Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MySpace Wins $230 Million Judgment Against Sanford Wallace

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the i-thought-that-guy-was-done dept.

Spam 160

smooth wombat writes "Apparently some people just don't take the hint. The latest story in the Sanford Wallace spamming saga is a $230 million verdict against Wallace and his partner, Walter Rines, when they failed to show up in court. Wallace and Rines were accused by MySpace of creating their own accounts and taking over other accounts through phishing scams, and then using those accounts to send out bogus emails to other members. The emails sent would indicate a video or web site but when people would go to the link, the two would make money through the number of hits generated or they would try to sell something such as ring tones. According to MySpace, the pair sent over 730,000 emails to members which resulted in bandwidth and delivery-related costs as well as complaints from hundreds of members. The 2003 CAN-SPAM Act allows MySpace to collect $100 per violation or triple that amount when the spam is sent 'willfully and knowingly.'"

cancel ×

160 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Where in the world is Sanford Wallace? (3, Insightful)

MrMickS (568778) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403312)

Now all they have to do is find him to serve the order.

Re:Where in the world is Sanford Wallace? (5, Funny)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403394)

Did they check his Twitter?

Re:Where in the world is Sanford Wallace? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23404478)

I'm sure his twitter will get checked often enough if he gets caught violating the injunction.

Re:Where in the world is Sanford Wallace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23405482)

Dear Mr. Sanford Wallace,

I am writting yuo to let you know about an oppotunity that has just come. Mr. Mubutubuto, the former Prime Minsiter of Nigeria, recently died leaving $230,000,000.00 in hsi estate. 1f you would just deposite a small amoutn as a sign of good faith in a bank acconut, we will deposit the r3st and you can ...

Re:Where in the world is Sanford Wallace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403884)

I wish he was in Russia, as Russian spammers have the delightful tendency to show up dead in a ditch with their skulls caved in.

Either that, or somewhere where he would stand a good chance of getting ass-raped by a walrus.

Re:Where in the world is Sanford Wallace? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404378)

They don't have to find him. They just have to find his assets. $230M can hire a lot of private detectives, lawyers, and accountants.

Re:Where in the world is Sanford Wallace? (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405796)

But if Myspace spends the 230M on private eyes... lawyers and accountants, what's the point of winning the 230M if it's squandered away on finding the 230M???

Re:Where in the world is Sanford Wallace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23405600)

He is at the OPM in Vegas as DJ Masterweb.

Couple of items (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403322)

1) Good luck Collecting

2) Spammers get nailed ... Good

3) MySpace wins ... is this good?

Just my initial thoughts.

Re:Couple of items (5, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403782)

3 "The 2003 CAN-SPAM Act allows MySpace to collect $100 per violation". Doesn't sound like MySpace have much incentive to make things more secure either, does it? :s

Aw, crap. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403326)

I hate spammers and MySpace alike, so I'm not sure what to think about this ruling.

Re:Aw, crap. (4, Interesting)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403552)

"I hate spammers and MySpace alike, so I'm not sure what to think about this ruling."

Don't worry, with only 730k mails, those guy probably made at most 5 grands, so there won't be much to collect, probably not enough to cover MySpace's fees. But the message is "get caught spamming and we'll make sure you'll have to file for bankrupcy", which is good because most of these guys are only interested in easy cash, so they'll think twice before risking their house.

Re:Aw, crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23405190)

they made 500k actually

Re:Aw, crap. (5, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403602)

I hate spammers and MySpace alike, so I'm not sure what to think about this ruling.
What's the problem with MySpace? It's trivially easy to ignore and it gives a lot of people that I don't feel like interacting with a place to interact with each-other. I just wish that there was a real-world version where all of the MySpace users could voluntarily commit themselves and withdraw from the rest of the world.

Spammers, however, reach out and touch me in ways I don't like to be touched. Kill 'em with fire.

Re:Aw, crap. (5, Funny)

DdJ (10790) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403836)

I just wish that there was a real-world version where all of the MySpace users could voluntarily commit themselves and withdraw from the rest of the world.

cf. "the mall"

Re:Aw, crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23404182)

I was gonna say "church", but the mall works for weekdays.

Re:Aw, crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23405256)

cf. "the mall"
Ordinary people occasionally have to visit the mall.

