Friday, September 05, 2003
Ricky Martin’s Walk-in-Closet Door Swings Open
CALIFORNIA – Former Latino heartthrob Ricky Martin has announced that he went back into the studio and recorded a new album. Many wonder why he thinks this was necessary, as Latino music went out with tight leather pants and dancing hamsters.
His last album, Sound Loaded (2000), did abysmally in the charts compared to his self-titled English debut in 1999, which left preteen girls swooning and serious music listeners searching for ropes to hang themselves.
Appearing on Entertainment Tonight in early May, Ricky explained what he did during his three year hiatus, saying that he was "pampering himself and cleansing his soul." Host Bob Goen remarked after the show that he was surprised that Ricky had controlled his lisp. When told that the singer hasn’t come out as a homosexual, Goen reacted just as anyone would have.
"What do you mean he’s not gay?" he was heard shouting to a crowd of snickering co-hosts and teamsters. "No man wears tight leather pants because they’re comfortable! Not even our fashion editor with the soul patch!"
A string of curses followed suite, including the phrase, "Shut the fuck up, Mary!"
However, his outburst shines light on a subject that has long been the butt of many a cable comedy sketch. Why doesn’t Ricky admit that he swings the other way? There have been speculations for years following the release of his internationally famous English release, but none have put it more damningly than one of his fellow Latin music artists.
"During the recording of our video, he wouldn’t even fondle me, like most of my other co-stars," Christina Aguilera commented. "He was too involved in thrusting his pelvis at some kind of statue of a naked Greek man that we had imported as a prop. I mean, come on! I don’t have that many STDs!"
But while Aguilera has moved on with her career, starring in televised Foxy-Boxing matches on MTV, so have Martin’s preteen fans. Now semi-rationally thinking teenagers, they have followed the trends to hip-hop music, and in center stage is the new rapping Justin Timblerlake. When approached, he had this to say:
"Who does he think he’s foolin’? Ricky should just let go an’ embrace his true nature. Ya know, like me," he said, on set rehearsing for his new music video. Candidly, he expressed his relief at not being in a boy-band anymore. ("The velvet jogging suits and bling are much more freeing.")
Despite what his peers and critics say, Martin insists that his sexual orientation isn’t an issue. In addition, he remains confident that there will always be a place for music with dance beats and Spanglish lyrics. We at the Daily Bull predict in the $5 used CD bin at a discount store near you.
CALIFORNIA – Former Latino heartthrob Ricky Martin has announced that he went back into the studio and recorded a new album. Many wonder why he thinks this was necessary, as Latino music went out with tight leather pants and dancing hamsters.
His last album, Sound Loaded (2000), did abysmally in the charts compared to his self-titled English debut in 1999, which left preteen girls swooning and serious music listeners searching for ropes to hang themselves.
Appearing on Entertainment Tonight in early May, Ricky explained what he did during his three year hiatus, saying that he was "pampering himself and cleansing his soul." Host Bob Goen remarked after the show that he was surprised that Ricky had controlled his lisp. When told that the singer hasn’t come out as a homosexual, Goen reacted just as anyone would have.
"What do you mean he’s not gay?" he was heard shouting to a crowd of snickering co-hosts and teamsters. "No man wears tight leather pants because they’re comfortable! Not even our fashion editor with the soul patch!"
A string of curses followed suite, including the phrase, "Shut the fuck up, Mary!"
However, his outburst shines light on a subject that has long been the butt of many a cable comedy sketch. Why doesn’t Ricky admit that he swings the other way? There have been speculations for years following the release of his internationally famous English release, but none have put it more damningly than one of his fellow Latin music artists.
"During the recording of our video, he wouldn’t even fondle me, like most of my other co-stars," Christina Aguilera commented. "He was too involved in thrusting his pelvis at some kind of statue of a naked Greek man that we had imported as a prop. I mean, come on! I don’t have that many STDs!"
But while Aguilera has moved on with her career, starring in televised Foxy-Boxing matches on MTV, so have Martin’s preteen fans. Now semi-rationally thinking teenagers, they have followed the trends to hip-hop music, and in center stage is the new rapping Justin Timblerlake. When approached, he had this to say:
"Who does he think he’s foolin’? Ricky should just let go an’ embrace his true nature. Ya know, like me," he said, on set rehearsing for his new music video. Candidly, he expressed his relief at not being in a boy-band anymore. ("The velvet jogging suits and bling are much more freeing.")
Despite what his peers and critics say, Martin insists that his sexual orientation isn’t an issue. In addition, he remains confident that there will always be a place for music with dance beats and Spanglish lyrics. We at the Daily Bull predict in the $5 used CD bin at a discount store near you.
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
Brazilian women vainest in world
BRASILIA, Brazil (Reuters) - Brazilian women care more about their appearance than any other women in the world, with half prepared to undergo plastic surgery to keep their looks, a study shows.
In Brazil, where being called "vain" is often a compliment suggesting self-respect, 86 percent of women said they tried extremely hard to improve their looks compared with an average of 67 percent worldwide, according to the 2003 global women's survey by cosmetics company Avon.
Ninety percent of Brazilian women classified beauty products as an essential rather than a luxury, compared with an average of 77 percent worldwide, Avon said, citing its survey of 21,000 women in 24 countries.
Avon's official explanation for Brazilian womens' beauty consciousness was their struggle to enter a job market where they are still well under-represented in many fields.
"It's important to look good, and feel good if you want to confront the male-dominated executive world," said Marcia Gonsales, planning and marketing director at Avon Brazil.
Looking good in Brazil is a national pastime. Nowhere on Earth is plastic surgery more popular on a per-capita basis than in this nation of 175 million people.
