<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;scam&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:01:31 PST</pubDate>
<title>Pure Scamming Copyright Troll Implies It's A Gov't Agency And That You Will Face Jail Time If You Don't Pay Up</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/01230722067/pure-scamming-copyright-troll-implies-its-govt-agency-that-you-will-face-jail-time-if-you-dont-pay-up.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/01230722067/pure-scamming-copyright-troll-implies-its-govt-agency-that-you-will-face-jail-time-if-you-dont-pay-up.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen some pretty brazen copyright trolling efforts lately, but this latest one may be the most extreme.  FightCopyrightTrolls has the story of the "Internet Copyright Law Enforcement Agency," which has some features like a normal copyright troll, and some <a href="http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/02/21/new-unbelievably-brazen-fraud-internet-copyright-law-enforcement-agency/" target="_blank">that go way, way beyond trolling to out and out fraud</a>.  I will note, however, that as I was writing this article, it appears that whoever is behind this bit of fraud has apparently decided to run away.  The ICLEA website now states:
<blockquote><i>
Important Notice
<br /><br />
Effective immediately, the Internet Copyright Law Enforcement Agency has ceased operations. Please disregard any notices you received from us, and please do not send us any payments.
</i></blockquote>
Here's what the website looks like as I type this:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/9qdlAM4"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/9qdlAM4.png" width=400 /></a>
</center>
And here's what it looked like a few hours ago:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/xTmfgGv"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/xTmfgGv.png" width=400 /></a>
</center>
But, let's explore just a bit of what they were doing before FCT exposed them.  First off, by both the name and the terminology they clearly were implying to people that they were a <i>government agency</i> rather than a private company.  The name itself -- incorporating both "law enforcement" and "agency" implied as much.  They used a seal that one might incorrectly interpret to be a law enforcement shield.  They also were using a virtual office space based in Washington DC, not far from many federal buildings.  Originally, their website claimed that they were 
<blockquote><i>
... an international organization that helps to enforce copyright laws on the internet worldwide by informing potential copyright law violators regarding the serious possible criminal and/or civil liability they may face, and providing them with an opportunity to help them comply with copyright laws. 
</i></blockquote>
In the <a href="http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/is-the-internet-copyright-law-enforcement-agency-real-or-a-scam-heres-what-we-know/" target="_blank">letters they sent out</a>, they went even further, claiming:
<blockquote><i>
 We work with law enforcement agencies and strategic partners around the world to enforce copyright laws, and to help prosecute individuals and companies who violate these laws.
</i></blockquote>
Also, the letter repeatedly suggests that individuals may face <i>criminal</i> charges for merely downloading a song.  The letter (which we've reproduced below) does correctly call out the section of copyright law that highlights criminal penalties, but conveniently leaves out the part that defines what qualifies for criminal enforcement.  Oh, and the fact that a private bogus company pretending to be a government agency can't bring criminal charges.
<br /><br />
Like all trolls, they demand payment to "avoid further action from being taken against you."  From a quick search online, it appears that  a <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130219131924AAAX5LM" target="_blank">bunch</a> of <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130219142754AAdzWSB" target="_blank">people</a> started <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130221095925AAwEV5f" target="_blank">receiving</a> these <a href="http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-there-such-a-thing-as-internet-copyright-law-en-1123989.html" target="_blank">letters</a> in the last week or so, with varying amounts being demanded (generally between $300 and $500, it appears), and with payment being required by March 1st.  One hopes that no one actually paid up, though it's likely that some did.
<br /><br />
Again, the full letter is below, and even with the company claiming that it has now "ceased operations," some questions remain.  It's not at all clear who was behind this.  The letters come from a "David Walsh," though it's anybody's guess as to the person's real name.  The office, again, was a virtual office, so the person behind this could be anywhere.  What's not clear is how they got the information about specific downloads which it could use to accuse people.  There are a few different theories floating around, but until there's more proof one way or the other, it remains pure speculation.
<br /><br />
Either way, it seems pretty clear that this has gone beyond your everyday copyright troll.  While they often go pretty close to the line of "extortion," they can at least claim some marginal legitimacy by actually representing copyright holders.  With the ICLEA, that doesn't appear to be true at all.  They're misrepresenting who they are, and demanding cash to avoid possible incarceration (which they can't do).  It seems like that likely violates all sorts of laws having to do with fraud and extortion.  So, whoever is behind this, while they may have chosen to misrepresent criminal copyright law, they might want to spend some time familiarizing themselves with criminal law in other contexts.
