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!

cancel ×

128 comments

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

It's too much to discourage anyone. (5, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 5 years ago | (#25878993)

The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company predicted the judgment will be difficult to collect, but is hoping that its size discourages future abuses at its site.

Except it won't. It's too much. Basic psychology dictates that once you get above a certain risk people will start to ignore it because there's no difference between that and "everything". For people who don't have a great deal to start with losing everything isn't that big a deal. An amount that's a real tangible quantity that someone could conceivably earn is actually a bigger discouragement because people can imagine losing it, and that will put them off because if they can imagine themselves earning it they can envisage themselves losing it.

I'm not suggesting that it should have been any lower of course. I just think we need to be pragmatic about what a punishment is. If we want it to be something that puts other people off doing the same thing then we could think up something better.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (4, Interesting)

DogDude (805747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879053)

In the business world, it's simple. Shut down the corporation, and start another. It's too big to even consider paying, so the company that is being sued will just fold. That's why bars don't get insurance, generally: it's too expensive, and if something goes wrong, it's too expensive to deal with, so the bar's corporation just goes away, and it will generally re-launch under "new ownership". Happens every day.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (4, Informative)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879405)

TFA specifically stated that the suit was filed "against Adam Guerbuez of Montreal and his business." Not having read the actual case file, I'm just going to assume that Facebook did file a suit against both Guerbuez AND his business. In such a case, I don't know if he can just hide behind his corporation (if it is incorporated).

IIRC, in Canada, if you are ordered to pay damages, the court order is permanent until you manage to pay it off or you die. The order survives through bankruptcy, so you can't just declare and have it magically wiped away. Does anyone know whether the U.S. has a similar system?

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (4, Interesting)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879675)

In the United States, the effect of a bankruptcy discharge is to eliminate only the debtor's personal liability and not the in rem liability for a secured debt to the extent of the value of collateral (i.e. they can generally seize personal property pledged as collateral for debts subject to a few exceptions such as one's primary residence and retirement accounts which cannot be seized). Certain taxes owed to the Federal, state, or local governments, government guaranteed student loans, and child support obligations cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. However, from what I understand (IANAL) depending upon the filling, Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 (which is much harder to file now because of recent revisions to US bankruptcy law sponsored by credit card companies), any unsecured personal debts, except those described above, are discharged and secured creditors get the collateral that was pledged and that debt is discharged. Court judgments, with the exception of child support payments which are a special case, are by definition unsecured debts and so they probably would be discharged in a Chapter 7 (or possibly even a Chapter 11, subject to partial payment) bankruptcy, but again IANAL and courts sometimes legally define things in ways that are different from the rest of society.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (3, Funny)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879777)

You, Sir, are now my official in rem collateral discharged child support super-hero!
Oh and IANAL but I don't belive that YANAL.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (3, Funny)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881135)

Holy shit, my brain.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882013)

What he said..

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

jlbkii (1155367) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881905)

Either way the shareholders personal assets are not at risk when the company files for bankruptcy. Since the spammers are not likely to have had any significant personal investment in the corporation they can just go start another without much cost.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

alexandreracine (859693) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882987)

IIRC, in Canada, if you are ordered to pay damages, the court order is permanent until you manage to pay it off or you die. The order survives through bankruptcy, so you can't just declare and have it magically wiped away. Does anyone know whether the U.S. has a similar system?

Mmmm not quite. If you go bankrupt, all your debs go away.... except!... debs to the government of course :) There are other problem after that anyway, like getting your credit back...

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879121)

because there's no difference between that and "everything".

So you suggest..what? String 'em up?

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (3, Funny)

telchine (719345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879257)

So you suggest..what? String 'em up?

You damn liberals always want to be nice to the bad guys!!

I suggest we slice out their innards and then string 'em up!

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1, Funny)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879321)

You damn liberals always want to be nice to the bad guys!!

I suggest we slice out their innards and then string 'em up!

This witch hunt lacks fire...