Some male Brazilian writers attribute this to a national aesthetic that women should be sexy and sensual.
Others point to the nation's predominantly tropical climate where men and women wear less clothes and are more concerned about making the best of what they have on show.
BRASILIA, Brazil (Reuters) - Brazilian women care more about their appearance than any other women in the world, with half prepared to undergo plastic surgery to keep their looks, a study shows.
In Brazil, where being called "vain" is often a compliment suggesting self-respect, 86 percent of women said they tried extremely hard to improve their looks compared with an average of 67 percent worldwide, according to the 2003 global women's survey by cosmetics company Avon.
Ninety percent of Brazilian women classified beauty products as an essential rather than a luxury, compared with an average of 77 percent worldwide, Avon said, citing its survey of 21,000 women in 24 countries.
Avon's official explanation for Brazilian womens' beauty consciousness was their struggle to enter a job market where they are still well under-represented in many fields.
"It's important to look good, and feel good if you want to confront the male-dominated executive world," said Marcia Gonsales, planning and marketing director at Avon Brazil.
Looking good in Brazil is a national pastime. Nowhere on Earth is plastic surgery more popular on a per-capita basis than in this nation of 175 million people.
Some male Brazilian writers attribute this to a national aesthetic that women should be sexy and sensual.
Others point to the nation's predominantly tropical climate where men and women wear less clothes and are more concerned about making the best of what they have on show.
Friday, August 29, 2003
Bush's Old Tricks
When George W. Bush gave his speech at the favorite White House forum, the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, he dipped into his bag of old tricks and tropes.
First, he nodded in the direction of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore by applauding the group's dedication "to the service of God and country. Times change, but those are still the right priorities," said the head of our supposedly secular state.
He tossed another bit of red meat to the crowd, saying, "You are committed, as am I, to protecting the dignity of the flag."
He then gave his sanitized rendition of American history. "In the twentieth century, the American flag and the American uniform stood for something unique in history. This nation gained great power, and we used that power in the service of human freedom."
Tell that to the people of Haiti, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, who were repeatedly beaten back by U.S. invasion, occupation, or proxy rule over the last century.
Tell that to the people of Iran, whose democratically elected government the U.S. overthrew in 1953.
Tell that to the people of Guatemala, whose democratically elected government the U.S. overthrew one year later.
Tell that to the people of Indonesia, whose founder, Sukarno, was overthrown by U.S.-backed forces in 1965, which led to a million deaths.
Tell that to the people of Chile, whose democratically elected government was overthrown thirty years ago.
Tell that to the people of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, when the United States used its power "in the service of human freedom" and ended up killing two to three million.
Bush then put on his Manichaean lenses and said, "No nation can be neutral in the struggle between civilization and chaos." This was a clear echo of "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." It is such crudeness that so offends rational people around the world, who loathe terrorism but despise Bush's reckless militarism. Why should they be forced to choose between the two?
Mr. "Bring 'Em On" puffed out his chest again when he bragged that the terrorists thought they'd make America run away. "The terrorists have not seen America running; they've seen America marching. . . . The terrorists have seen speeding tank convoys and roaring jets and special forces arriving in midnight raids. And sometimes justice has found them before they could see anything coming at all."
Note how Bush uses the term "justice" here. As he has repeatedly since September 11, he conflates our traditional system of jurisprudence with assassination.
Bush boasted of the "broad coalition" that has joined the United States in the war on terror. He said "thirty-one countries have contributed 21,000 forces to build security in Iraq," but he didn't mention that most of those forces come from Great Britain, and the rest have barely contributed anything in comparison to the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq right now. This isn't a coalition effort; it's a U.S. occupation, with a British flank, and a sprinkling of foreign flavors.
With a straight face, Bush said of Saddam, "Because of our military, catastrophic weapons will no longer be in the hands of a reckless, unstable dictator." But where are those catastrophic weapons?
Bush called Iraq "a point of testing in the war on terror."
The problem is, Bush is largely fighting a monster of his own making in Iraq. Prior to the invasion and occupation, Iraq was not a locus of Islamic fundamentalism or a magnet for Al Qaeda.
But it may be now.
Yet that's not all that's going on there. Bush likes to say, as he did again to the Vets, that U.S. forces are facing "Saddam loyalists, the foreign fighters, and the criminal gangs that are attacking Iraqis and coalition forces."
But this conveniently ignores the indigenous nationalism and fundamentalism that Bush's illegal war and botched occupation have given rise to.
Trying pathetically to imitate Winston Churchill, Bush said, "Our only goal, our only option, is total victory in the war on terror, and this nation will press on to victory."
But the way Bush is waging his war on terror is only adding recruits to the other side. By invading and occupying Iraq and throwing open its economy to U.S. companies, the United States is following Osama's script.
Senator Robert Byrd made this point in an op-ed in The Washington Post on August 26. "Our military action in Iraq has forged a cauldron of contempt for America, a dangerous brew that may poison the efforts of peace throughout the Middle East and result in the rapid invigoration of worldwide terrorism," Byrd wrote, adding that Bush's handling of Iraq "virtually guarantees Al Qaeda a fertile field of new recruits."
What's more, as Seymour Hersh pointed out in The New Yorker recently, the Iraq War soured relations with Syria, which up to that point had been very helpful in sharing intelligence with Washington about Al Qaeda operatives.
There may be no such thing as total victory against terrorism, and the costs of trying to obtain it--in dollars, in lives, and in what it would do to our liberties here at home--could be astronomical.
Nor can terrorism be vanquished by George Bush upon a steed, bullying the world as he orders one invasion, occupation, privatization, and assassination after another.
