[SpamCop-List] Cyveillance explained (repost)

[Julian Haight]

I don't see this message showing up, so I'm reposting.  I don't know 
what went wrong the first time.  ??

Original message follows:

I've been informed that the addition of the cyveillance copies has been 
a bit more controversial than I had imagined, so I'm here to answer the 
questions in person.

First of all, yes I do get some money for sending copies to them.  Not a 
whole heck of a lot, and it's not my primary reason for setting them up. 
  But it helps cover the bandwidth bills - and since they are getting a 
copy of (almost) every spam submitted, it's a lot of bandwidth.

My main reason for sending them copies of spam is (drum roll) because I 
think it will help to discourage spamming.  That's the goal, right?

Prior to reading some of the comments here, I wasn't that informed about 
all the bad stuff they are (allegedly) doing.  However, even now that I 
have had a chance to look into these allegations, I don't see them as 
particularly serious, and it's also not surprising that they aren't 100% 
white-hat.  I'll be the first to admit they are spooky black-helicopter 
types.  But in the end, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, regardless 
of what they do outside my relationship with them.

I am however passing some excerpts on to my contact there, and even 
encourageing them to join the forum and answer some of the concerns 
directly.  Hopefully, I'll be able to report that your concerns are 
important to them, and that they are working to address them.  We'll see.

Now, as to what they are doing with the data - I think their description 
of it, which is linked on the report page, is pretty clear.  But just so 
you have it from the horse's mouth:

You submit spam to spamcop, they get copies.

They look at the spam to see if any of their client's trademarks, 
product names, stock symbols, etc., are being used.

If they are, they report that activity back to the client.

Presumably the client then takes action to stop this besmirching of 
their trade names.  Probably that means sueing the spammer (if the use 
is prohibited), revoking affiliate licenses (if the use is legitimate) 
or even completely reworking the company's affiliate system so that it's 
possible to prevent spammers from signing up.  Obviously, the precise 
action taken is not in my hands, but I think that most possible outcomes 
can only serve to remove the profit motive for the spammer - and thus 
slow down the spam.

As to the 3rd party targets & defaults - There are two types of 3rd 
party reports.  One is the type that spamcop comes up with, and then 
there are the "public standard report recipients".  These are different. 
  The former is default-on, and you really have to decide for yourself 
if you trust the site.  Anyone can sign up for that type of 3rd party 
report.  The later type (set in your preferences) is default-off because 
people were misusing it.

For paying users who prefer a default-off behavior for the regular 3rd 
party reports, I will create an option for it.  I've tested this option 
in the normal web-reporting screen, and I *think* it will work OK for 
the VER too.  It will be online in 24-48 hours.  Please report bugs here 
as always.

Another note on this topic:  3rd party routes used to be open for anyone 
to add without oversight. (as per FAQ: 
http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/94.html )  That system was abused, 
and I have now implemented some stricter controls on it (a deputy must 
authorize the routeing, and no requests for >/16 blocks).  However, we 
still can't know the mind of the person requesting the spam copies, so 
we are not generally going to deny reasonable-seeming requests.

Although I don't often post here myself, I have my spies, and I am 
listening to all the great suggestions people post.  I hope to implement 
a lot of positive changes over the next year.  For now, I'm still 
struggling to keep up, but I am getting help and I will hopefully have a 
lot more time to devote to what I enjoy - making a great program (do I 
sound like Bill Gates now?  At least I didn't say "innovate.").

Your comments welcome as always,

-=Julian=-