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879733)

String them up WITH their innards, then light their innards on FIRE!!!

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

Aklyon (1398879) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880029)

You damn liberals always want to be nice to the bad guys!!
I suggest we slice out their innards and then string 'em up!

This witch hunt lacks fire...

String them up WITH their innards, then light their innards on FIRE!!!

enough fire for your witch hunt yet?

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883193)

Prolly need to set the tree they're strung up to on fire as well.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879625)

I suggest we slice out their innards and then string 'em up!

Turn them into Spammer sausage? Marinade them in pepper sauce while they watch their intestines being inverted and cleaned for stuffing.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

freyyr890 (1019088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881187)

So that's why they call it spam.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25880023)

I suggest we slice out their innards and then string 'em up!

... using their innards

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881729)

"Man will only be free, once the last spammer has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

memristance (1285036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880989)

What the hell is wrong with you people?!? Have you no sense of justice*?

Clearly they should be fed through a meat grinder, their remains mixed with salt, water, sugar, and sodium nitrite [wikipedia.org] and then sealed in a large aluminum container to preserve freshness for all eternity!

* All justice strictly poetic in nature; no real or legal justice is implied

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (4, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879139)

I hate spammers. I think the punishment should be really cruel...hang on my lawyers telling me something....really? Fine. Well then it should at least be something really unusual. That will stop these spam...wait...what? DAMMIT!

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (4, Funny)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881367)

i found a loophole! the constitution only prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." therefore, if you call it a prize/reward instead of a punishment, then you can make it as cruel and unusual as you want! right?

congratulations Mr. Guerbuez,
you have been selected as the winner of the Philip Lemarchand [wikipedia.org] Puzzle Box Sweepstakes. as the grand prize recipient, you are being granted the once in a lifetime opportunity to experience the full gamut of hedonistic pleasures that the Lament Configuration [wikipedia.org] has to offer. so get ready, because we are sending you on an all-expenses-paid vacation for one through the dimensional Schism [wikipedia.org] to visit all of your favorite Cenobites [wikipedia.org] .

here's what you can expect from this all-inclusive vacation of unspeakable horrors(TM):

  • upon stepping through the Schism, our patented skin hooks will be the first to welcome you to this dimension of endless pain & suffering.*
  • have a free laryngectomy [wikipedia.org] on the house. this way no one will hear your screams of ecstasy as you enjoy our world-class sadomasochistic spa treatment. (it also greatly reduces the number of noise complaints we receive.)
  • our steam saunas are the hottest in the world, kept constant at a balmy 800 F.
  • amputations, castration, full lobotomy, etc.--all performed while you are fully awake. our bio-regenerative technology ensures that you will never run out of limbs or organs to have remove, so you can enjoy being mutilated again and again as our dedicated hierophants slow blur the line between pain and pleasure.
  • forget exfoliating with chemical peels or microdermabrasion, our Surgeons from Beyond specialize in decortication using _macro_dermabrasion techniques--they will literally skin you alive. prepare to get flayed!
  • an eternity of torture delivered by the Theologians of the Order of the Gash (Pinhead [wikipedia.org] , Sister Nikoletta [flixster.com] , Butterball [flixster.com] , Chatterer [fotbollsutveckling.se] , and Moby [wikipedia.org] ).

* - comes with a free face-lift.

disclaimer: all prizes are final and mandatory. extradimensional vacations not redeemable for cash and no substitutes are allowed. limited time offer expires 01/01/2012.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

Varun Soundararajan (744929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882577)

I hate spammers. I think the punishment should be really cruel..!

We should force the spammers to read each and every character/mail of all the spams that they ever mailed. Hopefully, with all the spelling mistakes they make, they will really get frustrated with themselves and commit suicide.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879295)

You know, I reckon it would have been much much better to shut the company down (yes the millions of dollars damages will shut it down and facebook might get a few grand out of it) but I say put the spammers into jail for a bit. Not over the top, but say six months?