<br /><br />
Of course, while the DOJ and ICE keep claiming that they're so focused on "criminal" copyright issues these days, one wonders if they'll spend any time or effort to go after the folks behind this <i>actual</i> scam.  Or, do they only go after sites that Hollywood doesn't like?
<br /><br />
Either way, we've posted the text of one of the letters below to show just how over the top the claims were.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/01230722067/pure-scamming-copyright-troll-implies-its-govt-agency-that-you-will-face-jail-time-if-you-dont-pay-up.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/01230722067/pure-scamming-copyright-troll-implies-its-govt-agency-that-you-will-face-jail-time-if-you-dont-pay-up.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/01230722067/pure-scamming-copyright-troll-implies-its-govt-agency-that-you-will-face-jail-time-if-you-dont-pay-up.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130222/01230722067</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Feds Finally Realize That AT&#038;T Has Been Enabling Scammers To Abuse IP Fraud... Financed By Taxpayers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/02570318219/feds-finally-realize-that-att-has-been-enabling-scammers-to-abuse-ip-fraud-financed-taxpayers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/02570318219/feds-finally-realize-that-att-has-been-enabling-scammers-to-abuse-ip-fraud-financed-taxpayers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We first wrote about IP Relay fraud all the way back in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040916/1244228.shtml">2004</a>, when it was pointed out that a huge percentage of calls using this system were fraudulent, and the telcos were doing nothing to stop it, because they were profiting at the taxpayer's expense.  If you're unfamiliar with the system, IP Relay has a good <i>intention</i>: to help hearing impaired people communicate -- allowing them to send text-based messages to phone numbers, which are then read by operators.  In order to fund this service, the FCC pays telcos an astounding $1.50 per minute on such calls.   Scammers, however, quickly realized that this was a way to make free, almost totally anonymous, calls.  And the telcos had every incentive to encourage <i>any</i> usage, scammy or not, since it meant they got paid (from taxpayers).
<br /><br />
The fact that all of this was obvious eight years ago but it was only just now that feds decided to <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Government-Sues-ATT-for-Millions-in-IP-Relay-Fraud-118940" target="_blank">sue AT&#038;T for abusing the system</a> is pretty incredible.  To be fair, the FCC passed rules in 2008 that required telcos try to register users to verify who they were (to take away some of the anonymity of the system).  The key issue with this lawsuit is the claim that AT&#038;T <i>intentionally</i> implemented an authentication system that wouldn't work.  In other words, it purposely scammed taxpayers out of a ton of money:
<blockquote><i>
The United States alleges that AT&#038;T violated the False Claims Act by facilitating and seeking federal payment for IP Relay calls by international callers who were ineligible for the service and sought to use it for fraudulent purposes.   The complaint alleges that, out of fears that fraudulent call volume would drop after the registration deadline, AT&#038;T knowingly adopted a non-compliant registration system that did not verify whether the user was located within the United States.   The complaint further contends that AT&#038;T continued to employ this system even with the knowledge that it facilitated use of IP Relay by fraudulent foreign callers, which accounted for up to 95 percent of AT&#038;T&#8217;s call volume.   The government&#8217;s complaint alleges that AT&#038;T improperly billed the TRS Fund for reimbursement of these calls and received millions of dollars in federal payments as a result.
</i></blockquote>
As Karl Bode at Broadband Reports notes, if you start doing the math, the claim that this is about "millions of dollars" may be a "severe under-estimate."  We're talking about 95% of all of these calls, done for many years, being fraudulent, with AT&#038;T having no incentive to cut them out, and scammers having tremendous incentive to use the service as well.  Again, all of this done with taxpayers footing the bill.  While AT&#038;T definitely deserves scorn for allegedly purposely choosing to set up a bogus registration system, a ton of blame has to go to the government for letting all of this happen for so damn long, and not recognizing just how much AT&#038;T was fleecing taxpayers for under the system (not to mention all of the scams this probably helped enable).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/02570318219/feds-finally-realize-that-att-has-been-enabling-scammers-to-abuse-ip-fraud-financed-taxpayers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/02570318219/feds-finally-realize-that-att-has-been-enabling-scammers-to-abuse-ip-fraud-financed-taxpayers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/02570318219/feds-finally-realize-that-att-has-been-enabling-scammers-to-abuse-ip-fraud-financed-taxpayers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>took-'em-long-enough</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120323/02570318219</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:01:28 PST</pubDate>
<title>If You're Accused Of Trying To Scam Facebook Out Of 50%+ Of Its Equity, Probably Don't Have An Email Account Named GetZuck</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/17285417843/if-youre-accused-trying-to-scam-facebook-out-50-its-equity-probably-dont-have-email-account-named-getzuck.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/17285417843/if-youre-accused-trying-to-scam-facebook-out-50-its-equity-probably-dont-have-email-account-named-getzuck.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The case of Paul Ceglia, the guy who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/15472010291.shtml">claimed</a> that Mark Zuckerberg signed a contract giving him at least half (and maybe up to 84%) of Facebook, keeps getting more ridiculous.  As more and more details came out there was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110816/04160615542/original-contract-used-paul-ceglia-to-claim-facebook-ownership-doesnt-mention-facebook.shtml">considerable</a> <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/09334514565/if-youre-going-to-forge-email-mark-zuckerberg-make-sure-you-use-proper-english.shtml">evidence</a> supporting Facebook's claim that the whole thing was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110526/22222014447/facebook-once-again-says-that-ceglias-claim-to-own-84-facebook-is-fraud.shtml">attempted fraud</a>.  Ceglia, whose case got a big boost when legal giant DLA Piper decided to take it on... lost much of that credibility when they quickly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/16084214892/paul-ceglias-big-time-law-firm-drops-him-his-case-to-claim-ownership-giant-chunk-facebook.shtml">dropped him</a>.  Since then, he's had difficulty keeping lawyers.