Re:Aw, crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403970)

I just wish that there was a real-world version where all of the MySpace users could voluntarily commit themselves and withdraw from the rest of the world.

why? are myspace users invading your mothers basement?

new concept folks: there are people who aren't just like you and it's a good thing. it's alright that not everyone knows the plot to every dc comic book or memorize every line from battlestar gallactica.

Re:Aw, crap. (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404338)

What's the problem with MySpace?

My problem with myspace is the spam. As far as I can tell, myspace is first and foremost an engine for producing porn spam. I NEVER look at a new friend request on myspace any more because easily 99% of them are porn spam - and I get them every week, so it's not just because I'm unpopular.

Awarding myspace money for someone spamming them is like awarding the US government reparations for being bombed.

Re:Aw, crap. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405356)

A friend of mine wrote a comedy sketch [youtube.com] with that concept in mind.

Re:Aw, crap. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403708)

A lot? Very little? To the extent that you simply ignore them?

Why give so much importance to people that you can't do anything about?

Re:Aw, crap. (2, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403992)

If you can't change something, it's not important? I would have thought more if it made no difference to yourself then it's not important, rather than your ability to do anything about it.

Plus I'm sure if he were really driven he could probably take Myspace out for a while with a co-ordinated physical explosion near their servers, and if he was good enough he could take out their backups too. Likewise several spammers have become well known, so he could try to assassinate one. Not very practical, but he could probably do something if he were bothered enough. Or maybe I've just played too many violent computer games.

Re:Aw, crap. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404158)

No, if I can't change something that I don't like, I don't rail against it. I will probably do want I think might reasonably effect change, but beyond that, I don't see the point in dwelling upon it. Developing a deep emotion regarding a superficial impression of a website seems very extreme to me.

There's bad, and then there's worse (1)

Grrr (16449) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403802)

I hate spammers and MySpace alike, so I'm not sure what to think about this ruling.
Then let pragmatic self-interest be your guide.

Re:Aw, crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403854)

Maybe you should base your opinion on principles rather than who you like or dislike?

Re:Aw, crap. (2, Funny)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404216)

Well, MySpace goes against my principle that human beings shouldn't be encouraged to engage in attention whoring. Spammers just piss me off.

Re:Aw, crap. (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405848)

Having a MySpace page is much the same as having an old fashioned vanity website. Vanity has been around for millenia. MySpace et al are just exploiting it.

Spammers are new with advent of the inbox, they are everywhere and are just plain rude.

Excite.com? I remember them! (4, Interesting)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403356)

The biggest surprise in the story is totally off-topic... I thought excite.com (the story link) was long dead. I guess it's been reborn as a handy way to wrap ads around Associated Press stories, but I still remember when they were in the running for King of Search. Now, I can't remember why I stopped using them, but the reason probably starts with G.

Re:Excite.com? I remember them! (4, Funny)

youthoftoday (975074) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403490)

Forgot that thing beginning with G? A good place to start looking is http://www.google.com/ [google.com] , you can find most things there if you remember a few details.

Re:Excite.com? I remember them! (4, Funny)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403930)

In the late 90's, I got pulled into a VP's office, because someone in our building had accessed an "inappropriate" web page during our late night shift in a wafer fab. I pointed out that I don't have access to the area where the offices are (I was a clean room tech back then), and asked if they looked to see who had entered the area with their electronic key. Then I asked what website they had visited. They looked at the stack of papers and said, "Excite.com".. I laughed and asked if they had ever looked at the site. (they hadn't) Maybe thats why I am so deadset against filtering now!

Re:Excite.com? I remember them! (5, Informative)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404220)

I thought excite.com (the story link) was long dead.

That's OK. We all thought Sanford "Spamford" Wallace [wikipedia.org] and Walt "Picklejar" Rines were out of business as of ten years ago [news.com] . Those two motherfuckers (and I already have lawyers from the Oedipus Complex Anti-Defamation Leage calling on line one for my slur against people who fuck their mothers) have been spamming in one form or another since before excite.com even started. Here's a snapshot [keithlynch.net] of the spam wars, circa 2001. Look

Walt Rines' nickname of Pickle Jar [google.com] comes from news.admin.net-abuse.email, and he was dubbed thusly by one of the Elder Gods of Spamfighting, the immortal Bill Mattocks. The USENET thread to which I just linked was the one in which what had been widely known for some time was finally proven -- that every time a spammer says he's going to "remove you from his list", he's lying. (Following the FTC hearings, most of the major spammers of the day, including Spamford and Pickle Jar, were touting a "universal remove list" as the solution -- unbeknownst to the spammers, the list was seeded with never-used email addresses, and unsurprisingly, those never-used email addresses immediately started receiving spam.)