Closing a company and starting it over in a new name isn't a deterrent. It's a business plan these guys have. Put the owner in the nick for a few months, and I bet he starts chirping a different tune.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881555)

"You know, I reckon it would have been much much better to shut the company down (yes the millions of dollars damages will shut it down and facebook might get a few grand out of it) but I say put the spammers into jail for a bit. Not over the top, but say six months?"

-SIX MONTHS?!?! I hope you mean, "six months in Guantanamo Bay" or "six months in San Quentin" or "six months of waterboarding". Six months in a minimum-security "Fed Club-Med" as punishment for spamming is doing them a favor.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882179)

While I agree with the sentiments, it won't deter anyone.

They'll just pay a nobody $50 to put their name on the door as the "owner" and then provide "consultancy" services to "the company" and charge "the company" %100 of the profit. Then they're simply a HR company, and Joe Patsy takes the fall.

They might even get a tax break for running the company at a loss ;-)

Hmm, how's this for a deterrent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879373)

> I just think we need to be pragmatic about what a punishment is. If we want it to be something that puts other people off doing the same thing then we could think up something better.

Give this guy an appointment with Lorena Bobbitt. After that, there won't be any point to him dealing with "enlargement" schemes. You can't enlarge what's not here.

And it should be more of a deterrent given how easily any normal man can imagine that sort of punishment.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1)

Bombula (670389) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880453)

Here's an idea: use the government's statistical valuation of a human life (it's fallen recently to $6.9 million according to the NY Post) as a conversion unit of these massive financial judgments.

So a judgment of over $800 million is tantamount to killing 100 people. This is not really that far fetched, since $800 million could be used to save the lives of far more than 100 people - within the US too, without even resorting to saving starving folks in developed countries.

So, convert this $800+ million charge to 100 counts of manslaughter - or better yet, murder, since it was willful and premeditated. Now, can we go after these mass-murders please?

/kidding. Well, half anyway...

A bailout (1)

xRelisH (647464) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881369)

Indeed. Here in the Great USA, if you screw up big time (at least a few hundred million) and you are in grave amounts of debt, the government will bail you out.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25882651)

"Basic psychology dictates that once you get above a certain risk people will start to ignore it..."

Bah and rubbish. Firstly, the "nothing to lose" is normally related in discussions about starving thieves and rapists vs the death penalty. It has nothing at all to do with monetary fines that stack based on repeat offenses... especially completely something completely voluntary like flooding someone's computer with spam. You could accidentally run a red light and get caught and fined, but you're never going to accidentally offer c1@lis to a million strangers. No one is going to say "$873 million??? I can't even imagine losing that much money in court!!! I'm going to run out and spam people right now!!!!11"

Secondly, we're not even talking about individuals - this is aimed at corporations. Corporations decide whether or not to break laws based on game theory: whether the potential profits exceed the potential fines. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "it's just the cost of doing business" by now.

At $873 million, the risk of spam exceeds the potential profit, even if your corporation is huge. Not even Microsoft would risk that large a fine.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone. (2, Funny)

Jaxoreth (208176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883211)

I just think we need to be pragmatic about what a punishment is. If we want it to be something that puts other people off doing the same thing then we could think up something better.

How about a drop of blood? That's all, just one drop of blood.

...per delivery.

This is one of those "statement awards" (4, Funny)

deft (253558) | more than 5 years ago | (#25878995)

but from what I've seen, they get overturned, brought down to a reasonable level, or end upo being way more than the person can afford... which actually doesnt send a very good statement at all.

On the other hand... screw it, take his kidney.

Re:This is one of those "statement awards" (4, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879203)

On the other hand... screw it, take his kidney.

If they use an anesthetic, it's not really cruel, is it?

Re:This is one of those "statement awards" (1)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882039)

So take both of them.

Re:This is one of those "statement awards" (3, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879329)

If he's into sex and drugs, his kidney is probably not very valuable. If only he had stuck with rock-and-roll...

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879005)

first post!

