A family member? . . . No, I would not drop a dime on a relative. Close friends are safe, too, but let’s emphasize “close.” Casual friends and acquaintances had better not bank on my silence – not when singing to the feds might net my bank account a cool $250,000.
A family member? . . . No, I would not drop a dime on a relative.
Close friends are safe, too, but let’s emphasize “close.” Casual friends and acquaintances had better not bank on my silence – not when singing to the feds might net my bank account a cool $250,000.
Of course, I don’t know any spammers, at least not any who are out of the closet, so the exercise of ascertaining my threshold for remaining silent is purely academic. It’s those of you who do know spammers – and those of you who are spammers – who need to be thinking about this question on more than a theoretical level.
Does anyone doubt this publication has a reader or two fitting the profile? I don’t.
These spammers and those who know them probably sat up and took notice recently when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a report to Congress on the feasibility of instituting a bounty program to entice informants into snitching on major junk e-mailers. Consideration of such a program was part of the CAN-SPAM legislation that kicked into gear Jan. 1.
Should one be adopted, a bounty program isn’t likely to save CAN-SPAM from ignominious failure. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be fun for all who find junk e-mail loathsome, and profitable for those few who do have the goods on a spammer. See the full FTC report on the would-be CAN-SPAM Informant Reward System at www.nwfusion.com. The more interesting assessment of such programs is an accompanying paper by Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky of the University of Chicago Law School.
Ferziger Nagorsky says there are three types of potential informants at the disposal of law enforcement:
The first are spam recipients; in other words, anyone with an e-mail account. Even though this group dutifully forwards 300,000 spams daily to the government’s collection trough – spam@uce.gov – the diligence is useless to prosecutors.
The second group is made up of amateur cybersleuths; in other words, those with oodles of technical know-how, righteous determination and, in many cases, a need for cash born of being between jobs. (OK, that last part is my own snarky comment.) These people, too, are largely useless to prosecutors because of their limited ability to procure the quality evidence that will lead to a conviction.
The last group is insiders – accomplices, cohorts, hangers-on and busybodies – those who run in spammer circles. These people possess the “high value” info that prosecutors need and that might be worth anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000 of your tax dollars.
The FTC wouldn’t be reinventing the wheel here. This bounty stuff is old hat to the Internal Revenue Service, which can offer up to $2 million for dirt about tax cheats. Over the past 30 years, more than 17,000 individuals have collected $35 million in IRS reward money, which has recouped $2.1 billion in unpaid taxes.
So what’s not to like? Well, not all such schemes are created equal. The Securities and Exchange Commission has had one on the books since 1988 but has awarded money to only three snitches. The U.S. Customs Service has one, too, but it has trouble offering big rewards for the simple reason that the agency can’t legally sell much of what it confiscates.
The bottom line is Ferziger Nagorsky believes a modest, well-conceived, well-funded snitch program could land a handful of spam kingpins annually – no more.
But there also might be a side benefit.
“I believe that the very existence of this bounty program . . . could provide a very real benefit: deterrence,” she says.
Tips are always welcome here, although gratitude will be your only reward. The address is buzz@nww.com.