Re:Excite.com? I remember them! (1)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404300)

Hell, altavista is what pulled me away from excite.com.

Re:Excite.com? I remember them! (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405352)

My reason begins with B... (as in Bankruptcy - I used to work for @Home until they were dragged to their doom by the dual Excite / Blue Mountain boat anchors)

Funny thing is that I can guarantee when Infospace bought the corpse they did at least migrate over not only people's email but all of their custom user/portal settings. Why? I just went back to "excite.com" after I don't know how many years and my personalized greeting still says, "Hello Chapter 11!"

If they had a nickle for every spam they routed (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403412)

They'd have billions or trillions or more.

Damages (1)

firesyde424 (1127527) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403438)

The key here is that Myspace was able to show that this particular method of spam caused a negative impact. And while I am not a rabid fan of Myspace, I viciously HATE spam. Good luck trying to find the guy, let alone get 230 million from him.

Sanford's brother? (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403450)

Well, as long as Sanford's brother Marcellus doesn't get convicted, then everything is okay.

Re:Sanford's brother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403988)

that is hilarious. ah man that made me laugh.

Re:Sanford's brother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23405022)

Does he look like a b####?

Well, MySpace sort of won (3, Insightful)

drhamad (868567) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403502)

Important to note here is that nothing was actually tested in court. MySpace won a default judgment because the spammer did not show up. Besides the obvious issues of collecting, that means that they didn't really test anything in court.

Criminal investigation? (5, Interesting)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403508)

Why didn't they force the FBI to nail them on computer crimes relating to fraud and unauthorized access.

You or me wouldn't be able to pressure the FBI to do that, but Myspace and Fox are big enough.

Throw them into federal prison for a few years and maybe they will stop.

Re:Criminal investigation? (1)

slas6654 (996022) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404086)

Why should law enforcement and the courts be responsible for responsible for policing and prosecuting what amounts to weak code?

Citizens of this country have got to stop sloping into a nanny state.

Re:Criminal investigation? (4, Insightful)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404402)

Perhaps for the same reason they police and prosecute the results of weak door locks?

Re:Criminal investigation? (0)

slas6654 (996022) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404908)

I think you are confused. No, the Feds don't police and prosecute the results of weak door locks. That would be Barney Fife where you live. Where I live, people either have powerful locks or powerful weapons. So, the incidence you refer to is not an issue where I live. The Feds police and prosecute people that enter the country illegally, transport stolen goods across state lines, commit terrorist acts, etc. The reason they police and prosecute these types of crimes is because they transcend state lines, they represent a real physical threat to all US nationals and they are uniquely suited to do so.

Re:Criminal investigation? (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405460)

I'm not confused at all. You said "law enforcement and the courts", not "federal law enforcement and federal courts". The grandparent poster referred to the FBI specifically, but in most places local law enforcement deals with computer-related crimes as well and can throw you in jail just as easily for said offenses.

Way to go with totally ignoring the point of my response though. Well done.

Re:Criminal investigation? (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405066)

You or me wouldn't be able to pressure the FBI to do that, but Myspace and Fox are big enough.

Yeah, lets let the corps run our country, we the people is overrated /sarcasm

The moral of the story here is that outside of the 1 in 1,000,000+ odds, you cannot get rich quick legally, and if you go the illegal route, that is fine, but the reason you are making the profit is because of the risk involved. Like the saying goes, if your not willing to do the time, don't do the crime.

Re:Criminal investigation? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405702)

They would have to show that at least one single action resulted in at least $5000 in damage.

Death to Spammers! (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403530)

Well, someone has to say it. Spammers serve no social good, and it's a pretty bad species that preys on its own.

Re:Death to Spammers! (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404162)

it's a pretty bad species that preys on its own.
Pfft.. name one species where the members wouldn't try to get away with something if they thought they could. Dogs always trying to get up on the sofa, for example. Most species would probably get all cannon-ballistic on their dead relatives as well. Some mothers even eat their live young. Meh. Sure some species have a pretty evolved social structure, but that won't mean they all stop trying to get ahead in that structure even if it means pushing someone else out of the way. The only thing that would stop them is fear. We to demonstrate to the spammers fear retribution for what they are doing. If only capital punishment and bounties on spammers were legal the world over, things would be different... :p

Re:Death to Spammers! (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404380)

Well, someone has to say it. Spammers serve no social good, and it's a pretty bad species that preys on its own.

