every day we get spoof e-mails asking us to link to a phising paypal site. Everyday we forward the fake e-mail to spoof@paypal and every day we get the same automated respone. Clearly paypal are doing nothing about this growing menace and is it not about time everyone joined a class law suit against paypal for failing to act on all these spoof e-mails?
2007-02-19 06:20:10 · 3 answers · asked by jeff hall 3 in Computers & Internet ➔ Internet
What exactly are you wanting PayPal to do? They are not the only company that is used in phishing schemes. Bank Of America implemented probably one of the more sophisticated solutions using "site keys" but even then, it still relies on the users. Unfortunately most users are the weakest point in a solution as the link to a Slashdot article below indicates. As long as there are gullible users out there, the spam/phishing emails will continue. Sending out those messages is cheap, especially when they come from all the "zombie" systems out there. I guess by your logic, we should file a class action suit against the following:
- Microsoft for allowing their operating system to be compromised so easily.
- Internet providers for providing the conduit for users to send spam/phishing related messages
- Hardware makers for devices capable of running the operating system and applications related to spam/phishing
- Anti-Virus vendors for not protecting users from their complete stupidity of opening the latest "Brittany Spears Nude.exe".
I'm guessing you are the type of person who Weird Al had in mind when he wrote his "I'll Sue Ya" (link below for YouTube video).
2007-02-19 06:31:16 · answer #1 · answered by Jim Maryland 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What exactly do you expect Paypal to do about this? The source of these phishing emails are difficult to track for one thing, and the majority of the links are going to a site hosted in another country. This is no different than someone calling you on the phone pretending to be from your bank and asking for personal information.
Users need to be smarter than the criminals, and there are obviously enoucgh people who aren't that these phishing schemes are profitable for the crooks.
2007-02-19 06:29:02 · answer #2 · answered by whodeyflya 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
**you will possibly desire to confirm a powerfuble criminal expert. it relatively is not criminal advice.** you may haven't any alleviation considering which you will possibly no longer have a desirable clarification for action. you have status in case you have adequate activity in the lawsuits. this might all be desperate via the court docket s33Z. you're in Australia. I looked on the case Phillip Morris (Australia) Pty Ltd v Nixon (2000) one hundred seventy ALR 487. ok there are standards you may desire to confirm.. First: to verify that the representative lawsuits to be precise constituted, the appliance, (helping rfile), might desire to regulate to 33 H(a million) Federal court docket Act: a) might desire to describe or % out all crew members to whom the proceeding relates. b) specify the character of the claims made on behalf o fthe gruoup members and the alleviation claimed. c) specify the questions of regulation or actuality uncomplicated to the claims of crew members (i.e they might desire to ALL have an analogous declare) 2nd: you will possibly desire to fulfill s33(C)(a million) of the Federal court docket Act a) 7 or extra persons, b) claims are all comparable and appropriate. c) each and every of the mebers supply upward push to a uncomplicated subject of regulation or actuality (2)it would state the alleviation claimed. (your criminal or equitable medical care) Thirdly: all members might desire to have a suficient activity in the gang action s33D(a million) (Ryan v large Lakes Council (1997) 149 ALR 40 5 at 40 8. Fourthly: Your criminal expert might desire to correctly state in the pleadings each and every of the situations laid out in s33C(a million). Fifthly: It might desire to be properly pleaded Federal court docket rules O 11 r 6. a large type of those components are discretionary of the court docket despite if all situations are no longer laid out: - Dagi v broken Hill Proprietary Co 2000 VSC 486 in line with Hedigan J.- Get criminal advice, maximum suitable of high quality fortune Pre-admission Graduate
2016-10-02 09:49:22 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