It would help enormously if Bush did not play the part that Osama has assigned him.
-- Matthew Rothschild
When George W. Bush gave his speech at the favorite White House forum, the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, he dipped into his bag of old tricks and tropes.
First, he nodded in the direction of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore by applauding the group's dedication "to the service of God and country. Times change, but those are still the right priorities," said the head of our supposedly secular state.
He tossed another bit of red meat to the crowd, saying, "You are committed, as am I, to protecting the dignity of the flag."
He then gave his sanitized rendition of American history. "In the twentieth century, the American flag and the American uniform stood for something unique in history. This nation gained great power, and we used that power in the service of human freedom."
Tell that to the people of Haiti, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, who were repeatedly beaten back by U.S. invasion, occupation, or proxy rule over the last century.
Tell that to the people of Iran, whose democratically elected government the U.S. overthrew in 1953.
Tell that to the people of Guatemala, whose democratically elected government the U.S. overthrew one year later.
Tell that to the people of Indonesia, whose founder, Sukarno, was overthrown by U.S.-backed forces in 1965, which led to a million deaths.
Tell that to the people of Chile, whose democratically elected government was overthrown thirty years ago.
Tell that to the people of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, when the United States used its power "in the service of human freedom" and ended up killing two to three million.
Bush then put on his Manichaean lenses and said, "No nation can be neutral in the struggle between civilization and chaos." This was a clear echo of "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." It is such crudeness that so offends rational people around the world, who loathe terrorism but despise Bush's reckless militarism. Why should they be forced to choose between the two?
Mr. "Bring 'Em On" puffed out his chest again when he bragged that the terrorists thought they'd make America run away. "The terrorists have not seen America running; they've seen America marching. . . . The terrorists have seen speeding tank convoys and roaring jets and special forces arriving in midnight raids. And sometimes justice has found them before they could see anything coming at all."
Note how Bush uses the term "justice" here. As he has repeatedly since September 11, he conflates our traditional system of jurisprudence with assassination.
Bush boasted of the "broad coalition" that has joined the United States in the war on terror. He said "thirty-one countries have contributed 21,000 forces to build security in Iraq," but he didn't mention that most of those forces come from Great Britain, and the rest have barely contributed anything in comparison to the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq right now. This isn't a coalition effort; it's a U.S. occupation, with a British flank, and a sprinkling of foreign flavors.
With a straight face, Bush said of Saddam, "Because of our military, catastrophic weapons will no longer be in the hands of a reckless, unstable dictator." But where are those catastrophic weapons?
Bush called Iraq "a point of testing in the war on terror."
The problem is, Bush is largely fighting a monster of his own making in Iraq. Prior to the invasion and occupation, Iraq was not a locus of Islamic fundamentalism or a magnet for Al Qaeda.
But it may be now.
Yet that's not all that's going on there. Bush likes to say, as he did again to the Vets, that U.S. forces are facing "Saddam loyalists, the foreign fighters, and the criminal gangs that are attacking Iraqis and coalition forces."
But this conveniently ignores the indigenous nationalism and fundamentalism that Bush's illegal war and botched occupation have given rise to.
Trying pathetically to imitate Winston Churchill, Bush said, "Our only goal, our only option, is total victory in the war on terror, and this nation will press on to victory."
But the way Bush is waging his war on terror is only adding recruits to the other side. By invading and occupying Iraq and throwing open its economy to U.S. companies, the United States is following Osama's script.
Senator Robert Byrd made this point in an op-ed in The Washington Post on August 26. "Our military action in Iraq has forged a cauldron of contempt for America, a dangerous brew that may poison the efforts of peace throughout the Middle East and result in the rapid invigoration of worldwide terrorism," Byrd wrote, adding that Bush's handling of Iraq "virtually guarantees Al Qaeda a fertile field of new recruits."
What's more, as Seymour Hersh pointed out in The New Yorker recently, the Iraq War soured relations with Syria, which up to that point had been very helpful in sharing intelligence with Washington about Al Qaeda operatives.
There may be no such thing as total victory against terrorism, and the costs of trying to obtain it--in dollars, in lives, and in what it would do to our liberties here at home--could be astronomical.
Nor can terrorism be vanquished by George Bush upon a steed, bullying the world as he orders one invasion, occupation, privatization, and assassination after another.
It would help enormously if Bush did not play the part that Osama has assigned him.
-- Matthew Rothschild
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
The secret tricks that spammers use
Aug. 11 — Joe Stewart was poring over the complex computer code of a widespread new virus named “SoBig,” wondering what it was really designed to do. Then it hit him. This was not your typical attention-getting nuisance. The virus, he says, was actually designed to hack into home users’ computers and quietly use them to send out spam. In the secretive world of spammers, where dirty tricks are standard practice, this was the dirtiest trick yet
SPAMMERS LIVE IN A CAT-AND-MOUSE world, where survival means staying one step ahead of the people and technology that are giving chase.
The game began simply, long ago, with a single e-mailer sending out multiple messages from an account, which was shut down by the e-mail provider.
But the battle for spam is a war of escalation. To get their messages out, spammers have taken to more and more unsavory tactics; they bounce their e-mails around the world, break into insecure university computers and launch spam campaigns from there, even steal long-distance telephone service to sneak onto dial-up Internet accounts.
As a countermeasure, some in the anti-spam movement have taken to ignoring e-mail that comes from certain parts of the Internet, which foils most of the tactics described so far.
“You implement one new technology hurdle, that slows them down for days or weeks, but they eventually adapt,” said Ray Everett-Church, chief privacy officer for ePrivacy Group.