Every species preys on its own. Every species has its deviants. Did you know that there are ants who will make alcohol, and they can actually imbibe it and be intoxicated, but if they are caught making it or using it they are killed? Did you know that baby eagles eat their nestmates if they hatch too much later? Did you know, you know, anything about animals, or the fact that we are some?

frivolous (1)

jonastullus (530101) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403546)

The number of $230 million seems a bit high.
Certainly a spammer should have to pay for the traffic he cost and I can see that he should pay a multiple of the money he made from the spamming.
Even some kind of punitive damage seems in order since he willingly impacted another's business for personal gain.

But $230 million seems completely out of whack and unrelated to the damage inflicted. $300 dollars per spam seems excessive when the average return per spam mail probably lies far below $1.
But I guess in times when Facebook is "worth" $15 billion, $230 million is just peanuts.

I think we can all assume that the perpetrators will not be able to pay the $230 million, thus making it partly an empty gesture.

Re:frivolous (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403628)

Well, that's what happens when you don't show up to court. The other side usually gets whatever they ask for. Of course, if they didn't properly serve the defendants or there are jurisdictional issues, they can twist out of it and get the case re-tried...

Re:frivolous (1)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403896)

It's very likely that Wallace didn't show up (or send a lawyer) because there would be a number of process servers there (and/or other legal-types) waiting to serve him as the target of far more lawsuits.

Better for him, even at $230 million, to avoid the show.

Re:frivolous (3, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403668)

In this case it isn't about damage infliced it's about punishment. Imagine if the neighbor kid threw a rock through your window once a week, but every week his parents sent a check for twice the amount the window cost to replace. Surely you wouldn't care if the kid kept doing it; after all, it's not costing you anything.

Punative damages are designed to be excisive to prevent occurances in the first place. To be fair they got off light, the maximum charge of $300 per spam would put them at $2.2 billion.

Re:frivolous (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404244)

Costs to install the windows, costs when the glass damages your eyes and skin, costs for all the bits of glass left in your carpet that damage you even more, or damage your hoover or your pets, costs for extra heating while there is a draft, costs for the time you spend organising to get the window repaired.. yada yada yada. I'd probably put a bullet/rock-proof window behind the first one so that they just had to keep paying me but I didn't have to deal with the broken glass. Nice little earner I guess, as far as stupid analogies go.

Re:frivolous (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404420)

Which is, of course, the point of the analogy. There are more costs associated with Spame than just the cost of forwarding it through your servers. Your customers get pissed and don't trust you, you have to have customer support to deal with phishing scams, you need extra hardware to handle the increased load and since the loads are higher there are more failures. Eventually, you just bite the bullet and pay for some anti-Spam software the prevents it from reaching your customers.

Re:frivolous (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404892)

Ah, I didn't pick up on your original sarcasm :p

Re:frivolous (1)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404392)

730,000 infractions x $100/infraction = $73,000,000
Triple damages: $73,000,000 x 3 = $230,000,000

This is what the summary states the settlement was for; I think you added a zero.

Re:frivolous (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404482)

Whoops. I stand corrected. College calculus leads to not being able to do simple math in your head I think.

Re:frivolous (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404486)

You've got an extra zero in there: 730,000 messages x $300 = $219 million.

Re:frivolous (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403722)

Who's side are you on? We're trying to eliminate spammers, and the only way to do that is to not make it worth their while to spam. If they know that they'll lose their shirt if they get caught, and if they know there's a very good chance they will be caught, then spam will pretty much cease.

Besides, when you factor in all of the time it took to investigate and track the spammers, plus all the development costs of spam filters, plus all the time deleting spam spent by those without good filters, plus the cost of all of the network bandwidth that the spam used, plus all of the defrauded folk who bought into the spam, it could wind up in the $300 per message area.

Re:frivolous (4, Insightful)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403760)

The number of $230 million seems a bit high.

$300 dollars per spam seems excessive when the average return per spam mail probably lies far below $1.
The damages done to the "MySpace" name are worth the $300 per incident, especially when there are over 700,000 documented incidents. The cumulative damage of 700,000 people saying "MySpace is nothing but spam - don't go there" can completely destroy a business.

