E-Mail Groups Warn of Disaster-Relief Internet Scams

Sep 14 2001

NEW YORK -- Organizations fighting against unsolicited e-mail marketing continue to warn Internet users that unscrupulous people may be using fraudulent e-mail relief-donation solicitations to line their own pockets.

But the Federal Trade Commission, which is monitoring the situation closely, downplayed those concerns.

"We don't see evidence of scams here, but we're all over it," said Eileen Harrington, associate director of marketing practices at the FTC. "I think that the press reports are way out ahead of reality here."

John Mozena, co-founder and vice president of Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, or CAUCE, said his organization has seen about 10 different examples of unsolicited mass e-mail - or "spam" - playing on the tragedy of Tuesday's terrorist attacks.

Several of the messages purported to be collecting donations for relie efforts. Mozena said CAUCE so far hasn't heard from any people who believe that they fell prey to a scam.

"Our hope is certainly that anyone who is trying to do the right thing isn't fattening the pockets of a spammer instead of giving money to the relief effort, " he said.

At least two new spam prototypes surfaced Friday, said Tom Geller, executive director of SpamCon Foundation. One message encouraged recipients to donate money to the Red Cross and provided a correct link to that organization's Web site. But the senders also offered another way to get money to the Red Cross: Set up a PayPal account and the senders promise to donate the $5 referral payments.

"I wouldn't trust them to give it to the Red Cross," Geller said.

The second message offers to donate $1 to the Red Cross for each purchase of Microsoft Office XP Professional software for $29.95, which is about 5% of the price the sender claims is charged by Amazon.com.

Among the other mass e-mail messages that anti-spam groups have highlighted is one soliciting donations for the Red Cross and "Victims Survivor Fund." The message directs people to a Web site that is unconnected to the Red Cross or a Survivor Fund, a disclaimer at the bottom of the page admits. Links on the site for making donations appeared to be disabled Friday.

Another message offers commemorative phone cards, promising to donate part of the proceeds to relief efforts. The Web site address included in the e-mail wasn't accessible.

CAUCE and the SpamCon Foundation are advising people to be wary of unsolicited mail from unknown organizations, to carefully examine the Internet addresses shown on their browsers if they've clicked on links to donate, and to verify solicitors' identifies through another medium, such as by telephone, before giving money.

The FTC said people who have received suspect e-mail should submit complaints online at www.ftc.gov or to call 1-877-FTC-HELP. "When we find evidence of consumer fraud and deception, we can and do take action," it said in a statement.

Many of these messages may display a distressing "callousness in the face of so grand a tragedy," as Geller puts it, but they aren't necessarily illegal.

According to SpamCon Foundation, there are currently no U.S. federal laws that address spam specifically, although some spammers have lost cases in federal court based on trespass and forgery laws. About 18 state governments have passed anti-spam laws, Geller said.

Mozena said the spam that has fed off the ongoing tragedy "might anger some legislators into some action."

In fact, there are several bills ready for debate in Congress, including the "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001" cosponsored by Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M.; the "Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2001" introduced by Sen. Conrad R. Burns, R-Mont.; and the "Wireless Telephone Spam Protection Act" sponsored by Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J..

Geller doesn't support the two broader bills because they "basically say it's OK to spam." They require that senders let recipients opt out of mail list, which Geller argues puts an undue burden on users. By contrast the wireless bill requires that recipients opt into mail lists.

In addition to passing and enforcing laws against unsolicited e-mail, Geller says that to resolve the spam problem Internet service providers should restrict mass-mail capabilities of new customers and institute and enforce contracts prohibiting spam.