed to identify clearly all of their messages as advertisements, instead misrepresenting that their services are free.
The complaint also charges that the defendants violated the Can Spam Act by sending e-mail or procuring third parties to send e-mail that contained false or misleading transmission information, contained deceptive subject headings, failed to contain functioning opt-out mechanisms or did not contain any opt-out mechanisms, failed to identify the e-mail as an advertisement or solicitation; and failed to provide the sender's valid physical postal address.
In addition, the FTC alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act by falsely stating that membership to their Web sites was free. According to the FTC, by the time consumers realized that the defendants charged a fee for their Web sites, consumers had already given them their e-mail addresses.
In convincing a Nevada federal court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO), the FTC claims a network of corporations and individuals, acting as a single enterprise, violated various federal spam laws in distributing and selling -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually explicit content.
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.
Stephen L. Cohen, an FTC attorney, told internetnews.com in a telephone interview from Las Vegas that the case is the first spam litigation brought by the agency under the Adult Labeling Rule of the Can Spam Act, which was signed by President Bush a little more than a year ago. The FTC approved the implementing rules last summer.
In addition to the injunction and seized assets, Cohen said the FTC would also seek "some sort of consumer redress."
The FTC alleges the defendants sent pornographic e-mails without the required -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --UALLY EXPLICIT warning in the subject line required under the Adult Labeling Rule. In addition, the complaint charges the e-mails contained -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually explicit material within the initial viewable areas of the e-mails and failed to include an opt-out clause, all violations of the Can Spam Act.
Corporations named in the FTC complaint include Global Net Solutions, Open Space Enterprises, Southlake Group and Reflected Networks of Las Vegas; Global Net Ventures Ltd. Of London and Wedlake Ltd. of Riga, Latvia. Individuals named include Dustin Hamilton, Tobin Banks, Gregory Hamilton, Philip Doroff and Paul Rose, all of Las Vegas.
The FTC claims four of the individual defendants controlled the corporations that own and operate the Internet sites, payment systems and servers used to distribute and to sell the pornographic content. According to the FTC, the network also marketed its -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually explicit content through an affiliate program that pays commissions to third parties who drive traffic to the network's sites.
"The law gives consumers a tool to control what comes into their inboxes," Lydia Parnes, acting director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. "We are on the side of parents and kids to protect their ability to filter out -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually-explicit e-mails."
http://www.internetn...cle.php/3457841
2.2.5 What's opt-out? Opt-in? Confirmed/Double/Raspberry Opt-in?
Opt-Out email marketing is similar to spam with a remove list. A company collects email addresses, sends as much advertising to them as they like, but have to remove an email address if its owner asks them to ("opts-out").
Opt-In email marketing is a system in which companies send advertising to lists of email addresses to which people are only added if they explicitly consent. Note that opt-in consent to be added to a mailing list should only be considered as consent to be added to _that_ mailing list, and not consent to be added to any other mailing lists as well.
Verified Opt-In (sometimes known as Confirmed Opt-In or Complete Opt-In) is a system by which people have to "confirm" or "verify" their wish to join a mailing list if the initial request came through a non-secure channel - e.g. an email message (the sender can be trivially forged) or a WWW form (ditto). The confirmation typically takes the form of an email message containing a unique token or URL; the recipient must reply to the message or visit the URL to confirm that they really do want to be on the mailing list.
Double Opt-In is the Direct Marketing community's name for Verified Opt-In, reflecting their belief that this makes it too difficult for people to join mailing lists.
However, many believe that Verified Opt-In is essential for these reasons:
With Unverified Opt-In, anyone can "opt-in" someone else to a mailing list. (There is a common revenge tactic, known as a "list-bomb", in which you subscribe someone to a few thousand high-traffic mailing lists and watch their email box die.)
People do mis-type their email address; by verifying it you can avoid spamming an innocent third-party. (See The Story of Nadine for an example of this.)
Given all of this, it is impossible to tell the difference between Unverified Opt-In and Opt-Out. If you receive an advertisement supposedly sent to a "100% opt-in" mailing list when you know you haven't opted-in, the list-owner can just say "someone else must have signed you up; here's how you can remove yourself" when you challenge them about it. Are they being honest or are they opt-out spammers? If the list is run using Verified Opt-In procedures, this situation is impossible.
Opt-out is, by the way, an important component of opt-in; it should be possible for a person who has opted in to a mailing list to opt out of it at some later date. This tends to preclude opt-in lists from being passed from party to party - if you send a copy of an opt-in list to a third party, and subsequently one of your subscribers wants to be removed, how can they also be removed from the copies of that list held by the third party and anyone they might have passed the list to?
Many proponents of opt-in email marketing have stated that it produces a vastly superior response-rate than purely opt-out email marketing.
Other people will have their own definitions of these terms which differ somewhat from those I've described here (e.g. http://www.permissio.../glossary.html). As ever, the FAQ-maintainer advises you to read around.
http://www.spamfaq.n...pam-evils.shtml
Feds Hit Porn E-Mail Ring With Can Spam Law
By Roy Mark
Armed with new rules to supplement the Can Spam Act, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has won a court order to temporarily halt a pornography-related spam ring that stretches from Las Vegas to Latvia.