<br /><br />
And, now, he's being accused of defying court orders and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57383241-93/facebook-ceglia-concealed-getzuck-e-mail-account/" target="_blank">refusing to hand over the details of an email account</a> he had with the username "GetZuck," which raises just a few credibility questions.
<blockquote><i>
Ceglia's ongoing obstruction--in the face of repeated motions to compel--has prejudiced Defendants by denying them access to time-sensitive electronic material that this Court ordered Ceglia to disclose more than six months ago. Ceglia's attorney Dean Boland appears to have recognized as much. After learning that his client had failed to identify webmail accounts in yet another violation of this Court's Orders, he sent an email to Defendants' attorneys offering to provide signed consent forms for two of the four undisclosed accounts: landlubber39@yahoo.com and paulc@hush.com. He did not, however, mention or offer Ceglia's consent to the inspection of the alleganypellets@gmail.com or getzuck@gmail.com accounts. 
</i></blockquote>
The judge in the case has already ordered Ceglia to pay $76,000 in Facebook's legal fees, as well as sanctioned him to the tune of $5,000 for delays in making his emails available.  I'm guessing even those who originally thought Ceglia had <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-lawsuit-paul-ceglia-new-evidence-2011-4?op=1">strong evidence</a> to support his case have probably long since changed their minds...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/17285417843/if-youre-accused-trying-to-scam-facebook-out-50-its-equity-probably-dont-have-email-account-named-getzuck.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/17285417843/if-youre-accused-trying-to-scam-facebook-out-50-its-equity-probably-dont-have-email-account-named-getzuck.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120222/17285417843/if-youre-accused-trying-to-scam-facebook-out-50-its-equity-probably-dont-have-email-account-named-getzuck.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-don't-then-hide-it-from-the-lawyers</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120222/17285417843</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:34:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Original Contract Used By Paul Ceglia To Claim Facebook Ownership... Doesn't Mention Facebook</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110816/04160615542/original-contract-used-paul-ceglia-to-claim-facebook-ownership-doesnt-mention-facebook.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110816/04160615542/original-contract-used-paul-ceglia-to-claim-facebook-ownership-doesnt-mention-facebook.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The latest chapter in the bizarre story of Paul Ceglia claiming a right to more than half of Facebook is that Facebook -- who has previously claimed that Ceglia is nothing but a fraud -- says that in the discovery process it <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/16/idUSN1E77E1VH20110816" target="_blank">found the original contract, and that contract doesn't even mention Facebook</a>.  Facebook pretty clearly is suggesting that Ceglia doctored the contract he did have with Mark Zuckerberg, to work on a Ceglia project called StreetFax, and changed it to supposedly cover Facebook.  If you look at <a href="http://i.imgur.com/70l6U.jpg" target="_blank">the two documents side by side</a> you can see clearly that the original was changed.  The fact that both have handwriting and both MZ and PC's initials on it show that this is the same document:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/70l6U.jpg" width=560 />
</center>
Given this evidence, and how this case has gone so far, especially with multiple lawyers dumping Ceglia (including some big names who surprised a lot of people in taking his case originally), it doesn't look like Ceglia has much of a chance here.  I'm still a bit mystified that Zuckerberg and Facebook didn't come out more vehemently originally.  When the story first came out, Facebook's lawyers simply said they were <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/15472010291.shtml">unsure</a> if the contract was legit.  You would think that if he'd never signed any such thing, the denials would have been a lot more upfront.  Still, in the end, this case looks dead in the water.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110816/04160615542/original-contract-used-paul-ceglia-to-claim-facebook-ownership-doesnt-mention-facebook.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110816/04160615542/original-contract-used-paul-ceglia-to-claim-facebook-ownership-doesnt-mention-facebook.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110816/04160615542/original-contract-used-paul-ceglia-to-claim-facebook-ownership-doesnt-mention-facebook.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>falling-apart</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110816/04160615542</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:05:52 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Paul Ceglia's Big Time Law Firm Drops Him In His Case To Claim Ownership Of A Giant Chunk Of Facebook</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/16084214892/paul-ceglias-big-time-law-firm-drops-him-his-case-to-claim-ownership-giant-chunk-facebook.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/16084214892/paul-ceglias-big-time-law-firm-drops-him-his-case-to-claim-ownership-giant-chunk-facebook.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When Paul Ceglia <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110412/01471613861/guy-who-claims-he-owns-84-facebook-refiles-lawsuit.shtml">refiled</a> his lawsuit against Facebook, claiming that he's entitled to at least 50% (and perhaps more) of the company due to an agreement Zuckerberg supposedly signed in the very early days, one of the key things that caught the eye of legal watchers was that Ceglia had retained legal giant DLA Piper to represent him in the case. DLA Piper is a huge, respected law firm and law firms like that generally don't take on cases where fraud may be involved -- as Facebook has been alleging with Ceglia.  Actually, for many, the fact that DLA Piper agreed to jump on the case after doing some "due diligence" gave the case credibility which it had lacked previously.