And besides, these assholes are doing the same thing and worse in a variety of places. If you hit them hard enough on the ones you catch them doing hopefully they'll stop doing it elsewhere as well.

MySpace **IS** Spam... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403548)

This is "good" and everything, though somewhat meaningless since Wallace and his partner will never be able to pay the sum, but isn't it ironic that a company like MySpace that foists a product that is only a cunt hair different than spam is suing a spammer? MySpace is like OK! Magazine, sure it's a "publication" but it's certainly not "journalism". Likewise, MySpace is just opt-in legal spam.

Re:MySpace **IS** Spam... (2, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403732)

MySpace can now use some of the lawyers fees they saved to hire a nice bunch of debt collectors to go after him. If Wallace sticks his head up *anywhere* they'll find him and he'll lose pretty much everything he owns to pay the judgment - house, car, computer, etc.

The large sum pretty much means that no matter how much money he makes between now and then he stands to lose all of it the moment he's found.

Re:MySpace **IS** Spam... (1)

H8X55 (650339) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404686)

Well then is /. spam too? Just not as hawt? What about google?

it is the targeted marketing that you're braying about and not the social network itself, right?

Re:MySpace **IS** Spam... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405290)

Well then is /. spam too? Just not as hawt? What about google?
Yes. Slashdot is not as "hawt" as MySpace. This is a good thing.

From His Blog (5, Informative)

MikeyG79 (225212) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403604)

http://sanfordwallace.com/wordpress/

"I just read that a court awarded MySpace a $234 million dollar judgment against me. Thatâ(TM)s pretty amazing since I havenâ(TM)t even been served in this case since the preliminary injunction about a year ago. Regardless, the checkâ(TM)s in the mail."

Re:From His Blog (2, Funny)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404612)

since I haven't even been served in this case since the preliminary injunction

So he was served. What, he was expecting an engraved invitation to every court date? It doesn't work that way.

Regardless, the check's in the mail.

Oh I hope so, check fraud for that amount is a felony.

Re:From His Blog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23404984)

His e-mail is listed on his website without any protection from harvesting by spammers. Doesn't he understand how spammers work?

Judgment (2, Informative)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403622)

This is not a verdict, it's a default judgment. Verdicts come from juries.

Re:Judgment (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404426)

Yup, my bad. That is how I wrote it so you can't blame the editors entirely. I should know better (B.S. in Paralegal Studies).

Sorry.

They can take our spam... (4, Funny)

absurdist (758409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403670)

...but they'll never take our FRRRREEEEEED-oh, wait, wrong Wallace. Sorry.

rambling on&on about almost nothing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403692)

instead of publishing issues relating to 'stuff that (really) matters'. get with it robbIE, it's much later than we pretend it is.

Courts are not the answer (2, Insightful)

troll -1 (956834) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403718)

I know I'm in the minority when I say I'm against the CAN-SPAM Act. I'm against it because it's pretty much a waste of time.

Note the contradictory statement FTA:

The judgment is a big victory for MySpace, although service providers often have a tough time collecting such awards.

I'd hazard a guess whatever MySpace collects it's still gonna end up costing them more in attorney fees than they could have spent on a technological solution.

Five years after CAN-SPAM and spam is at an all-time high. CAN-SPAM hasn't even made a dent.

The real problem with CAN-SPAM is that it's an extremely inefficient way of stopping something that could be accomplished more elegantly with technology.

Indeed, the reason my inbox isn't filled with spam is because of real-time black holes and filters, *not* because of CAN-SPAM.

If only the lawyers were programmers.

Re:Courts are not the answer (2, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403986)

I know I'm in the minority when I say I'm against the CAN-SPAM Act.

I sincerely doubt that, at least, I doubt you're in the minority here. The CAN-SPAM act basically says that your corporate overlords CAN-SPAM you with impunity.

Five years after CAN-SPAM and spam is at an all-time high.

That's because it's a bad law. Had they actually outlawed unsolicited commercial email with jail time for spammers and financial remedies to Joe Public and his Windows box, it may have alleviated spam somewhat, or at least moved its operators overseas (not that you'd get any less spam).

Re:Courts are not the answer (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405398)

I'd hazard a guess whatever MySpace collects it's still gonna end up costing them more in attorney fees than they could have spent on a technological solution.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that an issue whenever you're collecting a settlement --be it an insurance payment, accident related, child support or whatever?