And now, this latest adaptation. The worlds of computer virus writers and spammers have merged, says Stewart. Trojan horses are being placed on home computers around the Internet, making them willing accomplices to spam campaigns. Hiding behind the IP address of a home computer is nearly the perfect disguise.
“It makes it very hard to trace back to the spammer,” Stewart said.
SPAMMERS NOW HACKERS
Researchers say hundreds of thousands of vulnerable computers are being used to launch spam campaigns now. In fact, 70 percent of all spam is now sent this way, according to anti-spam firm Message Labs Inc. — and perhaps 6 to 7 billion spam messages are routed through hacked home computers.
“A lot of ex-hackers, the black hats, they go into spamming,” said computer security expert Joel de la Garza. “And they are making a lot of money from that.” For some, the tactic is the stuff of science fiction. Earthlink spam fighter Mary Youngblood now spends a lot of her time calling innocent victims telling them their computer is being used for spam. Often, they just don’t believe her.
“Some people say, ‘You’re insane. My machine is fine. I haven’t gotten any complaints,’” she said. “We get lots of ‘experts’ that swear up and down, ‘No, no, you are completely wrong.’ ”
MOST WORK AT HOME
Youngblood’s abuse team of 12 is part of a close-knit network of spam fighters at all U.S. Internet service providers who play the cat in this contest. While hacking into vulnerable computers, called “open proxies,” is the latest trend in spam, it’s just one of the popular tools used by spammers to evade their pursuers. The spammers’ world is a constant search for bandwidth that won’t get turned off, e-mail software that helps them hide, and companies that really will pay them for selling Viagra or Iraqi Most Wanted cards or penis enhancement products.
But it’s not a world of high-tech genius million-dollar computer systems. Most spammers work at home, using jury-rigged networks and software they’ve cobbled together with help from other spammers they meet in secret “spam clubs.” On these member-only Web sites, targeted address lists are shared, illicit bandwidth is bought and sold, and bulk e-mail software is discussed. Much like the underground world of credit card thieves, it’s full of name-calling and accusations, and a constant, desperate search for reliable bandwidth.
10 MILLION A DAY
One former spammer interviewed under condition of anonymity by MSNBC.com said he simply had four computers and two cable modems in his operation. With that setup, he said, he was able to send out 10 million e-mails a day. “The computers were running all day, 24 hours a day,” he said. “You need to send about 500,000 an hour to make any money.”
In fact, some spammers have an even a simpler setup, which can be harder to track. When Earthlink sued to stop spammer Harold Carmack, he was just connecting to their systems using old-fashioned dial-up accounts. Youngblood, who led the investigation into Carmack, said dial-up lines can be the hardest to trace. Newer circuits have caller-ID-like technology called ANI that can reveal exactly where a local telephone call is placed when it dials a modem pool; older phone lines don’t. Carmack tried to evade Earthlink investigators by using local dial-up numbers from around the country. But he stumbled onto enough ANI-enabled lines that Earthlink was able to hunt him down.
BULLET-PROOF HOSTS
Evading the hunt is the chief task for all spammers, and it’s harder than it sounds. Nearly all spam has two components — the initial e-mail, and a companion Web page. The e-mail drives traffic to the Web site, where spam recipients are asked to fill out a form or buy a product. Both components have to work; if either one is shut down, the spammer can’t get paid.
That’s why spammers pay hundreds, and sometimes thousands of dollars a month for what’s known as “bullet-proof hosts.” Such Web providers, with names like “Steel-Space,” promise their sites won’t get pulled down, even in the face of a deluge of complaints. Commonly advertised around the Internet as “bulk e-mail friendly Web hosting services,” many claim to operate offshore, far from U.S. legal subpoena power and the e-mail complaints of an English-speaking audience.
But other spammers contend that most of the dirty work is still done in the U.S. “There is no such thing (as an offshore server),” wrote one. “Offshore servers is a polite way of saying vulnerable, technologically challenged servers.”
Of course, distributing the spam e-mail itself is the first and most important step. For that, spammers turn to bulk e-mail software like Send-Safe, which allows them to fake the name listed in the “from” line.
Most e-mail addresses at this point come from e-mail harvesting programs, which search the Web like Google, culling the millions of e-mail addresses listed on Web pages or in Newsgroup posts. Spam clubs offer e-mail lists, too — some even claim to be targeted. One club viewed by MSNBC.com promised regularly updated lists in categories as narrow as “actors and actresses.”
E-mail lists are for sale, too: some sites promise to divulge as many as 30 million e-mail addresses for under $100.
And to streamline the process further, spammers can pay someone else to do their dirty work. For about $350, many sites claim to do the entire process for you, delivering 1 million e-mails to consumers they say have “opted in” and are looking for offers.
CONFUSION IS THE BEST TOOL
But perhaps the most powerful tool in the spammer’s arsenal is plausible deniability. Spam complaints are always met with a response that the consumer volunteered for e-mail offers at some point. Usually, a “marketing partner” or affiliate is blamed.
A former employee at an e-mail marketing company that claims to engage in only opt-in marketing campaigns revealed just how this works, under condition of anonymity.
When she worked there, people were constantly added to “opt-in” lists whether they opted in or not, she said. Frequently, marketers approached her firm with e-mail lists and spam campaign e-mails. Her company never asked where the e-mail addresses came from; it certainly didn’t require proof that the consumer had “opted in.” When complaints came, they pinned the problem on the partner. And remove requests were completely ignored, she said.
“I checked myself when I was working there to see how many people had my e-mail address. And I was on 15 lists. And I had never signed up for anything. It was disgusting,” she said. “They tell people they must have subscribed. But that’s just not true.”
Aug. 11 — Joe Stewart was poring over the complex computer code of a widespread new virus named “SoBig,” wondering what it was really designed to do. Then it hit him. This was not your typical attention-getting nuisance. The virus, he says, was actually designed to hack into home users’ computers and quietly use them to send out spam. In the secretive world of spammers, where dirty tricks are standard practice, this was the dirtiest trick yet
SPAMMERS LIVE IN A CAT-AND-MOUSE world, where survival means staying one step ahead of the people and technology that are giving chase.
The game began simply, long ago, with a single e-mailer sending out multiple messages from an account, which was shut down by the e-mail provider.
But the battle for spam is a war of escalation. To get their messages out, spammers have taken to more and more unsavory tactics; they bounce their e-mails around the world, break into insecure university computers and launch spam campaigns from there, even steal long-distance telephone service to sneak onto dial-up Internet accounts.
As a countermeasure, some in the anti-spam movement have taken to ignoring e-mail that comes from certain parts of the Internet, which foils most of the tactics described so far.
“You implement one new technology hurdle, that slows them down for days or weeks, but they eventually adapt,” said Ray Everett-Church, chief privacy officer for ePrivacy Group.
And now, this latest adaptation. The worlds of computer virus writers and spammers have merged, says Stewart. Trojan horses are being placed on home computers around the Internet, making them willing accomplices to spam campaigns. Hiding behind the IP address of a home computer is nearly the perfect disguise.
“It makes it very hard to trace back to the spammer,” Stewart said.
SPAMMERS NOW HACKERS
Researchers say hundreds of thousands of vulnerable computers are being used to launch spam campaigns now. In fact, 70 percent of all spam is now sent this way, according to anti-spam firm Message Labs Inc. — and perhaps 6 to 7 billion spam messages are routed through hacked home computers.
“A lot of ex-hackers, the black hats, they go into spamming,” said computer security expert Joel de la Garza. “And they are making a lot of money from that.” For some, the tactic is the stuff of science fiction. Earthlink spam fighter Mary Youngblood now spends a lot of her time calling innocent victims telling them their computer is being used for spam. Often, they just don’t believe her.
“Some people say, ‘You’re insane. My machine is fine. I haven’t gotten any complaints,’” she said. “We get lots of ‘experts’ that swear up and down, ‘No, no, you are completely wrong.’ ”
MOST WORK AT HOME
Youngblood’s abuse team of 12 is part of a close-knit network of spam fighters at all U.S. Internet service providers who play the cat in this contest. While hacking into vulnerable computers, called “open proxies,” is the latest trend in spam, it’s just one of the popular tools used by spammers to evade their pursuers. The spammers’ world is a constant search for bandwidth that won’t get turned off, e-mail software that helps them hide, and companies that really will pay them for selling Viagra or Iraqi Most Wanted cards or penis enhancement products.
But it’s not a world of high-tech genius million-dollar computer systems. Most spammers work at home, using jury-rigged networks and software they’ve cobbled together with help from other spammers they meet in secret “spam clubs.” On these member-only Web sites, targeted address lists are shared, illicit bandwidth is bought and sold, and bulk e-mail software is discussed. Much like the underground world of credit card thieves, it’s full of name-calling and accusations, and a constant, desperate search for reliable bandwidth.
10 MILLION A DAY
One former spammer interviewed under condition of anonymity by MSNBC.com said he simply had four computers and two cable modems in his operation. With that setup, he said, he was able to send out 10 million e-mails a day. “The computers were running all day, 24 hours a day,” he said. “You need to send about 500,000 an hour to make any money.”
In fact, some spammers have an even a simpler setup, which can be harder to track. When Earthlink sued to stop spammer Harold Carmack, he was just connecting to their systems using old-fashioned dial-up accounts. Youngblood, who led the investigation into Carmack, said dial-up lines can be the hardest to trace. Newer circuits have caller-ID-like technology called ANI that can reveal exactly where a local telephone call is placed when it dials a modem pool; older phone lines don’t. Carmack tried to evade Earthlink investigators by using local dial-up numbers from around the country. But he stumbled onto enough ANI-enabled lines that Earthlink was able to hunt him down.
BULLET-PROOF HOSTS
Evading the hunt is the chief task for all spammers, and it’s harder than it sounds. Nearly all spam has two components — the initial e-mail, and a companion Web page. The e-mail drives traffic to the Web site, where spam recipients are asked to fill out a form or buy a product. Both components have to work; if either one is shut down, the spammer can’t get paid.
That’s why spammers pay hundreds, and sometimes thousands of dollars a month for what’s known as “bullet-proof hosts.” Such Web providers, with names like “Steel-Space,” promise their sites won’t get pulled down, even in the face of a deluge of complaints. Commonly advertised around the Internet as “bulk e-mail friendly Web hosting services,” many claim to operate offshore, far from U.S. legal subpoena power and the e-mail complaints of an English-speaking audience.
But other spammers contend that most of the dirty work is still done in the U.S. “There is no such thing (as an offshore server),” wrote one. “Offshore servers is a polite way of saying vulnerable, technologically challenged servers.”
Of course, distributing the spam e-mail itself is the first and most important step. For that, spammers turn to bulk e-mail software like Send-Safe, which allows them to fake the name listed in the “from” line.
Most e-mail addresses at this point come from e-mail harvesting programs, which search the Web like Google, culling the millions of e-mail addresses listed on Web pages or in Newsgroup posts. Spam clubs offer e-mail lists, too — some even claim to be targeted. One club viewed by MSNBC.com promised regularly updated lists in categories as narrow as “actors and actresses.”
E-mail lists are for sale, too: some sites promise to divulge as many as 30 million e-mail addresses for under $100.
