Spam

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: 10 October 2002 20:49
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Spam
>
>
> In message <FMEFLOMOCGIMKOKKKLFIGEPNCFAA.oml@sysrx.uk.com>, Owen Lewis
> <oml@sysrx.uk.com> writes
> >> Several that I'm aware of in recent times - although they are cases
> >> where people have lost money, not the initial spamming exercise.
> >
> >Well, I expect that can be read as 'more than one'.
>
> Many more than one case where someone has lost money and it has
> developed into a case that was prosecuted by the police.

My enquiry was as to the number of prosecutions per year you know to have
been brought. Say in each of the last three years?
>
> > You attest to knowledge
> >of more than 365 of these scams a year.
>
> There was a certain irony in my earlier emails that perhaps escaped you.
> *II get at least one west-african scam email a day. People in the UK
> probably get hundreds of thousands a day.

Let's leave the irony wherever you buried it :-) You receive at least on a
day. It is reasonable to assume that those you receive are also received by
many, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of others. It is also quite possible
that you do not receive a copy of every scam. Thus, 'more than 365 scams a
year' seems a sensible first approximation to the occurrences of such scams
in the UK.

>
> >I believe that the Met's average
> >detection rate is about 8%. In the case of NSs, what, to your
> understanding,
> >is the number of prosecutions a year? I admit to knowing of none
> but that is
> >not necessarily a fair indicator.
>
> No prosecutions for sending the emails, but a measurable number for the
> actual fraud.

That 'measurable number' is what I asked for and you have not, yet, given.

> >> I understand that new cases arise rather more frequently than you'd
> >> expect, but for various good reasons the officers are publicity-shy.
> >
> >I do not follow you. Investigating officers details are but rarely
> >publicised as a result of a prosecution of any sort. What do you
> suppose is
> >so particularly sensitive in regard to NSs? I do admit to being amused at
> >the thought of reporting restrictions being imposed whenever a
> one of these
> >con artists is brought to justice :-)
>
> It is, as you very correctly say a confidence trick. The more that the
> tricksters know about the countermeasures and investigations, the more
> they can both evade them, and even turn them to their advantage.

That logic comes close to re-inforcing my view that the police do not, in
fact, bring charges against these people. Whether the lack of prosecution is
due to simple disinterest, lack of time, application of de minimis, lack of
evidence or any combination of these is not worth pulling apart for present
purposes.

The key issue is whether NSs are, indeed, prosecuted. I do not know of one
prosecution, successful or otherwise. You have said that, to your knowledge,
there are such prosecutions. Would you be so kind as to provide such detail
as you have of the number of prosecutions arising directly from Nigerian
Scams?

Owen