Weird (0)

Xander85 (1224448) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879011)

I'm pretty sure FB is loving this because they have got to be strapped for cash without any real business plan.

Re:Weird (2, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879055)

I'm pretty sure FB is loving this because they have got to be strapped for cash without any real business plan.

What you mean providing a psuedo geocities/flickr/youtube/email service isn't going to make you money?

Re:Weird (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879145)

Yup, certainly no other company is making any money from advertising (especially not any search companies), and building a network of everyone's friends, interests, likes, dislikes, certainly isn't a good way of building better targeted adverts.

Re:Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879471)

Advertising and selling personal information that people willingly is a good model, especially if the buyer of that information is a government.

Re:Weird (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881229)

I think you've confused Facebook with Twitter. I don't know whether Facebook is profitable or not, but they definitely have a business plan.

Wow (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879027)

According to court documents, he did this in part by fraudulently gaining access to "legitimate" Facebook user accounts, either by phishing to gain login information or acquiring it from third parties.

"It's unlikely that Guerbuez and Atlantis Blue Capital could ever honor the judgment rendered against them (though we will certainly collect everything we can)," said Facebook. "But we are confident that this award represents a powerful deterrent to anyone and everyone who would seek to abuse Facebook and its users."

Roll over and take it, eh facebook users?

Re:Wow (4, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879099)

Roll over and take it, eh facebook users?

Yep, and take photos of it.

And then post those photos.

And tag the participants.

And set up a group for Rollers-over-and-Takers-of-It.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879543)

Ha ha! Give it some time, and that post should say "(Score: 5, Funny)". That was a beautiful response!

Re:Wow (1)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882063)

Don't forget to write a Super-Roll-Over-and-Take-It application, setup a page for it, and of course, after the app is added to a user's facebook, require the user to send out viral invites to their entire friend list before doing anything at all useful.

The invites will read 'Joseph just posted something dirty about your mother in large block letters on the side of a building, go find out what it was, and get revenge!!!'

Irony? (2, Insightful)

svvampy (576225) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879035)

Facebook is my biggest source of spam, regaling me with the online exploits of people I once kinda knew.

Re:Irony? (5, Insightful)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879365)

Since you added them as friends, and can control what you see from each user, it's not really "Spam", is it?

Your half-hearted attempt to be a cool hater is recognized, but ultimately fails.

Re:Irony? (2, Funny)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879395)

Since you added them as friends, and can control what you see from each user, it's not really "Spam", is it?

Your half-hearted attempt to be a cool hater is recognized, but ultimately fails.

Amen, Reverend.

Re:Irony? (1)

Augury (112816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881025)

This is not spam any more. This is now "officially" (as official as internet meme's can get) called "BACN" [saasu.com]

I don't get it (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879039)

CAN-SPAM or CAN'T-SPAM?

Re:I don't get it (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879575)

No, see it's like putting the meat-like product back in the...well, you see, it's a verb that means the process of canning, and, uh,

Cue Mark Hamill as the Joker: "If you have to explain a joke, it's not funny!"

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879729)

In my inbox I get alot of CUNT-SPAM

People offer me sex and drugs all the time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879081)

Maybe I should sue them, when I'm not busy being high and having sex.

873 million.

The court can promise that will happen just about as spammers can promise free sex and drugs. Oh, the irony. Are the judges busy with those promised sex and drugs that they can get *that* stupid?

Re:People offer me sex and drugs all the time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879167)

Supreme court gives facebook promises of millions that everyone knows are simply not there. Maybe they should give them free membership in an adult-only dating service instead.

Should we celebrate? The same as Spamhaus? (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879083)

This appears to be a default judgment against a non-US entity. Is this so much different from the much-derided judgment against Spamhaus?

Re:Should we celebrate? The same as Spamhaus? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879651)

> Is this so much different from the much-derided judgment against Spamhaus?

Yes. It is quite possible that a Canadian court will honor the judgement and Facebook will be able to bankrupt the guy.

