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!

Spammer Alan Ralsky Pleads Guilty

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the big-fish-landed-and-gaffed dept.

Spam 144

Czmyt sends the excellent news that one of the US's most notorious spammers has pleaded guilty and could serve 6 years in jail. "Five individuals pleaded guilty today in federal court in Detroit for their roles in a wide-ranging international stock fraud scheme involving the illegal use of bulk commercial e-mails, or 'spamming'... Alan M. Ralsky, 64, of West Bloomfield, Mich., and Scott K. Bradley, 38, also of West Bloomfield, both pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and to violate the CAN-SPAM Act. ... Ralsky and Bradley also pleaded guilty to wire fraud, money laundering, and violating the CAN-SPAM Act. Under the terms of his plea agreement, Ralsky acknowledges he is facing up to 87 months in prison and a $1 million fine..."

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

Judgement (0, Troll)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437177)

Hang him from the nearest lamp post and then burn him.

Re:Judgement (4, Insightful)

pbhj (607776) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437199)

Hang him from the nearest lamp post and then burn him.

Yeah, we should only allow company executives and rich investors to take vast amounts of money through share price manipulation.

Re:Judgement (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28437227)

Hey, at least those execs and investors didn't clog up my inbox with V|agr@ ads

Re:Judgement (5, Insightful)

wannabgeek (323414) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437241)

A little perspective please...

Yes, spam is damn annoying and the guys deserve imprisonment, and confiscation of every penny they earned through spam. But to compare fraudulent execs favorably to these, is a little overboard. Cheating you out of your money is lesser crime than spam?!?!

Re:Judgement (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28437351)

Cheating me out of my *time* and the usefulness of email *every* *dang* *day*? It's a close call....

I was going to post the sentiment until I saw the other AC above had beaten me to it.

Re:Judgement (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#28439287)

Let's see, spammers provide financial incentive to operate botnets that do billions in damage. My mail server rejects over 99% of all incoming mail as spam. The remaining fraction of a percent is about 25% spam. Fail2ban triggers on about 1000 hosts attempting to brute force an SMTP password every single day. If I tail the logs, it's a continuous stream of crap 24/7. I could do without that.

It is a close call. I suppose we just need to make BOTH into permanent porta-potty scrubbers.

Re:Judgement (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437597)

Well, to be fair, the execs cheat some of us some of the time, while the spammers cheat all of us all of the time. How? Bandwidth and time, neither of which is free. