- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
First four charged under ‘can spam’ law
Wednesday, April 28, 2004 Posted: 7:09 PM EDT (2309 GMT)WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. authorities charged four people in Detroit on Wednesday with e-mailing fraudulent sales pitches for weight-loss products, the first criminal prosecutions under the government’s new “can spam” legislation.
The four were accused of disguising their identities in hundreds of thousands of e-mail sales pitches and delivering e-mails by bouncing messages through unprotected relay computers on the Internet.
Court papers identified them as Daniel J. Lin, James J. Lin, Mark M. Sadek and Christopher Chung, all believed living in suburban Detroit.
Chung and Sadek appeared in U.S. District Court and were released on unsecured bonds, said Gina Balaya, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The Lins have not been arrested.
Sadek did not return a telephone message left at his home; the Lins and Chung could not be located for comment at any of the addresses or telephone numbers listed in the court documents.
Authorities said their company sold a weight-loss patch under the corporate names AIT Herbal, Avatar Nutrition, Phoenix Avatar and others. The companies allegedly operated out of Detroit and nearby communities of West Bloomfield and Birmingham.
“These people were sending spam e-mails to at least a million people,” Balaya said.
Officials at the Federal Trade Commission, who planned to announce the arrests in Washington on Thursday, told U.S. postal investigators they had received more than 10,000 complaints about unwanted e-mails sent by the company. The U.S. attorney in Detroit, Jeffrey Collins, was expected at Thursday’s announcement.
Investigators said they consulted Dr. Michael D. Jensen, a medical professor at the Mayo Medical School, who confirmed that ingredients in the weight-loss product sold in the disputed e-mails wouldn’t work.
The “can spam” legislation, which went into effect January 1, requires unsolicited e-mails to include a mechanism so recipients can indicate they do not want future mass mailings.
I have started to include a physical address in my newsletter.
I don’t like all this spam either – it gives legitimate letters a bad name.
However, I don’t like to have a physical address in my letter – there are too many nuts in this world.
This is a bad solution to a bad problem.
