'Millions' of spammy emails with no opt-out? That'll cost you $650K, Experian Experian has agreed to cough up $650,000 after being accused of spamming people with no opt-out button. That sum will hardly be felt by the credit-reporting giant as its profits totaled $1.1 billion last year. The penalty stems from a complaint filed against it by the US Department of Justice on behalf of the Federal Trade …
Their whole industry is based around extortion and exploiting peoples identity info. The credit score they peddle is snake oil and literally punishes consumers for shopping around for a better deal. It's used without sound justification as a gate keeper to discriminate against people applying for housing, which is pre-paid and not based on credit, and in no way verifies their income or ability to pay. Yet whole industries use it as a proxy for a persons basic worth as a person.
Also maddeningly it's the main tool used to justify charging poor people more than rich people for the same good or service, which ought to also be illegal.
And worse - have you seen the snake oil that is their "credit boost"? Let us have access to your bank accounts and we will boost your credit score.
But... of course... the bit they don't like people to know is that beyond an automated "this person generally appears credit worthy" any lender will do their own scoring based on their own algorithms, so the score itself is bullshit.
Oh and of course, you can't get the "boost" unless you already subscribe... subscribe to what??
I am old enough to remember when, if you wanted say a mortgage, you went and spoke to your bank manager. But back then of course, we had things like bank branches and managers who knew their customers.
And the problem is, the very people that they prey on are the ones who are least likely to need or want their "services" to begin with. Bastards.
That's why we banked with a large, but local, credit union when we lived in the Stately Manor, and now at the Mountain Fastness with a local bank. They do know who we are, and often whom we're dealing with.
Retail banking has very tight margins, so large commercial banks will trim their operations as much as possible. That's not good for consumers.
This post has been deleted by its author
Why oh why, is there a CAN-SPAM Act?...where you have to CONFIRM to a potential spammer that your email address is REAL and that you don't want their junk emails...as they can then monetise this and sell your real email address on to other spammers, who target you and when you try to unsubscribe from them, you re-inforce the fact that the email address is real.
And so it goes on. And on. And on.
Seems to me that with all the website hacking going on as well as idiots sending out names/address databases from the likes of UK police forces and even councils, that there should be a better way of a) stopping spammers from plaguing you in the first place and b) ensuring that any database details cannot be easily exported or hacked.
We've surely got the tech to do this, if only someone could be "bovvered".
I had the same low opinion of CAN-SPAM (and for the most part still do) but I did note that many of the larger grey mailers do feel obliged to include certain information in their headers. It's just a fig leaf in an intentionally obscure location; the last thing they want are actual delist requests for which they will be fined if they ignore or "forget" the feedback. However, if you are inspecting headers then you can look for those patterns and conditionally deliver their spam. It's a useful technique for senders whose ranges are too big, too dynamic or whose aggregate output is too mixed to block.
I say "conditionally deliver" because by its nature you won't get a consistent view from your recipients. In some cases they actually want some of the spam, but more commonly you will find the grey mailer's own customers mixing transactional and bulk in the same workload. Any internal mass mailing your own organisation commissions from the mailer (without telling you, naturally) is also going to get the same verdict.
I note that Microsoft do filter out a fair bit of spam* to Hotmail etc addresses. Maybe they should bill the sending email providers for this and let those providers pass the charge onto their customers. It would mean billing themselves a good deal of the time which might complicate the matter.
* Curiously they seem to go through phases of failing to filter all the Account termination notices allegedly coming from themselves.
Experian reported revenue of over $6 billion in 2022 with a profit before tax of over $1.4 billion[1].
Somebody pass the wrist salve. That feather slap really smarts.
______________________________
[1] https://www.experianplc.com/media/latest-news/2022/full-year-results-fy22-180522/
> we also have launched a new Email Preferences Center, found at the bottom of every marketing email communication, that goes further.
Long ago, there was a simple process. Reply "remove" and you got off the list.
Now I have to make an account, log into a Prefs Center, and be faced with dozens of possible lists, never any KILL ALL option.
That's not to mention that a GMC dealer in ALASKA thinks I bought a GMC from him and it has airbags which will kill me (many car makers bought those bargain Tanaka Mexico airbags). Since I do not actually have a GMC VIN I can not make an account to remove myself. I had enuff bad airbag recall crap on a Honda which I actually did buy; I don't need it on a vehicle I don't have.
"remove" should suffice. Anything more is harassment.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