Superbowl Halftime Show. (3, Funny)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403720)

I know how to make the Superbowl Halftime Show NOT suck. Execute Spamford Wallace on the field.

Don't just execute him. Make a game of it. Bring down the lucky fans who have their seats drawn or something along the lines, and give them lead weighted or steel footballs to throw at him. The one who delivers the death ball (could be the first guy if he's good enough) wins a Chevy truck.

During the world series, have a contest taking out his partner.

Then we need to get the rest of the world involved, I'm sure something could be done with the world cup. The Olympics? Well China has LOTS of spammers in their country, and they have no problem executing criminals either. I could see contest with discus, shot put, and javelins.

Make this the year of spammer carnage, see if we get much spam next year. We wouldn't even have to execute them all, just a few high profile ones at a few events and the others will chicken out. At least in Spamford Wallaces case his will be well earned.

Can you imagine the advertising revenue doing this would generate in the half time show? People would tune in just for the half time show, talk about a win/win situation.

Re:Superbowl Halftime Show. (1)

jskline (301574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405242)

This may not work.

Fact is that Chevy only makes really really big trucks these days and they're gas hogs. People are looking for economy now and you almost can't give a way a big vehicle anymore. Now if they were to offer say a Toyota hybrid.... You'd have a full stadium and the ticket sales would be enough to not only pay for the costs incurred with the execution, but also the burial, stadium traffic control, pay off the city budget for the year, and drop a few billion off of the national debt!!!

what else would be interesting is the next incarnation of "DOOM 4" and a large majority of the enemy is a spammer. Just think of the numbers of people who would not be able to associate life and reality with a game and begin really killing spammers...

Ok; I went away there for a bit.. Now I'm back.

Really... (1)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403752)

Is Wallace really just trying to earn the title of "biggest single-person *ssh*l* on the Internet?" he's getting ready to look worse than Greg Thompson or Darl McBride these days...

Re:Really... (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404090)

Sorry for being offtopic, but I had to think a minute to parse "*ssh*l*". I saw the "SSH" and thought "SSL?" If you can't bring yourself to use the word "asshole" then find a substitute that doesn't offend you so much. You can say "jerk" in front of the FBI agents that pretend to be children, you know.

This is slashdot. To quote the poster on the wall at Farley's [slashdot.org] , "If assholes could fly, this place would be an airport!"

(modding myself down, "no karma bonus")

Re:Really... (1)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404808)

heh, that's just my typical way of c*ns*r*ng myself pulling out the vowels. Didn't mean to inadvertently non-offend anyone :-p. My main reason for this was just to work around crap-filters which sometimes look for bad words, but seeing as you managed to post asshole I see it was an un-needed measure. Thanks for the enlightenment!

They do take some hints... (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404018)

Apparently some people just don't take the hint.
They've taken one hint - people like that rarely have assets. House? Rented. Car? Leased. Money? Not in the bank. There's nothing to seize and the rent usually isn't refundable, so unless they get at the source all they can do is try to catch the rent money. That usually means it's time to pack up and run the same setup all over again. It's amazing how rich some people can be that officially are dead broke... So 230$ million? Let us know how much they collect. Hard time would be much more effective.

Re:They do take some hints... (1)

mad_robot (960268) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404432)

Hard time would be much more effective.

Dropping him head-first into a flaming barrel of excrement would be much more entertaining.

Re:They do take some hints... (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404744)

'... a flaming barrel of excrement ...'

Those must have been some powerful burritos you ate!

Re:They do take some hints... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23405470)

Dropping him head-first into a flaming barrel of excrement would be much more entertaining.

I hate the coprophiliac porn spammer as much as the next guy, but wouldn't setting the shit on fire be punishment enough? What did the shit do to you, that you'd subject it to getting a faceful of spammer? For that matter, what do you have against barrels, too? :)

Re:They do take some hints... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405798)

It is also amazing what a swarm of lawyers, private detectives, and accountants can accomplish in the way of finding and seizing "hidden" assets when $230M is dangled in front of them.

Oh no, I'm on MySpace (1)

vorlich (972710) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404160)

Spam is of course a complex matter but anyone who wishes to avoid myspace can always install the Firefox extension amionmyspace
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6067 [mozilla.org]

Sadly not yet updated for the latest version of Firefox, but always amusing when you think you clicked on something important that turned out to be an Ivy-Leaguer's spring break pictures of a really stooopid drunken party.

