The Creationist 419 Scam

You would think that outrageous claims are so likely to be rejected that the person making the claim would just give up and go away. For an example of this you might check out this Sensuous Curmudgeon post "ICR: Plants Are Not Alive". The Institute for Creation Research claims that because plants do not move and do not have blood, they are not alive, and they justify this based on the Old Testament and a some quadruple backwards spinning logical somersaults that would make Gabby Douglas gawk. There are plenty of other examples, but I won't belabor the point. As my buddies at The Sensuous Curmudgeon often note, the scammers* have to know they have no scientific standing, but they do it anyway. WHY?

Consider a known scam that everyone can agree is a scam; one that is no farther away than your email SPAM folder. Microsoft scientist Cormac Herley has a paper out:

 "Why do Nigerian Scammers
Say They are from Nigeria?" (pdf) 

Edit: Original link seems broken. Try this instead.

... dissecting the mathematics of the Nigerian 419 scam. The Wall Street Journal Online has a less technical summary, see "Why We Should Scam the Scammers".

Here is a brief quote from Herley, with my emphasis added:

"... Far-fetched tales of West African riches strike most as comical. Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor."

 Here is Herley again, later on:

"Since gullibility is unobservable, the best strategy is to get those who possess this quality to self-identify. An email with tales of fabulous amounts of money and West African corruption will strike all but the most gullible as bizarre. It will be recognized and ignored by anyone who has been using the Internet long enough to have seen it several times.  [ ... ]  It won’t be pursued by anyone who consults sensible family or fiends, or who reads any of the advice banks and money transfer agencies make available. Those who remain are the scammers ideal targets."

It's brilliant actually. Finding people susceptible to a scam is hard, but weeding out those least susceptible is as easy as concocting a lame story. The more outrageous the tale, the less likely it is to attract those who can see through it, leaving those who are mostly likely to be successfully fleeced by the scammer.

There's is a shorter summary, and an older one; Abraham Lincoln put it like this, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."



The scammers know that most people will apply some amount of logic and reason and reject the obviously incorrect, and this is what they want. They want to weed out the majority who will never buy into the scam, and speak to the few they might fool. When the scammer is the ICR and the marks falls for the false dichotomy that religious belief must overrule scientific knowledge, the scam is particularly insidious.

Herley suggests a response to the 419 scams, to counter-SPAM the scammers with automated responses, false positives that waste time and money and take the profit out of the scam. This would be harder to apply to Creationist scammers, requiring a large number of people (or automated facsimiles) to "Go Poe" and troll the Creationists where they live. That doesn't sound like fun, and it doesn't strike me as ethical. Still, the suggestion has been made before.

* I'd like to make distinction between those who hold to Creationist belief and those those making claims in support of Creation science. The former may hold a sincere belief, but the latter are deliberately lying in an attempt to undermine science and science education.

An Open Letter to Goodreads

Dear Goodreads,

This is getting old. I tried last month to unsubscribe from your newsletter, and still it comes. I am not surprised. I did not sign up for the newsletter either. A close acquaintance signed up (not knowing any better) and Goodreads SPAMMED her entire address book, causing a great deal of grief and embarrassment. Now all these people (and me) continue to receive Goodreads monthly SPAM too; It's the gift that keeps on SPAMMING, and just in time for Christmas.

So, Mr. Goodreads, does this by any chance look familiar?

Do you send unsolicited emails or direct mail?

Goodreads absolutely, positively does not use the emails it collects as a source for unsolicited emails.

It ought to, it's from the Goodread Privacy Policy page. Surely the people at Goodreads have heard the old marketing maxim that if you displease one customer, that customer well tell 11 people, and those 11 people will tell another 4 each, for a total of 45 pissed-off customers. I've seen a few weakly worded posts in response to complaints around the blogosphere, but no real evidence that you are actually changing your Address Book SPAMMING practices, or making any effort to remove any email addresses you previously gathered in this manner.
Your registration pages still guide people into giving you access to their address books, and actually require extra effort (canceling pop-ups AFTER deselecting the check-box) to avoid this to avoid this step. In short, despite your claims that you have improved you practices, there is no evidence of this change.

If Goodreads is serious about changing their ways, and maybe correcting for past wrongs, then they had better get busy.

[Never reveal your email login and password to any program or internet service that you do not absolutely trust, and even then you should be very suspicious. Most certainly do not trust Goodreads to protect your privacy.]

More Goodreads SPAM

I had previously given a mini-rant about Goodreads and their inexcusable SPAMming practices. Today I received the monthly newsletter from them, which I certainly do not recall agreeing to, much less requesting (by habit I never accept these). My curiosity stirred up, I did some minimal research:

From the Goodreads Privacy Policy:

Do you send unsolicited emails or direct mail?

Goodreads absolutely, positively does not use the emails it collects as a source for unsolicited emails.

"Liars" just doesn't seem to cover it. "Liar liar pants ablaze with thermonuclear fire"`is a little closer to the mark. Consider: Does the screen capture below look like an invitation to SPAM everyone in your address book?

[Image from Microformats Wiki, which has a related discussion.]

Can you read the small text at the bottom that reads:

*This feature is entirely optional and is only used to allow you to access your address book. You can select which friends to invite on the next page. We do not store your password.

LIARS! No sooner had an acquaintance signed up than her entire address book was SPAMMED. This being a trusted friend I started to sign up to see what was so interesting. I got suspicious when Goodreads asked for my password. A little internet searching quickly revealed numerous complaints about Goodreads and its practice of address book SPAM. While I also find some indications that Goodreads is working to improve their practices, I remain suspicious. Very suspicious.

Good News: OAUTH may be the answer needed to better protect our privacy.