And to streamline the process further, spammers can pay someone else to do their dirty work. For about $350, many sites claim to do the entire process for you, delivering 1 million e-mails to consumers they say have “opted in” and are looking for offers.
CONFUSION IS THE BEST TOOL
But perhaps the most powerful tool in the spammer’s arsenal is plausible deniability. Spam complaints are always met with a response that the consumer volunteered for e-mail offers at some point. Usually, a “marketing partner” or affiliate is blamed.
A former employee at an e-mail marketing company that claims to engage in only opt-in marketing campaigns revealed just how this works, under condition of anonymity.
When she worked there, people were constantly added to “opt-in” lists whether they opted in or not, she said. Frequently, marketers approached her firm with e-mail lists and spam campaign e-mails. Her company never asked where the e-mail addresses came from; it certainly didn’t require proof that the consumer had “opted in.” When complaints came, they pinned the problem on the partner. And remove requests were completely ignored, she said.
“I checked myself when I was working there to see how many people had my e-mail address. And I was on 15 lists. And I had never signed up for anything. It was disgusting,” she said. “They tell people they must have subscribed. But that’s just not true.”
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Labels To Net Radio : Die Now
By Steven Levy
You'd think the record companies would love Internet tunes - a great way to expose new artists. Instead they are trying to kill them
Jim Atkinson is cannon fodder in the digital music wars. Five years ago he and his wife, Wanda, began 3WK, a virtual radio station that streams tunes of their beloved Alt/Indie rock to listeners over the internet. Unlike broadcast radio, which requires astronomical investments in licenses and broadcast equipment, a Webcaster only needs software and a server. The result is a rich universe of over 10,000 alternative web stations, many of which cater to narrow if not bizarre tastes : From Hawaiian ukulele music to Tanzanian drumming. Its all the exact opposite of broadcast radio, where the vast majority of stations are owned by a few media giants, who restrict play lists to the lowest common denominator ears. In the webcast world, however, its possible for Jim and Wanda to run one of the more profitable sites - and one day they hope, a profitable ad supported business - by playing the tunes of, say, Dashboard confessional. Possible that is, Until Oct.20
That's the day the bill comes due for a government - imposed performance fee brought about by pressure from the recording industry. The fees, retroactive to 1998, would put us out of business along with 90% of the industry says Jim Atkinson. It would be the day web music dies - and a classic instance of an Old Economy industry leveraging its power to kill a promising alternative.
The rationale for a performance fee seems reasonable : why shouldn't artists get some coin when Webcasters play their music? But in the words of our senate majority leader (used in a different context) this particular scheme is Just Plain Nuts. Instead of instating the kind of royalty already paid to songwriters by both broadcast and webcast - about 3% of revenues - the tariff on digital music is based on the number of listeners. So its possible for the fee to exceed the revenues, especially in a fledgling business where ads are scarce. Atkinson estimates his 2001 revenue at only around $10,000 but the bill he will receive for 2001 performance rights will be around $17,000.
Kurt Hanson, publisher of Radio and Internet Newsletter, has calculated that the Oct.20 bill due for all Webcasters represents several times the total revenue of the entire industry. The folks at the recording industry association of America defend this on the ground that without music, you have no internet radio. This is like the government deciding to tax you three times your gross income, because you really really benefited from living in America. Meanwhile, for broadcast radio, theirs no performance fee at all. Why? The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) lobby is very powerful says John Simson, who heads SoundExchange, the recording industries organization that will collect the royalties.
The apparent irony is that webcasting seems like something that the record labels would want to nurture, not smother in the cradle. There's no Napster problem : Webradio uses streaming technology - Real time transmissions that cant be easily downloaded and stored. Just like real radio, its free exposure for artists, especially ones that has difficulty getting air time in the cookie cutter world of FM radio. And, webcast listeners find it easy to buy what they like : musical cuts are clearly identified, and often there are direct links to allow instant cd purchase. (Atkinson claims that he's generated more than $20,000 in cd sales).
But SoundExchange Simson says that the labels don't view Webcasting as a promotional tool like broadcast radio. He says there's no evidence that Internet radio boosts record sales. He also worries that the narrow focus of Webcasts might poach sales: if someone can stream an all Bruce, All the time radio station, he says, the springsteen craving might be satisfied forever. Seems to me though, that anyone who tunes into that station would snatch the bosses new cd the day it hit the shelves.
So why are the record labels taking such a hard line? My guess is that its about protecting their internet - challenged business model. Their profit comes from blockbuster artists. If the industry moves to a more varied ecology, independent labels and artists would thrive - to the detriment of the labels, which would have trouble rustling up the rubes for the next Britney. The smoking gun comes from testimony of an RIAA backed economist who told the government fee panel that a dramatic shakeout in Webcasting is inevitable and desirable because it will bring about market consolidation.
The recording industry, with the help of congress and the Copyright Office, may indeed make a shakeout inevitable. But I doubt that Jim Atkinson and his fellow independent Webcasters find the prospect of their extinction very desirable. Nor do the 77,000,000 Americans who have at one time or another tuned into Webradio and perhaps found something not featured on the lobotomized play lists of broadcast radio. If enough of those outraged listeners stream their objections to legislators, maybe Internet Radio can be saved.
