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: 13 October 2002 15:16
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Spam
>
>
> In message <FMEFLOMOCGIMKOKKKLFIEEAMCGAA.oml@sysrx.uk.com>, Owen Lewis
> <oml@sysrx.uk.com> writes
>
> >In
> >this instance and from what has been put here, you accepted this
> information
> >under NDA so that you may profit from a resulting IPR.
>
> I'm not sure why you draw that (incorrect) conclusion.

This line rapidly descends from the general to the particular and I think we
should stop here with honours even. Interesting though it might be, it has
no place here.

> >...... However as a UKP 0.5M 'advance fee'
> hit, it does,
> >I think not belong in the same category as the average Nigerian Scam.
>
> It is exactly in that category. You must be as naive as their victims if
> you think that these folks stop at the initial 10K they ask for.

I do not doubt that a mark will be milked for all that he can be persuaded
to part with. However, look at the basics. In terms of private money, there
are probably fewer than 10,000 marks in the UK who could put up 0.5M in
cash. Of those 10,000, there might less than 10 both foolish enough and
criminal enough to choose to do so.

Given the number of scams there are, many of which may not even come to the
attention of the 10 max likely takers, one reasonably assumes that the bulk
of the market is - as with all cons - concerned with small hits of a
thousand or so a time.

For example, from my mail this morning:

....beginning. What we require from you through fax number; 234 1 7599511 or
email: kolabello01@excite.com are: {i} Acceptance letter of this offer {ii}
Your confidential telephone and fax numbers We have agreed that you will
retain 20% of the entire US$18,500,000.00 for your effort in this
transaction, 70% for us partners here in Nigeria and the remaining 10% will
be used for defrayal of incidental cost in the course of this transfer.

Interpreted, this means that I (uniquely) am offered USD 3.7M. I will be
asked for a contribution to the 'incidental cost). The maximum asked has to
be USED 925,000. One could reasonably and swiftly haggle that down to a 7:2
split of 1.85M = approx USD 200K = UKP 125K. However most do not have UKP
125K to play silly b*ggers with. So, a 'contribution as an earnest of good
faith' will be sooo reluctantly accepted, say UKP 5 - 12.5K?

(snip)
> >> Yes, the problem seems to be that missing teenagers aren't normally
> >> pursued for up to 14 days, whereas the moment there's a ransom demand
> >> it's immediate action stations.
> >
> >Roland, that is so lame it *has* to have a police PR source. Wake up and
> >smell the coffee :-)
>
> Um, it's a matter of fact that someone is not officially a "missing
> person" until they've been gone 14 days.

So what? The dishonesty (spin if you prefer) comes from the fact that most
children - also most abducted children - are not teenagers. It is notable
that police 'spokesmen' are prone to this type of glib deflection of
anything that might be construed as criticism on their performance. It harms
their cause among those who might wish them well more than any other single
factor I can think of. It is destructive of trust.

(snip)
> I take my understanding of statistics, where I can, by talking at length
> to the people directly involved. By such means I get to judge whether
> they are real or not. Whether you've talked to me enough to get a
> feeling that what I say is true, is another matter. Even so, some claims
> are bold enough that the risk of being caught out makes them more likely
> to be true.

Give 'facts' to three 'experts' and one is almost guaranteed four opinions
:-)

Enough.

Owen