I suppose we know how to fill in #2 (4, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879103)

1) Start spamable website
2) ???
3) Profit

Re:I suppose we know how to fill in #2 (5, Insightful)

Rayeth (1335201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879149)

Yeah apparently the ??? has always stood for "Sue".

Re:I suppose we know how to fill in #2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879917)

Leave offa her. She always gets the blame.

Re:I suppose we know how to fill in #2 (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 5 years ago | (#25883421)

Her brother is 'Bill'.

New Business Model? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879105)

Well I guess Facebook has finally found a profitable business model then...

1) Set up social network.
2) Sue spammers.
3) Profit!

Re:New Business Model? (1)

Gareon (1253358) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879717)

Well I guess Facebook has finally found a profitable business model then... 1) Set up social network. 2) Sue spammers. 3) Profit!

Now they need to figure out how to get Win or dows in the name.

1) Change name to Facedows or WinBook.
2) Get sued [wikipedia.org] .
3) Profit!

Profit (1)

jeillah (147690) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879123)

Its about the only way those losers will make money...

"said Facebook" (4, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879151)

I am not sure why, but I find it comical that "Facebook" said something... although it would have been funnier had it said "blah blah blah," posted Facebook on the Associated Press's wall.

the story (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879187)

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- Facebook has won a $873 million judgment against a Canadian man who bombarded users with millions of unsolicited messages about drugs and sex.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel signed the default judgment Friday, resolving a lawsuit that Facebook filed in August against Adam Guerbuez of Montreal and his business, Atlantis Blue Capital.

Facebook alleged that Guerbuez had fooled users into revealing their passwords so he could send out more than 4 million messages that included promotions for marijuana. Guerbuez could not be located for comment.

The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company predicted the judgment will be difficult to collect, but is hoping that its size discourages future abuses at its site.

- that fine is impossible to collect, forget about 'difficult', the schmuck certainly doesn't have money like that, or he wouldn't be in this busines. Still, it is nice to see that American corporation can win something like that against a Canadian citizen. Now how about the rest of the spammers? Can you please PLEASE win a lawsuit against those Nigerians! AND THEY CAN PAY!!! They have so many billions it's not funny.

Re:the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879709)

The win is irrelevant, it was by default (the other side did not represent itself), and while IANAL as the man is Canadian, I doubt the ruling has legality in Canada.

Re:the story (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880033)

you are probably right, but he better never step onto US territory.

Re:the story (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880131)

Why would any one really want to, step into US teritory that is.

$873 million you say? Really? (2, Insightful)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879223)

Well good luck collecting it. Mod me down if you must but I just don't see the point in awarding ridiculous amounts that will never be collected. Besides who even knows if that IS the real amount justified?

Reminds me of companies saying how hackers cost them gazillions of dollars because they copied a manual or some dumb shit back in the late 80s/early 90s.

Guess I'm a cynic about any judgements being made by non technical people on technical issues. Not that spam is rocket surgery....

Wow! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879231)

Facebook Wins $873 Million Lawsuit Against Spammer

Isn't that only like half the valuation of your average dot-com startup in 1998?

Re:Wow! (1)

Spy Hunter (317220) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879351)

Actually Facebook's valuation is nominally $15 billion (according to Microsoft's investment) so all they need to do is win 15 more of these lawsuits and it'll be almost justified :-)

Re:Wow! (1)

longacre (1090157) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881801)

The saddest part of that valuation is that it's it's only 25% lower than Citigroup's market cap as of Friday.

But does it come in the shade of ridiculous (4, Insightful)

sakonofie (979872) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879307)

Well just because TFA is just that short, here it is in new bold action:

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) â" Facebook has won a $873 million judgment against a Canadian man who bombarded users with millions of unsolicited messages about drugs and sex.
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel signed the default judgment Friday, resolving a lawsuit that Facebook filed in August against Adam Guerbuez of Montreal and his business, Atlantis Blue Capital.
Facebook alleged that Guerbuez had fooled users into revealing their passwords so he could send out more than 4 million messages that included promotions for marijuana. Guerbuez could not be located for comment.
The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company predicted the judgment will be difficult to collect, but is hoping that its size discourages future abuses at its site.

