Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Facebook Vs. Spammers, Round Two

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the round-one-went-well-enough dept.

Spam 57

An anonymous reader writes "Three months after being awarded $873 million in a lawsuit against Atlantis Blue Capital for violating the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, Facebook earlier this week filed a federal complaint against 'Spam King' Sanford Wallace in San Jose District Court. Las Vegas night club manager Adam Arzoomanian and Scott Shaw are also named as defendants in the suit." These filings do not mark the first time Wallace has faced legal action; last May, MySpace won a $230 million judgment against him.

cancel ×

57 comments

I hope Facebook looses (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27022909)

I hope they loose Facebook. This is bad news for all of us if these lawsuits win based on a website's terms of service.

CAN SPAM Act is not about websites only applies to email.

You spell like a moron (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27023525)

I hope you idiots learn the difference between "lose" and "loose". Extra points if you know the difference between "their", "there" and "they're". Slashdot, you can bitch about grammar nazis all you like. You see this troll and how he uses "loose", well this is why we think you're stupid when you do the same thing. Deal.

Re:You spell like a moron (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27023971)

hahaahahha

you moron you fool. No one cares about spelling or grammar any more it is dying. End the english nazi's

Spellcheck FTW.

SPAM ON!

Re:You spell like a moron (1)

stevey (64018) | more than 5 years ago | (#27028647)

I no what you mean.

First to say.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27022923)

Sanford needs Nigerian princes now?

Judgement-proof (5, Insightful)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 5 years ago | (#27022925)

Usually these spammers insulate themselves from the effect of negative verdicts against them by moving all their assets to offshore accounts where the fed can't touch them and neither can lawyers looking to claim their $x million in damages.

If only we could literally take the shirts off their backs in partial fulfillment of their obligations we might start to make some headway against the spam kings. Any other suggestions?

Re:Judgement-proof (5, Insightful)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023037)

They use the same legal constructions that protect your average CEO from negative verdicts. Good luck with changing that system.

Re:Judgement-proof (1)

lordSaurontheGreat (898628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27025645)

Freeze their future assets and prevent them from ever leaving the country? "Well, we can't get your accounts in the caymans, but the moment a cent tries to go back to your credit card so you can use your money domestically, well... you won't be buying much in the future."

They'll be forced to become either a) a Mennonite or b) a cloistered monk, medieval style.

Re:Judgement-proof (4, Informative)

queequeg1 (180099) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023053)

If the courts have good evidence that the defendant has hidden funds, there are ways to pressure disclosure. I imagine this would particularly be the case for a habitual offender. Here's an article about some of the more severe uses of such power: civil contempt [wsj.com]

Imprisonment? (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023073)

Imprisonment can be a deterrent.

Rich man or poor man, they all have only about 70+ years or so on average, max maybe twice that.

A rich man that's sent to prison for 5 years loses out more than a poor man who has nothing.

It's not like a poor man is going to be missing out on party cruises to the Bahamas, and all that.

Re:Imprisonment? (0, Flamebait)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023677)

A rich man that's sent to prison for 5 years loses out more than a poor man who has nothing.

That's a stupid thing to say and you're stupid for saying it.

It's not like a poor man is going to be missing out

Yeah, poor people don't enjoy their freedom; they have no loved ones to spend time with, not sunny days in the park...

Quite frankly, being poor sucks so much that rich people ought to simply put them out of their misery? Right? I mean, they're poor: they have nothing to lose, right?
It would be the humane thing to do.

At the very least, since rich people lose out more in a year of prison than poor people, they should have to do less time in prison, right? On account of the poor people not missing out on luxuries, hell, they're winning! Prison is like a reward to poor people, huh? Free meals, free lodgings, right?

Re:Imprisonment? (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024157)

Yes I am stupid, but where did I say that poor people didn't enjoy their freedom?

Go look up the term "opportunity cost".

If you do not understand a simple fact that a rich spammer is likely to enjoy his freedom a lot more than some poor, cold and hungry homeless person in the street, then perhaps I'm the wrong person to explain stuff to you - I'm stupid after all.

My stupid guess is you probably don't have an idea of what it really means to be poor.

Sure, the poor can be very content and happy when they have their basic needs met. As Euripides said, "When a man's stomach is full it makes no difference whether he is rich or poor".

Unfortunately for the really poor, that doesn't happen regularly enough.

As for your last paragraph see:
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Homeless-Man-Smashes-Cruiser-to-go-to-Jail.html [nbcwashington.com]

Unlike Robert Jenifer, the filthy rich aren't going to be intentionally smashing police cruisers just to get themselves in jail for free food and shelter.

Re:Imprisonment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27025175)

You obviously don't know what it means to be poor either. I have been on both sides, wealthy and poor (homeless) and I can tell you that I have always valued my freedom. When I had money it was more to enjoy the little luxuries of life. When I was homeless it was to enjoy life itself, because that freedom was all that I had left.

