i wonder how ELLIS ALDEN fit into it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, so that's how they do it.

I had a hilarious one a couple of days ago, from someone claiming that I'd been cheated out of millions of pounds on some lottery, 'by scammers' mind you! - and they were going to reclaim it for me...

I doubt it's worth trying to report them. I'm sure they set up new schemes every day. But I've heard of people like 'Scrottie McBoogerballs' having a bit of fun at their expense by stringing them along for a while using their own tactics. For example, inventing a long, involved tale of woe, and asking *them* for money!

Moira

Yes, it's OK saying 'delete all your unwanted e-mails', and 'you get what you pay for'. My question is - what is the point of trying to eradicate this problem by telling the authorities/companies about these scams when they don't take any action?

Surely the ISP's can stop this happening. Why aren't the genuine companies going after the bad guys after being told what is going on? Perhaps they are, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job.

The cr*p on the internet is getting worse. I object to receiving mail via the post from companies I have not contacted, receiving these e-mails is the same thing. I can look after myself thanks, but there are lots of unfortunate souls out there who have been conned. They have 'fallen for stuff like this' and certainly have my sympathy. We are not all Internet savvy unfortunately.

What do you suggest then, Mike?

What should "they" do? Close down the 'net just to "protect" a few daft* folk?

* Innocent, naïve, vulnerable ... whatever.

Come on now Geoff, let's be realistic. Closing down the 'net is just not an option.

There just has to be better policing by the ISP's. I just cannot believe that in this day and age they can't come up with filtering software to stop phishers/criminals/conmen from attempting to rob us via the 'net.

It is no good them telling us that there are legal reasons why they can't block access to individuals/scammers/criminals. Can you imagine the outcry if organisations allowed their premises to advertise notices by criminals. There would be an outcry. That is what happens with some ISP's.

I think that market forces will prevail in the end. People in the future will just not use certain ISP's if they don't take a more responsible attitude to the messages they convey.

I must point out that I am specifically talking about e-mails and their links to scam/scum sites. I can choose to go on a particular website, I don't have as much choice when looking at my e-mails.

Glad you gave an alternate definition of 'daft' in your post. The innocents, (naive maybe) were the people I was talking about.

I take an entirely opposite view (well, I would, wouldn't I?).

I am against filtering, or "control" of the internet, of any kind. Obviously "governments" would love to control it (they would call it regulation of course), just as they make great efforts to control just about every other aspect of our lives. The internet is about Freedom ... and that's what many of us like, want and need!

Innocent or just plain dumb, people just have to learn about the Real World. Unfortunately, in places like the UK, where Nanny Knows Best and all that [censored], folk have been indoctrinated that everything is "safe", we are all being "protected", and hopefully wrapped in cotton wool from the cradle to the grave. And yes, it's always someone else's fault when stuff goes wrong!

Yes:- naïve.

"Rich Westerners" are seen as "soft-touch" targets by many others out there in the world. Somehow I doubt that there are many internet scams heading out in the other direction.

Sooner or later (and things usually turn out better when it's sooner), everyone has to wise up to the realities of life. We are all under various threats, all of the time. Be it from viruses (real viruses, I mean), street crime, cyber-attacks, dodgy devices hanging off ATM's, idiots on the roads and nutters on the steets ... or whatever. You just need to be aware, be responsible, and take sensible precautions. That is, don't "leave it for someone else" to take care of things (in reality, there is nobody else).

What's that saying:- "If you can't run with the big dogs, you'd better stay on the porch"?

If Little Old Grannies are daft (yes, daft) enough to part with their Life's Savings over some preposterous proposal ... then more fool them. Perhaps they should just stick to the Lottery, like every other sensible person. As far as I am aware, scammers can't take anything ... you have to give it to them (after falling for their BS, of course).

And ... if parents can't be bothered to check up on what their kids are up to from time to time, then they shouldn't be too surprised when the Poor Little Darlings are ogling porn!

I like the thought of playing the scammers at their own game. Such people exist and call themselves "Scambaiters".

One of my favourite ones that I read about in the news some time ago was Holy Church of the Order of the Red Breast

The above link contains the full email history from when the 'victim' was contacted until contact stopped. It spanned 5 months from start to finish.

Yes, but ... quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Actually, it's something that interests me. If I won the Lottery and had the time, it's the sort of thing that I might like to participate in myself.

Also ... what really goes on behind the scenes at McAfee, Symantec, and SpyBot et al?

Poacher turned Gamekeeper springs to mind.

See also... http://www.419baiter.com/

... I was also going to add (before I went off to put on the kettle):- who pays the piper?

Yeah ... 419-scams. And why *Nigeria? Poverty plus ingenuity? Access to the 'net? Who knows? Perhaps there's a nice subject for a research project, right there.

* Not the only one, of course. But the one that everyone (or so we thought until today) knows about.