So the standard cost of a foreigner sending me spam is ~$200 per message if they don't show up to court?

Also Facebook, please don't file lawsuits that you don't expect to have any direct impact. The courts are busy enough without you.

Judgment Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On (3, Interesting)

kilgortrout (674919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879341)

This is a default judgment against a foreign entity which undoubtedly is nothing more than an empty shell corporation with no assets. There is a reason they didn't bother to come and defend this action - the judgment is uncollectable. Talk about your pyrrhic victories.

Re:Judgment Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879569)

except there's a name, adam guerbuez. just a tad different.

Re:Judgment Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On (2, Insightful)

cencithomas (721581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879679)

...and is that name attached to an actual human being?

Because if I were the spammer, I sure as heck wouldn't be using my real name to get the job done.

Re:Judgment Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881007)

Talk about your pyrrhic victories.

OK, I will. A pyrrhic victory, named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, is one that is expensive or detrimental to the nominal victor, in very much the way that this judgement in favor of Facebook is not. Perhaps you meant to say "moot" rather than "pyrrhic"?

Re:Judgment Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On (3, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881361)

> This is a default judgment against a foreign entity which undoubtedly is nothing more
> than an empty shell corporation with no assets.

The judgement was awarded against the spammer personally as well as against his "company" which FaceBook's lawyers say is fictitious.

> There is a reason they didn't bother to come and defend this action - the judgment is
> uncollectable.

FaceBook's lawyers say otherwise. They say they know who he is, where he is, that he has substantial assets, and that they intend to take those assets.

Enfoecement (4, Funny)

MountainLogic (92466) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879345)

Now if Facebook will just forward their bank account information to Nigeria I'm sure the spammer will send them the money plus a large fee

The next lawsuit. (2, Insightful)

Zathain Sicarius (1398033) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879383)

Maybe they will sue the creators of all those applications that do nothing but spew out invites...

Re:The next lawsuit. (1)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882125)

Or maybe they will sue the idiotic users who are more than willing to deliberately allow the application access to their profile, and then specifically send out all of the invites to their poor friends, all before they even know if the application does anything at all.

In a fair world (2, Funny)

Star Particle (1409451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879437)

Facebook should collect the money then cut a check to each and every one of its users that are actually subjected to the spam.

Right?

Re:In a fair world (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881273)

$8 a person? A class-action payout if ever I've seen one.

Coincidence? (4, Funny)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879521)

awarded $873 million dollars to Facebook

In a strange coincidence, the odds of Facebook collecting any money from the spammer are also 873-million to one.

Who gets the money? (5, Interesting)

izomiac (815208) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879639)

Hypothetically, if the $837M judgment could be collected, who would receive it, Facebook or the users who were spammed? (I only ask in an attempt to be less cynical.) I mean, sure, Facebook might have lost a few users due to the spam, and there in had a reduction in the subsequent ad revenue, but $837M worth? It seems to me they're being rewarded for allowing someone to exploit their system...

Re:Who gets the money? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 5 years ago | (#25880593)

Facebook: "Look, we can't just accept pay to allow you to spam our users. That is not the image we want to convey for our company. But perhaps there is another way?"

Re:Who gets the money? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881383)

If the spammer can actually be made to pay that much, it would work well as punitive damages.

Of course, given the likely source of the spammer's revenues, I dunno how easy it will be to collect off of funds that will likely be subject to forfeiture under racketeering.

CAN-SPAM (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879665)

I guess I need to re-read the law. I thought it only dealt with email.

Re:CAN-SPAM (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879703)

If I send you a message on facebook, is that not e-mail? Granted it doesn't fit certain standard protocols, but it's still an online message, right?