When I look back, I am actually thankful for having to experience those times. It changed me, made me see things I never would have, made me stronger in spirit, gave me the ability to laugh more and made me value my time and freedom more.

Re:Imprisonment? (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#27028167)

If you're in a situation where you spend all your time in a constant struggle to find food and shelter, prison can provide freedom from that. Of course you sacrifice mobility in the process, but that's a bit higher up Maslow's hierarchy.

Re:Imprisonment? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#27029597)

Yes I am stupid

Glad we got that sorted out.

Re:Imprisonment? (1)

D. Taylor (53947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024189)

Quite frankly, being poor sucks so much that rich people ought to simply put them out of their misery? Right? I mean, they're poor: they have nothing to lose, right?

No, the poor people need to work to keep the rich people rich.

Parent post overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024199)

"Lose out more" is not the same as "lose more".

Re:Imprisonment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27039027)

Testicle crushing can be a deterrent.

They all have about 2+ or so on average, max maybe twice that.

Re:Judgement-proof (2, Interesting)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023143)

Usually these spammers insulate themselves from the effect of negative verdicts against them by moving all their assets to offshore accounts where the fed can't touch them and neither can lawyers looking to claim their $x million in damages.

If only we could literally take the shirts off their backs in partial fulfillment of their obligations we might start to make some headway against the spam kings. Any other suggestions?

Don't underestimate the ability of the feds to get at accounts; the most powerful being imprisoning them on contempt charges.

Re:Judgement-proof (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27023223)

Spamming is like a business these days. Similar to the circle of life, it keeps the internet moving and people employed. If it wasn't for viruses, there wouldn't be antivirus vendors. If it wasn't for online scam artists, there wouldn't be any cyber-crimes divisions in law enforcement.

Basically, the justice system is meant to upkeep itself. Criminals get arrested and thrown in jail. They get a court date and hire a lawyer. They get acquitted or a reduced sentence. They're back out on the street to go through the system all over again. If any part of this delicate system is reduced or removed, millions of people would out of a job. Why do you think crime is NEVER EVER reduced?

If the government really wanted to shut down SPAM, it can easily do it by making up bullshit laws and detaining people indefinitely. The government has made up bullshit policies for much simpler reasons. In this case, it just wouldn't be of benefit to remove the spammers...

Re:Judgement-proof (2, Insightful)

JNSL (1472357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023351)

Now this is just silly. It misses the point of a justice system, ours in particular. Put the conspiracy theories away.

Re:Judgement-proof (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023523)

If it wasn't for viruses, there wouldn't be antivirus vendors. If it wasn't for online scam artists, there wouldn't be any cyber-crimes divisions in law enforcement.

Broken-window economics don't work, of course. If people weren't employed in these professions, they'd be doing something else.

If the government really wanted to shut down SPAM, it can easily do it by making up bullshit laws and detaining people indefinitely.

Your post advocates a

( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work....

Need I go on?

The most obvious reason is, it's too profitable for them, too hard to track them down, and there are too many countries for them to hide.

in this case there should be a legislative sol'n (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024825)

I agree that there isn't a good legislative solution to spam in general, but here we're talking about someone whose identity and whereabout are known, living openly in the United States, who has repeatedly been found to be violating federal law. If there's anything legal systems are supposed to be good at doing, it's keeping people whose identities and whereabouts are known from repeatedly and openly violating the law.

With Sanford, it seems that there ought to be a way to make subsequent judgments against him have more teeth than simply fines. For example, an injunction against any future participation in online advertising (spam or not), as he's shown he's unable to operate in that industry legally. Then throw him in jail if he violates that injunction.

Now maybe he'll flee to the Caribbean or something, which I suppose is hard to do anything about. But at the very least, he shouldn't be able to live in the US openly; if he's going to be a scofflaw, force him to live as a fugitive.

'War on SPAM' (2, Insightful)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023667)

If the government really wanted to shut down SPAM, it can easily do it by making up bullshit laws and detaining people indefinitely.

Yea, that's worked so very well with the 'war on drugs'.

Re:Judgement-proof (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27023371)

Are you sure you want to "literally take the shirts off their backs"? These are generally not good looking people we're talking about

Re:Judgement-proof (0)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023849)

And how are the spammers going to pay if they get caught?

stolen credit cards.

Spammers are assholes and will not pay a dime, at least out of their own pocket.

The feds need to make it a federal offense to, without a warrant, spoof or forge an email header. That step by itself will chill a good part of sporgery, since except for law enforcement/under cover work (which a warrant can take care of), there is absolutely NO good reason to forge a header.

Once spoofed domains are taken care of, then only real spam will come out, and putting a stop to that will be much easier.