What? No? Happens to me all the time...

You can also eliminate loads of timewasting (ie not on slashdot) and delete your existing web2 social network accounts. In the reason field select "other" and enter "I am leaving the Internet forever". Curiously this will result in lots of real phone calls and messages from the friends you never knew you had, telling you that your Bebo (fill in social website name) account is not working.

Spamford Wallace! (2, Interesting)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404166)

That's the name that I expected never to see again. What is next, Canter & Siegel?

Re:Spamford Wallace! (2, Insightful)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404640)

Martha Siegel is a spammer you won't hear from again--she died in 2000.

However, she's probably the ONLY spammer you won't hear from again. Spamford Wallace, Alan Ralsky, Scott Richter, Michael Lindsay, are all names that will keep coming back. The fact that they're not all serving life in jail doing hard labour is proof that (a) the Can-Spam law doesn't work, and (b) countries have to start working together to castrate these SOBs.

As long as they're alive, they'll try to scam people. Internet spam is the 'niche' that they're best at, but they'll do whatever it takes to steal money and then defend themselves indignantly and self-righteously.

Re:Spamford Wallace! (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405150)

Crap.

Report the addresses please (2, Funny)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404342)

There was no telephone listing for Wallace in the Las Vegas area, to which he moved in 2004 to pursue night club promotion work. Service was disconnected for two listed numbers for Rines in Stratham, N.H., his last known address; a third number in Stratham was unlisted.
How come someone (the reporter?) knows a third unlisted number, and apparently an address, and doesn't report it? I'm not having any luck in finding the case though public records. I'm not sure what I'd do with the info, but I'm sure it would get me in trouble.

Lart (1)

Misch (158807) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404348)

Sanford Wallace?

LART That Pinhead! [userfriendly.org]

Spammers (1)

nortcele (186941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404386)

My stance toward spammers is the same as the Army's stance on terrorists: Nuke 'em 'til they glow and then shoot 'em in the dark.

Spamford & Pickle Jar (1)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404496)

Sanford "Spamford" Wallace and Walter "Pickle Jar" Rines [google.com] , together again, still spamming.

For some reason this picture [archive.org] just popped into my head.

Must be missing something ... (1)

ben4242 (836284) | more than 6 years ago | (#23404764)

The judgment is a big victory for MySpace, although service providers often have a tough time collecting such awards.
So if the money is never collected, what would deter other spammers from continuing to spam people? These guys didn't even show up in court!

Re:Must be missing something ... (1)

jskline (301574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405026)

I'm absolutely with you on that.

The facts are that these people didn't show up in court, they really could care less what the courts do or say, and this guy likely will just move his stuff to off-shore to further obscure things. How do they intend to collect that large a sum of an award??? The law prohibits attaching any pensions or social security he might have. Any money he has gotten through all this is probably in swiss bank accounts and untouchable by the US. He's pretty much flipping the bird to the law; the judges, the government and everyone involved.

dbillett1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23404994)

How is fining spammers going to stop the spam problem? They will just have to send more spam in order to pay the fines. I bet it will take a shit pile of spam to pay this $230 million fine!

Further more, it is BS that I have to sign up for an account on here just to reply on a damn thread!

One down, 1000s to go. (1)

yoghurt (2090) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405538)

Now if they could just nail Heather with Account Services.

Wow, Spamford is still alive? (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405704)

I would have thought vigilantes had taken him out years ago. It's pretty amazing that he's still breathing; he's a long-time enemy of practically every person on the Internet. And don't tell me there aren't any crazy/violent people on the Internet.

Applicable Quotes (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 6 years ago | (#23405718)

"What we need are a few good old fashioned hangings." -- FTC Commissioner Orson Swindel; at the 2003 FTC Spam Conference.

"REMAIN CALM" -- Afterburner; professional sysadmin and member of Subgenius Police, Usenet Tactical Units, Mobile (SPUTUM) who provided documented evidence used to sink Spamford and Picklejar's boat last time they got uppity. (Winner of the Golden Mallet award, as was Bill Mattocks).

"There Is No Cabal, and we will KICK ASS." -- Doug Mackall (dec. 1999); Cabal organizer and another Golden Mallet recipient. Through his organizing efforts, about a dozen people took on such as Netcom and Worldcom/UUNet and made them stop spam coming from their customers.

It may take a village to raise a child, but it doesn't take near that many to raze a spammer. Who would you like to LART today?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>