<br /><br />
Since then, however, Facebook has been even more aggressive in claiming the whole thing is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110526/22222014447/facebook-once-again-says-that-ceglias-claim-to-own-84-facebook-is-fraud.shtml">a fraud</a> and presented some pretty <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/09334514565/if-youre-going-to-forge-email-mark-zuckerberg-make-sure-you-use-proper-english.shtml">compelling evidence</a> suggesting that the emails that Ceglia presented were not, in fact, written by Mark Zuckerberg at all.
<br /><br />
And... just like that, <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-paul-ceglias-big-firm-lawyers-just-ditched-his-case-against-facebook/" target="_blank">DLA Piper is no longer representing Paul Ceglia</a>.  No explanation has been given, but for the folks who thought the association brought Ceglia credibility, seeing him abruptly dropped by the law firm (especially so soon after Facebook's response) certainly will have the opposite effect.  It reduces the likelihood that Ceglia has a strong case.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/16084214892/paul-ceglias-big-time-law-firm-drops-him-his-case-to-claim-ownership-giant-chunk-facebook.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/16084214892/paul-ceglias-big-time-law-firm-drops-him-his-case-to-claim-ownership-giant-chunk-facebook.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/16084214892/paul-ceglias-big-time-law-firm-drops-him-his-case-to-claim-ownership-giant-chunk-facebook.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>due-diligence?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110628/16084214892</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 04:02:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Facebook, Once Again, Says That Ceglia's Claim To Own 84% Of Facebook Is A Fraud</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110526/22222014447/facebook-once-again-says-that-ceglias-claim-to-own-84-facebook-is-fraud.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110526/22222014447/facebook-once-again-says-that-ceglias-claim-to-own-84-facebook-is-fraud.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in April, when Paul Ceglia <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110412/01471613861/guy-who-claims-he-owns-84-facebook-refiles-lawsuit.shtml">refiled</a> his lawsuit claiming to have a contract which gave him a huge chunk (up to 84%) of Facebook, some people pointed out that the refiled lawsuit sounded a lot more credible.  There was additional email evidence and (mainly) the fact that a huge, extremely reputable law firm had taken on Ceglia as a client -- something they likely wouldn't do if they thought the whole thing was faked.  However, Facebook is sticking to its claim that the whole thing <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/facebook-slams-n-y-man-who-claims-to-own-half-of-zuckerbergs-shares/" target="_blank">is an elaborate fraud by "an inveterate scam artist whose misconduct extends across decades and borders."</a>  The response claims that the evidence was doctored or fabricated.  It seems like this case is going to end up being a <i>lot</i> more interesting to watch than the Winklevii case.  Someone alert Aaron Sorkin to the sequel possibilities...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110526/22222014447/facebook-once-again-says-that-ceglias-claim-to-own-84-facebook-is-fraud.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110526/22222014447/facebook-once-again-says-that-ceglias-claim-to-own-84-facebook-is-fraud.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110526/22222014447/facebook-once-again-says-that-ceglias-claim-to-own-84-facebook-is-fraud.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>strong-words</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110526/22222014447</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:34:23 PST</pubDate>
<title>No, Just Because A Site Contains 'Academic' 'Advantage' &#038; 'Scam' On The Same Page, It Is Not Defamation Against Academic Advantage</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110117/03455412700/no-just-because-site-contains-academic-advantage-scam-same-page-it-is-not-defamation-against-academic-advantage.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110117/03455412700/no-just-because-site-contains-academic-advantage-scam-same-page-it-is-not-defamation-against-academic-advantage.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There are all sorts of bogus legal threats out there, but every so often you see ones that take the concept of the bogus legal threat to a new and more astounding level.  I would argue that the following legal threat, sent to BoingBoing qualifies.  