And domains should crack down more and stop using SOFTFAIL in their SPF records. Someone sends an email that, by SPF rules, couldn't possibly have come from that domain, well, it's already a spoof, what are the chances it's legit anyway? Zero!

DKIM and SPF all the way. Spam Protection Factor, says I.

And the DDOS'ing the SPF records is complete bullshit for an excuse, because by cracking down on spam you can take off the intertubes WAY more stress than you'd get in retaliation from spammers. You suffer less individually than society collectively.

Spammers are cyber terrorists, and we don't negotiate with terrorists.

Re:Judgement-proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27023937)

How about three strikes and your out? After three judgments with no payment you spend the rest of your life in prison. Not one of those country club prisons either.

Re:Judgement-proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27023981)

If only we could literally take the shirts off their backs in partial fulfillment of their obligations we might start to make some headway against the spam kings.

We can, its called civil forfeiture.

new path to profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27022933)

1) provide jail bait
{2)????
(3) profit

In this case we have a step two. Sue all those that would go after the jail biat.

Re:new path to profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27022963)

Mmmmm, jail bait...

Re:new path to profit (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27022979)

How much do you want to bet that they collect less than their legal costs, never mind "PROFIT!"

This is for deterrence. Not that it will really deter spammers, because in Soviet Russia, spammers still facebook YOU!

Re:new path to profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27023503)

And the real problem isn't the spammers at all, it's the people who buy stuff from spam.

Therefore I suggest we start a "spam honeypot" campaign in which the government starts sending loads of spam and prosecutes harshly those who buy products from spam.

This would be by far the easiest way to kill spam. To make this on topic, I fucking hate facebook.

thats a lot of spare cash.. (2, Insightful)

deckitbruiseit (1369769) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023141)

At some point, these lawsuits have to just not even matter to these guys. "Well, we're already in the hole for $1.2 billion, what's another $200 million? It's not like we actually have all this money anyway..." Kind of like someone who is put in prison with 150 life sentences. Really? What's the point?

Re:thats a lot of spare cash.. (1)

Gyga (873992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023245)

People get insane amounts of life sentences because many places still define life as 20-25 years, which with good time and parole can get pretty low. With multiple life sentences the judge insures that the convict stays in prison for life.

Re:thats a lot of spare cash.. (2, Informative)

DiveX (322721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023483)

It also provides closure for other cases. What if a lifetime sentence was really that long. If someone was accused of multiple crimes that carried that sentence and you are a victim (or family member of the victim) would you necessarily want the prosecution to stop after the first case and go "we got all we can get, why even bother proving the other cases anyway?"

Re:thats a lot of spare cash.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27023495)

In Germany there is no x times life sentence, but there will be calculated a total which can not be more than the maximum of the severest element of crime in the case.
Example: Totschlag, I think in the states its second degree murder, the maximum punishment is 15 years or so. Then there will me no addition of the other charges but the sentence will be at most 15 years.
After two thirds of the term there is a regular chance to get a check wether the inmate can be set free on probation.
If the court has stated particular severity of guilt, there will be no chance of probation. The only offenses awarded a life sentence are murder in first degree, genocide, etc.. Then the regular time for checking for probation is after 25 years.
Additional to any sentence the court can order preventive detention if the subject is seen as publicly dangerous.
CU

Re:thats a lot of spare cash.. (1)

Gyga (873992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27025577)

That's called concurrent sentencing in the US, sentences served at same time. It's usually done for minor crimes. Most crimes get consecutive sentencing where sentences are done one after another.

Only a lawyer (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023551)

People get insane amounts of life sentences because many places still define life as 20-25 years, which with good time and parole can get pretty low. With multiple life sentences the judge insures that the convict stays in prison for life.

Only a lawyer would use a phrase like "life sentence" and have it mean anything other than "incarcerated for the rest of their life".

Facebook allows spammers (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023331)

http://gawker.com/5160659/facebooks-get+rich+quick-scheme [gawker.com]
(Read the links in TFA)

And here's a website that purports to have the e-mail from facebook outlining what is acceptable.
http://www.toomuchvodka.com/facebook-lifts-its-advertising-restrictions-a-lot.html [toomuchvodka.com]

IQ Tests - including offers where user has to enter mobile #
Work from home and other Biz Ops - be careful with re-occurring billing
Quizzes - including offers where user has to enter mobile #
Free Offers - "Get your FREE laptop by filling out two sponsored offers"
Dating Ads - no longer need to be targeted at one sex or "interested in" unless it is targeted at a specific sexuality i.e. "looking for a girlfriend" must be targeted at people interested in women. User still has to be listed as single.
Ringtone Downloads - There are restrictions around this that will be posted to the advertising site shortly.

Allowing advertisers to essentially shit in the pool just smacks of desperation.