Re:CAN-SPAM (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25879751)

Yes, it is an online message, but not exactly what I think of when I hear e-mail. That's why I though the can-spam act was a funny thing to go after them for when they could have gone have them for computer crimes and tried to get them locked up. After all they were stealing accounts.

Dear Facebook, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879705)

My name is Footnovel. I am your long lost second cousin twice removed from your mother's side of the family. I hear you were recently awarded $873 million dollars. Please find enclosed my overseas bank account information. I expect 50% ($437 dollars) to be forwarded to this account within 24 hours. If you fail to comply, your site will be turned into a drug trading site, as well as an escort service. Oh wait, you've always been an escorts-amongst-friends site. Anyway, yeah, $437 million... or else!

Bank Acct #: 8008135

Is this the Crazypricks.com guy? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879839)

Same name, same city.

This is a story from 2003 http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/091803/news2.html

A Montreal company that makes and sells videos of people gleefully assaulting local vagrants and persuading them to perform humiliating acts is not only exploitative but is also breaking the law, say local social workers and police. The 90-minute Crazypricks Disturbing the Peace has - according to its creator Adam Guerbuez - sold over "2,000 to 3,000 copies a month" since its June release and was created in conjunction with a Web site that shows other such material to 9,000 paid subscribers who get to see updates every two weeks.... ...

Guerbuez, who says he had put $10,000 into the video and Web site, was acquitted last year for his involvement in an assault that led to the death of a man in 2000. He had been a longtime participant in racist-skinhead groups, although no more, he claims. "I have no time for that" these days, says the self-described businessman.

mod this up - Crazypricks.com guy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881027)

and torrent anyone?

$800 Mil?! Hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25879943)

If I were the spammer, I would be laughing my butt off in court

Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25880535)

Why would facebook get any money? Facebook didn't get the spam, their users did. That money should be awarded to the facebook users who actually received the spam. Facebook users should file lawsuits against Facebook for getting that spam. Seems they would have a good chance of winning since Facebook set the precedence with their win.

Re:Why? (1)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882171)

Well even though the argument is pointless since Facebook obviously won't see a penny, and probably lost a nominal amount of money for legal costs, the argument that the users should get the money is a weak one. The users were using a service entirely provided by Facebook for free. If they were using a premium subscription service and this kind of violation occurred, it would be a much different story.

heh (2, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#25881405)

Jolly good luck collecting.

First of all, this guy had the sleaze not to bother showing up in court.

Second of all, he most likely is unreachable

Third, if he ever is found, most of his spamming revenues are likely to be subject to forfeiture on grounds of racketeering, leaving doubts as to how much will be left for Facebook to collect.

Re:heh (1)

Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) | more than 5 years ago | (#25882281)

First of all, this guy had the sleaze not to bother showing up in court.

Forgetting the actual details of the case for a minute...What possible motivation would any individual have to go to a foreign country, to fight a lawsuit filed in that foreign country, by a company based in that foreign country, unless they were compelled to through an extradition process or to protect financial interests ? Absolutely none.

Why didn't Facebook sue him in Canada instead? At least he may have been compelled to show up.

Guerbuez lives with his parents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25881459)

There's only one listing in Canada411.ca for a Guerbuez anywhere in Canada. It lists an "Guerbuez, I.", located in LaSalle, which is a suburb of Montreal.

Coincidentally, in the court filings [justia.com] Facebook identifies Adam Guerbuez's address as: "7739 A Thibert Street, Lasalle, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H8N 2C5 and/or 7485 Bourdeau Terrasse, Lasalle, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H8N 2K9". The second address matches the address in the Canada 411 listing, which according to Facebook's court filing is his parents' address.

Also according to the filing, he "is the sole or primary beneficial owner of Atlantis Blue Capital and the website Ballervision.com". The website seems to exist. It's some kind of moderately sleazy chat/dating (?) site.

Something tells me the press haven't tried *that* hard to contact the guy. Either that, or Facebook was completely mistaken about the identification.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>