On January 13th, BoingBoing received a cease &#038; desist letter from the law firm of Lazar, Akiva &#038; Yagoubzadeh, written by Jubin Niamehr (who <a href="http://laylegal.com/attorneys.html" target="_blank">appears</a> to be the only attorney at the firm not to get his name in the law firm's name).  The <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/16/stupid-legal-threat.html?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed: boingboing/iBag (Boing Boing)&#038;utm_content=Google Reader" target="_blank">complaint against BoingBoing is almost too bizarre to be believed</a>.  Basically, the law firm represents a company named Academic Advantage.  In 2009, Boingboing wrote a blog post that had <a href="http://boingboing.net/2009/07/16/autism-as-an-academi.html" target="_blank"><i>absolutely nothing to do with the company Academic Advantage</i></a>.  However, it did use the <i>phrase</i> "academic advantage" in the title of a post called "Autism as an academic advantage."
<br /><br />
Again, the post had absolutely nothing to do with the company Academic Advantage.
<br /><br />
Then, way down in the comments, an anonymous commenter talked about <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/16/autism-as-an-academi.html#comment-544237" target="_blank">his own experience with autism</a> and academia.  In it, that commenter notes that, in his opinion, college was "a scam."  Once again, this commenter is not speaking about the company Academic Advantage at all.  He is not calling the company Academic Advantage a scam.
<br /><br />
So what happens?  According to Niamehr, apparently representing the company Academic Advantage, somehow, this all adds up to a prima facie case of defamation against Academic Advantage:
<blockquote><i>
It is clear there is no purpose to this web address but to falsely accuse the Academic Advantage of
being a scam or at least associating the Academic Advantage with a scam. There is absolutely no helpful
reason for the website to have the words "Academic," "Advantage" and "Scam" which leads me to
believe it was created for malicious purposes. Claiming that our client's tutoring services program is a
"SCAM" is prima facie defamation and designed to do nothing more than damage our client's reputation.
</i></blockquote>
I would love to see this law firm go to court and try to defend the claim that the post on BoingBoing (which is actually quite interesting) was designed to do nothing more than damage Academic Advantage when absolutely nothing in the post or the comments is about the company Academic Advantage.  Furthermore, of course, making this even more ridiculous, the "scam" part of it (which again, is not at all about the company Academic Advantage) was put there by a commenter, so even if this <i>was</i> defamatory -- which again, it cannot be, since it's not about the company -- then the law firm of Lazar, Akiva &#038; Yagoubzadeh, and its partner Jubin Niamehr, should know that the site itself is protected from such charges by Section 230 of the CDA, since the "scam" claim would have come from a commenter.  But, of course, you don't even need to get that far, since <i>nothing</i> on the page talks about the company in question.
<br /><br />
One would hope that Lazar, Akiva &#038; Yagoubzadeh did not charge the company Academic Advantage for the time it took to put together such a letter.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110117/03455412700/no-just-because-site-contains-academic-advantage-scam-same-page-it-is-not-defamation-against-academic-advantage.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110117/03455412700/no-just-because-site-contains-academic-advantage-scam-same-page-it-is-not-defamation-against-academic-advantage.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110117/03455412700/no-just-because-site-contains-academic-advantage-scam-same-page-it-is-not-defamation-against-academic-advantage.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bogus-threats</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110117/03455412700</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:15:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>French Court Forcing Google To Remove Word 'Scam' From Google Suggest</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0914057731.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0914057731.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year we wrote about two contradictory rulings in France involving lawsuits by companies <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0407145647.shtml">upset about how Google Suggest works</a>.  As you probably know, as you type a query into Google, it tries to "suggest" the rest of the query, based on common searches beginning with what you typed.  This is all done automatically and is an algorithmic function of what people are actually searching on.  The "problem" was that in one case, people were searching for the name of a company, Centre National Prive de Formation a Distance (CNFDI), and one of the most popular searches, meaning one of the suggested searches, was to follow CNFDI with "arnaque," which means "scam."  In one case, from a company called Direct Energie, the court ruled that it was Google's fault -- and oddly blamed the fact that the results were not alphabetical to suggest Google was at fault.  The better ruling came in the CNFDI case where the court pointed out that search engines are "important tools for the free circulation of ideas and information," and the fact that many people were questioning whether CNFDI was a scam was, in fact, important and potentially useful information, and thus not libelous by itself.  It also said that the burden on free speech would be too great if Google were forced to remove the suggestion.