Public Hanging - televised (0, Flamebait)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023427)

That would stop US based Spammers. We need to try it for once, or get them for
violating the laws of a country that has severe penalties for sex related offenses :P

Stoning any one? Every country has SOME law they must have broken.Involuntary extradition?
My mouse had quivers with anticipation.

Re:Public Hanging - televised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024029)

What the hell?

Spamming is not bad at all. Doesn't hurt people. Yet you think spamming is worse than murder.

Spamming is legal as long as it follows the CAN SPAM act.

What is the big deal with sending spam??? On nooo i got junk mail will too bad for you. OMG'S i got emailz lets all complain. This has been going on for years with junk mail. Yet email which is way cheaper causes all this fuss from INTERNET NERDS and dorks!

SPAM ON!

Oh, the irony. (1)

leoofborg (803260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023513)

Opt-in spammers collecting from no-opt spammers. Kind of like that whole programs hacking programs thing from the Matrix.

Facebook use DKIM like paypal (0)

johnjones (14274) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023599)

hi

how do you tell the difference between messages that Facebook send out and messages that spammers send out ?

you can

They implemented DKIM http://www.dkim.org [dkim.org] You Can !

paypal and ebay both do this and now facebook...

Please simply ask your admin to implement DKIM !

regards

John Jones

  http://www.johnjones.me.uk [johnjones.me.uk]

Re:Facebook use DKIM like paypal (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 5 years ago | (#27025011)

Doesn't stop people from using "Facebook" as the name of the sender. So I don't really see the point in DKIM if I have SPF already.

Business Model - Profit! (1)

asdfman2000 (701851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023657)

Looks like facebook found a way to finally turn a profit.

Bullets! (4, Interesting)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023687)

OK, I'm not a cruel man. At heart, I can't really support the death penalty for anyone.

But if I read tomorrow that Sanford Wallace was found dead with a bullet in his brain, I would have a hard time suppressing a loud cheer. Fucking deadbeat doesn't deserve the life he's wasted on crime.

Re:Bullets! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024773)

Actually I'm surprised no one has taken upon themselves to do just this. Maybe the world is a kinder place than I thought.

Re:Bullets! (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 5 years ago | (#27026463)

It is funny the animosity we feel towards these people, I mean he has what, wasted a few seconds out of your day at most, for the majority. Yet we have people who really affect peoples lives, murders, theifs, and the same sort of ill feelings is not felt for them, except by the victims.

Re:Bullets! (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031479)

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

However, I work for an ISP. We spend roughly $5M/year on hardware, software, and man-hours in dealing with spam. Guess who pays for it--the customers, ultimately. That's one of the reasons people hate spammers--because they're ALL victims.

Secondly, there's the virus aspect (spam and viruses often go hand in hand, and Sanford certainly hasn't declined to get his hands dirty in that realm). Now we're talking about vandalism on a massive scale--again, vandalism of YOUR computer and mine. The thing that not enough people know, however, is that behind the spammers and espeically behind the viruses, lies the Russian mafia. Wanna talk about murders and thieves?

Ultimately, I think that one of the things which REALLY offends people about spammers is their psychopathic behaviour. "If I'm not in jail, I'm not doing anything wrong. If I'm in jail, the only thing I did wrong was get caught." Even most murderers have a greater sense of right and wrong, regardless of whether they pay attention to it or not.

Imagine if you lived in a small town where there was only one window repair shop. Every night, the owner of that window repair shop would walk through the town and smash a third of the windows he saw, so he could get paid to repair them the next day. Nothing wrong with such behaviour--just building a market and trying to make a living.

That's essentially the reason people hate spammers so much.

reminds me of a quote (5, Funny)

eltaco (1311561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27023961)

In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.

http://bash.org/?203815 [bash.org]

Re:reminds me of a quote (1)

garylian (870843) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031005)

Ok, we have a winner! Please come forward and collect your prize. Today you have your choice between fake Viagra, a penis pump, or a date with the she-male of your dreams!

Re:reminds me of a quote (1)

dugeen (1224138) | more than 5 years ago | (#27038301)

Someone who displays such enthusiasm for prison rape is hardly in a position to pass moral judgements on anyone, even Spamford Wallace.

We're all in the wrong job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27024023)

These filings do not mark the first time Wallace has faced legal action; last May, MySpace won a $230 million judgment against him.

Man, If this guy can just shrug off this kind of money we are all in the wrong line of work!

Why? (3, Funny)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024391)

As a non-American, I think I speak for the majority of the rest of the planet when I say "Why the shuddering f*** haven't you lived this guy up yet?"

Re:Why? (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#27024417)

Grr, curse this auto correcting! Of course I meant "locked" not "lived" in the parent post.

Re:Why? (1)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 5 years ago | (#27025547)

Probably because there are so many of them [wikipedia.org] that it's hard to keep track. (Some of them have, indeed, been sent to the pen.

Violence solves everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27025187)

Address?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...