According to the FTC, the network spammed "hundreds of thousands" of consumers with -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually explicit or -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually suggestive e-mails, all without the consumers' consent. The FTC also claims the defendants failed to identify clearly all of their messages as advertisements, instead misrepresenting that their services are free.
The complaint also charges that the defendants violated the Can Spam Act by sending e-mail or procuring third parties to send e-mail that contained false or misleading transmission information, contained deceptive subject headings, failed to contain functioning opt-out mechanisms or did not contain any opt-out mechanisms, failed to identify the e-mail as an advertisement or solicitation; and failed to provide the sender's valid physical postal address.
In addition, the FTC alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act by falsely stating that membership to their Web sites was free. According to the FTC, by the time consumers realized that the defendants charged a fee for their Web sites, consumers had already given them their e-mail addresses.
In convincing a Nevada federal court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO), the FTC claims a network of corporations and individuals, acting as a single enterprise, violated various federal spam laws in distributing and selling -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually explicit content.
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.
Stephen L. Cohen, an FTC attorney, told internetnews.com in a telephone interview from Las Vegas that the case is the first spam litigation brought by the agency under the Adult Labeling Rule of the Can Spam Act, which was signed by President Bush a little more than a year ago. The FTC approved the implementing rules last summer.
In addition to the injunction and seized assets, Cohen said the FTC would also seek "some sort of consumer redress."
The FTC alleges the defendants sent pornographic e-mails without the required -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --UALLY EXPLICIT warning in the subject line required under the Adult Labeling Rule. In addition, the complaint charges the e-mails contained -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually explicit material within the initial viewable areas of the e-mails and failed to include an opt-out clause, all violations of the Can Spam Act.
Corporations named in the FTC complaint include Global Net Solutions, Open Space Enterprises, Southlake Group and Reflected Networks of Las Vegas; Global Net Ventures Ltd. Of London and Wedlake Ltd. of Riga, Latvia. Individuals named include Dustin Hamilton, Tobin Banks, Gregory Hamilton, Philip Doroff and Paul Rose, all of Las Vegas.
The FTC claims four of the individual defendants controlled the corporations that own and operate the Internet sites, payment systems and servers used to distribute and to sell the pornographic content. According to the FTC, the network also marketed its -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually explicit content through an affiliate program that pays commissions to third parties who drive traffic to the network's sites.
"The law gives consumers a tool to control what comes into their inboxes," Lydia Parnes, acting director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. "We are on the side of parents and kids to protect their ability to filter out -- The nicest hobby on Earth ;) --ually-explicit e-mails."
http://www.internetn...cle.php/3457841
2.2.5 What's opt-out? Opt-in? Confirmed/Double/Raspberry Opt-in?
Opt-Out email marketing is similar to spam with a remove list. A company collects email addresses, sends as much advertising to them as they like, but have to remove an email address if its owner asks them to ("opts-out").
Opt-In email marketing is a system in which companies send advertising to lists of email addresses to which people are only added if they explicitly consent. Note that opt-in consent to be added to a mailing list should only be considered as consent to be added to _that_ mailing list, and not consent to be added to any other mailing lists as well.
Verified Opt-In (sometimes known as Confirmed Opt-In or Complete Opt-In) is a system by which people have to "confirm" or "verify" their wish to join a mailing list if the initial request came through a non-secure channel - e.g. an email message (the sender can be trivially forged) or a WWW form (ditto). The confirmation typically takes the form of an email message containing a unique token or URL; the recipient must reply to the message or visit the URL to confirm that they really do want to be on the mailing list.
Double Opt-In is the Direct Marketing community's name for Verified Opt-In, reflecting their belief that this makes it too difficult for people to join mailing lists.
However, many believe that Verified Opt-In is essential for these reasons:
With Unverified Opt-In, anyone can "opt-in" someone else to a mailing list. (There is a common revenge tactic, known as a "list-bomb", in which you subscribe someone to a few thousand high-traffic mailing lists and watch their email box die.)
People do mis-type their email address; by verifying it you can avoid spamming an innocent third-party. (See The Story of Nadine for an example of this.)
Given all of this, it is impossible to tell the difference between Unverified Opt-In and Opt-Out. If you receive an advertisement supposedly sent to a "100% opt-in" mailing list when you know you haven't opted-in, the list-owner can just say "someone else must have signed you up; here's how you can remove yourself" when you challenge them about it. Are they being honest or are they opt-out spammers? If the list is run using Verified Opt-In procedures, this situation is impossible.
Opt-out is, by the way, an important component of opt-in; it should be possible for a person who has opted in to a mailing list to opt out of it at some later date. This tends to preclude opt-in lists from being passed from party to party - if you send a copy of an opt-in list to a third party, and subsequently one of your subscribers wants to be removed, how can they also be removed from the copies of that list held by the third party and anyone they might have passed the list to?
Many proponents of opt-in email marketing have stated that it produces a vastly superior response-rate than purely opt-out email marketing.
Other people will have their own definitions of these terms which differ somewhat from those I've described here (e.g. http://www.permissio.../glossary.html). As ever, the FAQ-maintainer advises you to read around.
http://www.spamfaq.n...pam-evils.shtml
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