<br /><br />
So much for that ruling.  Reader Mike Read has sent in the news that an appeals court <a href="http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/google-scam-suggestion-condemned-by-high-court.asp/6680/" target="_blank">has reversed the CNFDI ruling</a> and found Google liable.  Its reasoning is that Google lets people alert the company to "offensive" terms in Google suggest, and it believes that "scam" is an offensive term.  I have to question that logic.  If people are legitimately concerned that there are scams going on, why shouldn't that be expressed?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0914057731.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0914057731.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0914057731.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>public-interest?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100113/0914057731</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:17:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Patent Office Insider Funnels $500k To Minister</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090819/1055265927.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090819/1055265927.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This certainly isn't a condemnation of the USPTO itself, but apparently a financial analyst within the PTO worked with a minister to <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Minister-pleads-guilty-to-stealing-_500K-from-U_S_-patent-office-8124071-53602837.html" target="_new">steal more than $500,000</a>.  The minister has plead guilty, but the PTO employee is still just under investigation:
<blockquote><i>
One of the patent employee's tasks was to process requests for funds from customers who had completed the application process, documents said. In his guilty plea, Reid said the patent office employee identified accounts that had gone dormant. She then changed the name on the accounts to Redeemed Music House and wired the cash to the company's bank account.
<br /><br />
Court documents show that the patent worker stole a total of $534,338 over 32 transfers, 27 of which were to Reid. It is unclear from documents where the other $80,000 went.
</i></blockquote>
This is obviously a scam by a corrupt employee, but a couple folks submitted it, noting that with so much interest in the USPTO around these parts, some folks might be interested.  It's certainly not a condemnation of the USPTO (it does plenty of things officially for that), as it's pretty clearly a bad employee scamming money.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090819/1055265927.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090819/1055265927.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090819/1055265927.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ah,-the-uspto</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090819/1055265927</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Jul 2009 05:09:32 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yet Another Run On A Virtual Bank</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090704/1340195440.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090704/1340195440.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A couple years ago, there were stories about how there was a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070809/065531.shtml">"run" on the virtual banks</a> of Second Life.  Later on, some reporters tried to suggest that the Second Life "credit crunch" was a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081123/1008302922.shtml">predictor</a> of the real world's credit crunch.  That wasn't even close to true.  Yet, with yet another story about a virtual world, we're once again hearing in-apt comparisons to the real world.  The latest is a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8132547.stm" target="_new">run on a bank in the game EVE Online</a>.  In this case, it looks like one of the guys involved in running the "bank" simply took some of the virtual currency out of the bank and exchanged it for real world cash (about $5k).  The BBC headline calling it "billions stolen" is inaccurate, since it was only "billions" in the meaningless virtual currency.  In the real world, it translated into not very much at all.  The BBC article also calls it a "virtual version of the credit crunch."  Again, this is quite inaccurate.  In both the Second Life bank run and this bank run the problem was simply outright fraud by the "virtual banks" or those who run them.  That's quite different than what has happened with the real world credit crunch, and it does little good to pretend otherwise.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090704/1340195440.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090704/1340195440.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090704/1340195440.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-don't-get-too-excited-over-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090704/1340195440</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:17:38 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Tim Berners-Lee Conned By Web Scam?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090317/1913024158.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090317/1913024158.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the web, has now admitted that he was <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/031709-web-inventor-berners-lee-conned.html?fsrc=netflash-rss" target="_new">recently conned out of some money by a "fake company" that he found online</a>, when searching for a place to buy some presents.  While some will leap to the conclusion that "something needs to be done!" when even the web's inventor can become a victim of fraud online, I don't see how it's really any different than traditional fraud.  People can and will get taken in by frauds.  It's what happens.  That the fraud happened online, or that it happened to the guy who invented the web hardly seems particularly meaningful here.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090317/1913024158.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090317/1913024158.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090317/1913024158.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-cold</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090317/1913024158</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:55:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Students Using Speed Cameras To Frame Other Kids</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081221/1512103179.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081221/1512103179.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In general, we have trouble with things like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060124/1753234.shtml">speed cameras</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080604/2243441315.shtml">red light cameras</a> -- both of which don't tend to do much of anything to make the roads safer (rather, there's evidence that they lead to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/231629539.shtml">more accidents</a>).  The reality is that they are really about boosting revenue for local governments, not about safety -- which explains why plenty of places have been found <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080410/011257809.shtml">illegally</a> changing parameters to make them bring in more revenue.
