Penis Enlargement, Cheap Viagra, and Noni Juice: Evaluating and Winning the War Against Health Product Spam

Unsolicited commercial e-mail, or “spamâ€, is an exponentially increasing annoyance for millions of Americans every day. Health product spam – spam which promotes drugs, dietary supplements, and medical devices – is both annoying and dangerous, because fraudulent health products are at best a waste of money and at worst hazardous to health. This paper discusses four spam case studies – 21 CENTURY MIRACLE PRESCRIPTIONS, Noni Juice, Pinacle Penis Enlargement Pills, and Sleep Angel – to evaluate the effectiveness of the FDA, the FTC, and state consumer protection laws in stopping fraudulent health product spam. This paper also analyzes the impact of the federal CAN-SPAM Act, federal and state computer crime laws, and technological remedies in actual reduction of spam. Combining the best lessons from health and anti-spam regulatory law, this paper concludes with an array of proposals that would better regulate e-mail advertising of health products

From Understanding Telephone Scams to Implementing Authenticated Caller ID Transmission

abstract: The telephone network is used by almost every person in the modern world. With the rise of Internet access to the PSTN, the telephone network today is rife with telephone spam and scams. Spam calls are significant annoyances for telephone users, unlike email spam, spam calls demand immediate attention. They are not only significant annoyances but also result in significant financial losses in the economy. According to complaint data from the FTC, complaints on illegal calls have made record numbers in recent years. Americans lose billions to fraud due to malicious telephone communication, despite various efforts to subdue telephone spam, scam, and robocalls. In this dissertation, a study of what causes the users to fall victim to telephone scams is presented, and it demonstrates that impersonation is at the heart of the problem. Most solutions today primarily rely on gathering offending caller IDs, however, they do not work effectively when the caller ID has been spoofed. Due to a lack of authentication in the PSTN caller ID transmission scheme, fraudsters can manipulate the caller ID to impersonate a trusted entity and further a variety of scams. To provide a solution to this fundamental problem, a novel architecture and method to authenticate the transmission of the caller ID is proposed. The solution enables the possibility of a security indicator which can provide an early warning to help users stay vigilant against telephone impersonation scams, as well as provide a foundation for existing and future defenses to stop unwanted telephone communication based on the caller ID information.Dissertation/ThesisDoctoral Dissertation Computer Science 201

Does the U.S. SAFE WEB Act Strike the Proper Balance Between Law Enforcement Interests and Privacy Interests?

The Internet and advances in telecommunications technology present unprecedented opportunities for cross-border fraud and deception directed at U.S. consumers and businesses. However, the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) ability to obtain effective relief may face practical impediments in prosecuting these cross-border wrongdoers. To help address the challenges posed by the globalization of fraud, President Bush signed the Undertaking Spam, Spyware and Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers Beyond Borders Act of 2006 (“U.S. SAFE WEB Act” or “Act”) into law on December 22, 2006. This Article discusses the FTC’s expanded enforcement authority granted by the Act to fight fraud and deception, and particularly to fight illegal spam, spyware, and cross-border fraud and deception. Privacy advocates have voiced concern that the FTC may now have more power to invade the privacy of U.S. citizens. This Article concludes that the Act’s grant of power to the FTC is not too broad, and that the Act maintains an appropriate balance between law enforcement interests and privacy interests

Do Not Advertise: The Current Fight Against Unsolicited Advertisements

Have you ever received a phone call from a telemarketer during dinner? Do e-mails entitled Protect Your Computer Against Viruses for $9.95 or GET A FREE PASS TO THOUSANDS OF XXX SITES annoy you? Are you tired of watching advertisements that continue after the posted start time for a movie? Many Americans are irritated with the amount of daily interruptions caused by the current lack of advertising regulations. In some instances, the advertisers shift their marketing costs to unwilling e-mail users or moviegoers. This article focuses on unsolicited communications and potential solutions to the seemingly endless problem of spam

Preemption of State Spam Laws by the Federal Can-Spam Act

Unsolicited bulk commercial email is an increasing problem, and though many states have passed laws aimed at curbing its use and abuse, for several years the federal government took no action. In 2003 that changed when Congress passed the CAN-SPAM Act. Though the law contains many different restrictions on spam messages, including some restriction of nearly every type that states had adopted, the Act was widely criticized as weak. Many of the CAN-SPAM Act\u27s provisions are weaker than corresponding provisions of state law, and the Act preempts most state spam laws that would go farther, including two state laws that would have banned all spam. Despite these weaknesses, this Comment argues that when properly interpreted the CAN-SPAM Act leaves key state law provisions in force, and accordingly is stronger than many spam opponents first thought. First, the law explicitly preserves state laws to the extent that they prohibit falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto. Though Congress was primarily concerned with saving state consumer protection laws, this language can be applied much more broadly. Second, the law is silent on the question of state law enforcement methods. State enforcement can be, and frequently is, substantially stronger than federal enforcement, which is largely limited to actions by the federal government, internet service providers, and state agencies. The Comment concludes by arguing that this narrow interpretation of its preemption clause is most consistent with the CAN-SPAM Act\u27s twin policy goals. By limiting the substantive provisions states may adopt, the Act prevents states from enacting inconsistent laws and enforces a uniform national spam policy. At the same time, narrowly interpreting the preemption clause permits states to experiment within the limits of that policy, in hopes of finding the most effective set of spam regulations

Comments to the Federal Trade Commission on the CAN-SPAM Rule Review, 16 C.F.R. Part 316, Project No. R711010

These comments respond to the Federal Trade Commission’s request for public comment on the CAN-SPAM Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 316. The CAN-SPAM Act set a minimum baseline for consumer protections that senders of unsolicited commercial email must respect. These protections have been largely effective at giving consumers the ability to manage how a large group of companies uses their email addresses for marketing. At the same time, the Act has had little effect on the volume of unsolicited commercial email or on the amount of email sent by scammers and fraudsters. The Act and its implementing Rule, then, have been neither the success they should be nor the failure that critics describe. These comments explain how the Commission should adjust the Rule to maintain its substantial consumer benefits while addressing its shortcomings. By leaving in place the significant consumer protections the Rule provides while updating and tweaking their substance to provide additional protections and account for technological change since the Rule was promulgated, the Commission would best implement the goals and structure of the Act. Moreover, the Commission should look for additional ways, within its authority under the Act and other statutes, to address the problem of scam emails

Silence of the Spam: Improving the CAN-SPAM Act by Including an Expanded Private Cause of Action

In the last decade, email spam has become more than just an annoyance for email users. Unsolicited messages now comprise more than 95 percent of all email sent worldwide. This costs US businesses billions of dollars in lost productivity each year. The US Congress passed the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 to regulate the spam industry. Unfortunately, data show that spam only increased since the Act\u27s passage. Part of the reason for this failure is that the Act only authorizes the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, and Internet Service Providers to bring action under its provisions. Each of these authorized entities either lacks the incentive or the resources to adequately enforce the Act, resulting in little to no reduction of spam. As a result, email recipients--not spammers--bear the cost of spam. This Note argues that the Act should incorporate an expanded private cause of action for email recipients, thereby increasing the enforcement level. This will deter spam prospectively by shifting the cost of unsolicited email from the recipient onto the sender