By Steven Levy
You'd think the record companies would love Internet tunes - a great way to expose new artists. Instead they are trying to kill them
Jim Atkinson is cannon fodder in the digital music wars. Five years ago he and his wife, Wanda, began 3WK, a virtual radio station that streams tunes of their beloved Alt/Indie rock to listeners over the internet. Unlike broadcast radio, which requires astronomical investments in licenses and broadcast equipment, a Webcaster only needs software and a server. The result is a rich universe of over 10,000 alternative web stations, many of which cater to narrow if not bizarre tastes : From Hawaiian ukulele music to Tanzanian drumming. Its all the exact opposite of broadcast radio, where the vast majority of stations are owned by a few media giants, who restrict play lists to the lowest common denominator ears. In the webcast world, however, its possible for Jim and Wanda to run one of the more profitable sites - and one day they hope, a profitable ad supported business - by playing the tunes of, say, Dashboard confessional. Possible that is, Until Oct.20
That's the day the bill comes due for a government - imposed performance fee brought about by pressure from the recording industry. The fees, retroactive to 1998, would put us out of business along with 90% of the industry says Jim Atkinson. It would be the day web music dies - and a classic instance of an Old Economy industry leveraging its power to kill a promising alternative.
The rationale for a performance fee seems reasonable : why shouldn't artists get some coin when Webcasters play their music? But in the words of our senate majority leader (used in a different context) this particular scheme is Just Plain Nuts. Instead of instating the kind of royalty already paid to songwriters by both broadcast and webcast - about 3% of revenues - the tariff on digital music is based on the number of listeners. So its possible for the fee to exceed the revenues, especially in a fledgling business where ads are scarce. Atkinson estimates his 2001 revenue at only around $10,000 but the bill he will receive for 2001 performance rights will be around $17,000.
Kurt Hanson, publisher of Radio and Internet Newsletter, has calculated that the Oct.20 bill due for all Webcasters represents several times the total revenue of the entire industry. The folks at the recording industry association of America defend this on the ground that without music, you have no internet radio. This is like the government deciding to tax you three times your gross income, because you really really benefited from living in America. Meanwhile, for broadcast radio, theirs no performance fee at all. Why? The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) lobby is very powerful says John Simson, who heads SoundExchange, the recording industries organization that will collect the royalties.
The apparent irony is that webcasting seems like something that the record labels would want to nurture, not smother in the cradle. There's no Napster problem : Webradio uses streaming technology - Real time transmissions that cant be easily downloaded and stored. Just like real radio, its free exposure for artists, especially ones that has difficulty getting air time in the cookie cutter world of FM radio. And, webcast listeners find it easy to buy what they like : musical cuts are clearly identified, and often there are direct links to allow instant cd purchase. (Atkinson claims that he's generated more than $20,000 in cd sales).
But SoundExchange Simson says that the labels don't view Webcasting as a promotional tool like broadcast radio. He says there's no evidence that Internet radio boosts record sales. He also worries that the narrow focus of Webcasts might poach sales: if someone can stream an all Bruce, All the time radio station, he says, the springsteen craving might be satisfied forever. Seems to me though, that anyone who tunes into that station would snatch the bosses new cd the day it hit the shelves.
So why are the record labels taking such a hard line? My guess is that its about protecting their internet - challenged business model. Their profit comes from blockbuster artists. If the industry moves to a more varied ecology, independent labels and artists would thrive - to the detriment of the labels, which would have trouble rustling up the rubes for the next Britney. The smoking gun comes from testimony of an RIAA backed economist who told the government fee panel that a dramatic shakeout in Webcasting is inevitable and desirable because it will bring about market consolidation.
The recording industry, with the help of congress and the Copyright Office, may indeed make a shakeout inevitable. But I doubt that Jim Atkinson and his fellow independent Webcasters find the prospect of their extinction very desirable. Nor do the 77,000,000 Americans who have at one time or another tuned into Webradio and perhaps found something not featured on the lobotomized play lists of broadcast radio. If enough of those outraged listeners stream their objections to legislators, maybe Internet Radio can be saved.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Youth Strips at Buckingham Palace Party
LONDON - A teenager at a Buckingham Palace garden party Tuesday dropped his trousers and dashed across the lawn, pursued by Beefeater guards in ceremonial red tunics.
Partygoers cheered as a Beefeater tackled the 17-year-old running a reported 300 feet ahead of Queen Elizabeth II (news - web sites). It was not clear if she saw him.
The youth was whisked away and questioned by police in the gardens. He and his parents were later escorted from the palace grounds.
"There was no breach of security or risk to the royal party or other guests," the statement said. "It is understood he was attending the garden party with members of his family who were also invited guests."
A police spokeswoman said the youth had not been naked and had removed only his jacket, trousers and shoes.
But some said he had gone a little further.
"He ran through the crowd, down the aisle then dropped his boxers," said Alec Solomon, 29. "The Beefeaters were running after him."
Becky Fisk, another of the more than 8,000 people at the party, said the youth was wearing a T-shirt and trousers and managed to pull down both his trousers and boxer shorts while running.
"He was shouting 'wahey' as he ran along," she said.
Police said the youth, who was not identified, was not drunk.
Members of the royal family at the party included the queen, her husband Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Princess Anne and Prince Edward and his wife, Sophie.
A month ago, self-described "comedy terrorist" Aaron Barschak gatecrashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle, prompting a security inquiry.
LONDON - A teenager at a Buckingham Palace garden party Tuesday dropped his trousers and dashed across the lawn, pursued by Beefeater guards in ceremonial red tunics.
Partygoers cheered as a Beefeater tackled the 17-year-old running a reported 300 feet ahead of Queen Elizabeth II (news - web sites). It was not clear if she saw him.
The youth was whisked away and questioned by police in the gardens. He and his parents were later escorted from the palace grounds.
"There was no breach of security or risk to the royal party or other guests," the statement said. "It is understood he was attending the garden party with members of his family who were also invited guests."
A police spokeswoman said the youth had not been naked and had removed only his jacket, trousers and shoes.
But some said he had gone a little further.