<br /><br />
But the biggest problem of all is just that these cameras aren't reliable at all, and without any human witness it seems unfair to charge someone with a crime -- especially when they do things like charge a <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20050302/1117213_F.shtml">stationary brick wall</a> with going 58mph or accuse a woman of driving a car at a stunning <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031104/1048219.shtml">480 mph</a>.  And, of course, when you have an automated system sending out violation notices, you just <i>know</i> it's going to get gamed.  That's exactly what appears to be happening.  <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/21/1751210">Slashdot</a> points out a story of students in Maryland making fake license plates matching other students' plates, slapping them on their cars and <a href="http://www.thesentinel.com/302730670790449.php" target="_new">speeding by speed cameras</a> in order to get other students slapped with fines.  And, of course, others have seen similar attempts for <a href="http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/458.asp" target="_new">more nefarious reasons</a>.  At what point did we decide it was okay for automated systems to issue fines without any human review?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081221/1512103179.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081221/1512103179.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081221/1512103179.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>guilty-until-proven-innocent</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081221/1512103179</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Online Poker Cheating Scam Unraveled</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/0309502425.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/0309502425.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/30/1932217&#038;from=rss">Slashdot</a> points us to the news that the well known online poker playing site UltimateBet.com has been <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/dogged-aussie-detective-work-reveals-10m-ripoff/2008/09/30/1222651059903.html" target="_new">fined $1.5 million</a> as part of an ongoing investigation into what appears to be a <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26563848" target="_new">rather massive scheme to defraud online poker players</a> by giving some insiders the ability to see all the cards other players held.  Over the past year, this story has been building up steam, as the fraud was actually called out by some other players who questioned how certain players had been able to win so much.  Using statistical analysis, it was shown to have been close to impossible, without inside knowledge, and the latest report does, indeed, pin some of the blame on a well-known poker player who was an initial "consultant" to one of the companies involved in this mess.  If you read the MSNBC link above, you'll see that there are a number of different companies involved, but it sounds as though many are simply shell companies for the same group of people, with attempts to move assets around for a variety of purposes.  So, it's not yet entirely clear who was involved beyond the one player named, but more names are expected to be released later this year, as investigators finish up their investigation.
<br /><br />
What may be most interesting about the whole ordeal was that it was exposed not by the body charged with actually regulating the online casino, but other players who were able to sniff out the details working together in online forums.  Chalk another one up to the wisdom of the crowd.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/0309502425.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/0309502425.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/0309502425.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>whodunit</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081001/0309502425</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:38:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>'Free Software' Scammers Fined $2.2 Million</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080613/0131051395.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080613/0131051395.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen various incarnations of the scam (often found in infomercials) where a company offers you something for "free," but in the fine print, you're really signing up for an ongoing paid service.  For years, some of the biggest "ringtone" companies made much of their money <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4295625.stm">this way</a>, offering "free" or cheap ringtones that actually involved the user signing up for a monthly service without realizing it.  The infamous "Video Professor" has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070921/170536.shtml">accused</a> of running a similar system, though the company vehemently denies this.
