The Rhetoric of Evil
I received this helpful error message from a sysadmin at another institution:
bq. From: administrator@[withheld].edu
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:18:02 AM America/New_York
To: johndan@clarkson.edu
Subject: Virus Warning
bq. The message you emailed to [withheld]@[withheld].edu, dated 08/28/03 00:18:01, contains the W32/Sobig-F virus in the thank_you.pif attachment.
bq. The action taken was: deleted the attachment.
This was probably an automated message from a virus scanner at their mail server, but, still.... Sobig seems to
propagate through spoofing email addresses. So if the virus appeared to have come from my account, I'm probably the one person they can be sure
didn't send the virus. (And as far as I can tell, I didn't--virus checks on all the involved systems came up clean.)
All of this plays into the rhetorical cloud of chaff that such virii send up: Luring the user into opening an attachment that seems to have come from a trusted friend. (Not that anyone who really knows me would consider me trustworthy or careful.)
W32.Dumaru, for example, offers this helpful sounding message (note spoofing of from: address)
bq. From: "Microsoft"
Subject: Use this patch immediately !
bq. Dear friend , use this Internet Explorer patch now!
There are dangerous virus in the Internet now!
More than 500.000 already infected!
Attachment: patch.exe
Spam, for example, works hard to get you to open it--Spam has something of a puritan work ethic toward the whole procedure. From the ubiquitous
bq. Subject: urgent attention please
and
bq. Subject: Is this $100 yours?
and
bq. Subject: Generic *Viagraa at 60% Off! (Exact same Formula)
I won't comment on the third, but I have a difficult time not feeling like I should open the first two.
The Nigerian Email Scam takes the whole thing one step farther, with the ruse carried on in the message itself:
bq. I HAVE THEREFORE, BEEN DELEGATED AS A MATTER OF TRUST BY MY COLLEAGUES OF THE PANEL TO LOOK FOR AN OVERSEAS PARTNER INTO WHOSE ACCOUNT WE WOULD TRANSFER THE SUM OF US$21,320,000.00(TWENTY ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND U.S DOLLARS). HENCE WE ARE WRITING YOU THIS LETTER. WE HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THE MONEY THUS; 1. 20% FOR THE ACCOUNT OWNER 2. 70% FOR US (THE OFFICIALS) 3. 10% TO BE USED IN SETTLING TAXATION AND ALL LOCAL AND FOREIGN EXPENSES.
What's interesting about this from a rhetorical perspective is that it plays on so many different aspects of the receiver's understanding and inclinations. First, the letter follows a cliched version of the writing patterns of someone for whom English is not their first language: "WE ARE TOP OFFICIAL", "THE SAID TRAPPED FUNDS", etc. And the language itself is overly formal (almost governmental/ceremonial) and in the all-caps format that seems to be used by officials.
At a deeper level, the whole situation described here provides readers with an array of methods for rationalizing away the ethical concerns of receiving stolen funds: the mentions of a military government, and furthermore of profits generated by corrupt officials, helps receivers feel a little less guilty about participating in this unethical venture. (Some versions of the hoax even involve the receiver helping the message author escape from their hostile and corrupt country.)
The unethical aspects, though, cannot be simply removed--even while they're being assuaged, receivers get the sense that this matter shouldn't be talked about, both because it's a somewhat shady deal (at best) and because they would risk their cut of the take (something over US$4 million).
Yesterday, I received this:
bq. Subject: Meeting at 4 pm today
which certainly seemed like something I should read. As you might guess, it contained an offer for some other bogus product, such as a program that would block-pop ads. Next, pop-up ads will be selling me filters to combat spam. Pretty soon, I won't have to read my own email.
Posted by johndan at August 28, 2003 02:05 PM
| TrackBack