"He ran through the crowd, down the aisle then dropped his boxers," said Alec Solomon, 29. "The Beefeaters were running after him."
Becky Fisk, another of the more than 8,000 people at the party, said the youth was wearing a T-shirt and trousers and managed to pull down both his trousers and boxer shorts while running.
"He was shouting 'wahey' as he ran along," she said.
Police said the youth, who was not identified, was not drunk.
Members of the royal family at the party included the queen, her husband Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Princess Anne and Prince Edward and his wife, Sophie.
A month ago, self-described "comedy terrorist" Aaron Barschak gatecrashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle, prompting a security inquiry.
Monday, July 14, 2003
Prank Message Via Google Mocks WMD Search
By MATTHEW FORDAHL, AP Technology Writer
The hunt for weapons of mass destruction isn't going so well in Iraq. It's not going so well on Google, either.
Type "weapons of mass destruction" into the Internet search engine and hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button. What you'll get is an authentic-looking error message created as a lark by a British pharmacist now enjoying his 15 minutes of Internet fame.
"These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed," it reads. "The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate."
No hacking was involved — or necessary.
Anthony Cox, 34, of Birmingham, England, created the site in February to get a few chuckles from friends. Those friends — and friends of their friends — started linking to his page from their sites and Web diaries.
The number of links to a particular site is a major factor that Google considers when indexing pages to be returned via its search engine. The "lucky" button takes users to the top-ranked page for a particular search.
Cox, previously best known on the Web for his day job of studying drug safety, says he had no idea the page would reach the top of the list for WMD searches.
"It was really just a private joke among a few individuals and then I sent it off to a newsgroup," he said. "It just spread like wildfire throughout February. ... And then it started to die down during the war. During that time it had accumulated links from other Web sites, which pushed it up the Google page ranking system.
"Then it just went through the stratosphere in terms of hits," he said. "It became even more funny that Google couldn't find any WMD."
Cox's site isn't the only popular page to take a tongue-in-cheek approach to serious queries. Type in "French military victories" and hit the "lucky" button. A page designed to look like it's from Google asks, "Did you mean: French military defeats."
Mountain View, Calif.-based Google declined to comment on specifics, but a spokesman confirmed that those sites are at the top of the list because they scored the highest under the company's automated system.
For users who hit the regular search button, Google returns 1.4 million pages on the search "weapons of mass destruction." Though Cox's joke is on top, the remainder are mostly serious.
Cox says the number of hits reached a crescendo during the week of July 4 and has not showed any sign of slowing down. He's received hundreds of e-mail messages, including from weapons inspectors who found it amusing.
A number of e-mails criticized Cox, who said he was not against the war.
"It's been widely seen as anti-war, but that's not what my intention was," he said.
Cox does not spare "Old Europe" either.
"If you are an Old European Country trying to protect your interests, make sure your options are left wide open as long as possible," it reads. "Click the Tools menu, and then click on League of Nations. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Head in the Sand section and check settings for your exports to Iraq."
Cox says he hasn't experienced any major repercussions from the joke.
"I don't have the White House or Donald Rumsfeld breathing down my neck yet," he said. "There hasn't been a SEAL extraction team to get me yet."
By MATTHEW FORDAHL, AP Technology Writer
The hunt for weapons of mass destruction isn't going so well in Iraq. It's not going so well on Google, either.
Type "weapons of mass destruction" into the Internet search engine and hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button. What you'll get is an authentic-looking error message created as a lark by a British pharmacist now enjoying his 15 minutes of Internet fame.
"These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed," it reads. "The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate."
No hacking was involved — or necessary.
Anthony Cox, 34, of Birmingham, England, created the site in February to get a few chuckles from friends. Those friends — and friends of their friends — started linking to his page from their sites and Web diaries.
The number of links to a particular site is a major factor that Google considers when indexing pages to be returned via its search engine. The "lucky" button takes users to the top-ranked page for a particular search.
Cox, previously best known on the Web for his day job of studying drug safety, says he had no idea the page would reach the top of the list for WMD searches.
"It was really just a private joke among a few individuals and then I sent it off to a newsgroup," he said. "It just spread like wildfire throughout February. ... And then it started to die down during the war. During that time it had accumulated links from other Web sites, which pushed it up the Google page ranking system.
"Then it just went through the stratosphere in terms of hits," he said. "It became even more funny that Google couldn't find any WMD."
Cox's site isn't the only popular page to take a tongue-in-cheek approach to serious queries. Type in "French military victories" and hit the "lucky" button. A page designed to look like it's from Google asks, "Did you mean: French military defeats."
Mountain View, Calif.-based Google declined to comment on specifics, but a spokesman confirmed that those sites are at the top of the list because they scored the highest under the company's automated system.
For users who hit the regular search button, Google returns 1.4 million pages on the search "weapons of mass destruction." Though Cox's joke is on top, the remainder are mostly serious.
Cox says the number of hits reached a crescendo during the week of July 4 and has not showed any sign of slowing down. He's received hundreds of e-mail messages, including from weapons inspectors who found it amusing.
A number of e-mails criticized Cox, who said he was not against the war.
"It's been widely seen as anti-war, but that's not what my intention was," he said.
Cox does not spare "Old Europe" either.
"If you are an Old European Country trying to protect your interests, make sure your options are left wide open as long as possible," it reads. "Click the Tools menu, and then click on League of Nations. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Head in the Sand section and check settings for your exports to Iraq."
Cox says he hasn't experienced any major repercussions from the joke.
"I don't have the White House or Donald Rumsfeld breathing down my neck yet," he said. "There hasn't been a SEAL extraction team to get me yet."