<br /><br />
Either way, it appears that the FTC is starting to crack down on some of these practices, <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/28712" target="_new">fining a competitor to "Video Professor," called ThinkAll, $2.2 million</a>.  Apparently ThinkAll took this scam to a new level.  It offered "free" software, where you simply had to pay for the shipping and handling -- though, it sounds like that was really just so the company could get your credit card on file.  After receiving that first free CD, customers were offered 3 more titles totally free (not even any shipping).  If you decided to accept that software (and why wouldn't you?) it made you check a box saying you had read the terms of service.  Of course <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050223/1745244.shtml">no one</a> reads the full terms of service, which include (hidden down in the 7th paragraph) the fact that in accepting this "free" software, you're actually agreeing to sign up for a monthly fee-based service.  Quite sneaky... until the FTC stepped in.  Hopefully other businesses take notice and start avoiding these types of scams.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080613/0131051395.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080613/0131051395.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080613/0131051395.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-not-the-'free'-business-model-we're-talking-about</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080613/0131051395</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 May 2008 07:35:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Just Because Craigslist Is Used In A Scam, Doesn't Make People Craigslist Victims</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080503/2336231022.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080503/2336231022.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's amazing how often Craigslist gets <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080326/065624653.shtml">blamed</a> for stuff that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080328/164111692.shtml">it didn't do</a>.  The latest, as sent in by an anonymous reader, is that a scammer used Craigslist to <a href="http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_9121681?source=rss_viewed" target="_new">rent the same house out to at least 20 different people</a>.  The guy who owned the house put up ads on Craigslist, saying the house would be available May 1, and then collected first and last month's rent from at least 20 people.  Those 20 people and their families discovered the situation as they showed up to the house on May 1.  Clearly, these folks are the victim of a scammer (most likely the guy who owned the house).  But the local newspaper, the Pasadena Star News refers to them as "Craigslist victims" as if it's the fault of Craigslist.  It makes you wonder, if the same scam had been done via a classified ad in the Pasadena Star News, would the headline have read: "Number of Pasadena Star News victims increases"?  Somehow, I doubt it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080503/2336231022.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080503/2336231022.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080503/2336231022.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>blame-the-scammer,-not-the-platform</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080503/2336231022</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:21:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>State Sues Unclaimed Money Site After Finding It Told Wile E. Coyote He Had Unclaimed Money</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/184456730.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/184456730.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Pennsylvania is <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TECHBIT_UNCLAIMED_FUNDS?SITE=CADIU&#038;SECTION=HOME&#038;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT" target="_new">suing a website that promised to help people get access to unclaimed money they were owed</a> after investigators determined that the site was convincing people to pay $24.95 for a membership by telling them they had unclaimed money, no matter who they were.  Investigators used the scientific method of testing whether Spiderman, Batman and Wile E. Coyote had unclaimed money.  After discovering that all three were told they did (on a free search, details only available if you paid), they decided that the site was perhaps being less than honest with users.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/184456730.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/184456730.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/184456730.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>batman-too</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080402/184456730</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:09:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Craigslist Ransacking Was To Cover Up Burglary</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080401/162949719.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080401/162949719.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember that story last week about someone posting a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080326/065624653.shtml">fake ad</a> on Craigslist, leading to people ransacking a house and taking all sorts of stuff?  It turns out that the folks behind the fake ad <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0401081horse1.html" target="_new">were simply trying to cover up their own burglary of the house</a>.  Apparently, they had stolen some stuff from the garage and figured the best way to hide the theft was to get a ton of other people to steal stuff as well, via the Craigslist ad.  Of course, by posting the ad, they made it that much easier to track them down, as police retrieved the IP address and were able to figure out who was responsible.  Once again, despite those who tried to "blame" Craigslist, it looks like Craigslist helped the police catch the crooks.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080401/162949719.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080401/162949719.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080401/162949719.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-that-didn't-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080401/162949719</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:25:59 PST</pubDate>
<title>Latest 419 Scam: Asking Your Friends For A Loan</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071109/114404.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071109/114404.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been interesting to see how the so-called Nigerian 419 scams have evolved over time as people have become more familiar with them.  In the past, it's often been difficult to feel too sorry for victims, as they were taken in by their own <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031103/109232.shtml">greed</a> at the possibility of sharing in a large amount of illicitly gained loot.  However, it appears the recent variations play less on greed and much more on charitable emotions.  Last month, we wrote about Nigerian scammers exploiting the idea of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071015/213517.shtml">cute puppies</a> needing a home, and now comes a report that the latest trick is to combine phishing with a 419 scam to <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/e-mail-scammers-ask-your-friends-for-money/index.html?ex=1352350800&#038;en=4a00ddd4b2403d23&#038;ei=5090&#038;partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss">try to get your friends to wire money to Nigeria</a>, thinking it's to help you.  It starts with a typical phishing scam, in an attempt to get your webmail password.  Then, once the scammers have access to your webmail, they send an urgent email to all of your contacts, saying that you are in Nigeria, and you lost your wallet and are in serious trouble, and are requesting a quick loan wired to Nigeria.  Of course, the emails seem to be sent out to just about everyone, meaning that many people will realize it's not true.  At least in the example above, it's written in typically bad 419-scam "English," making it obviously fake.  However, it's likely that this will continue to evolve and get better as well -- again, preying on people's best interests rather than their greed.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071109/114404.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071109/114404.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071109/114404.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>HOPE-TO-READ-FROM-YOU&hellip;</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071109/114404</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>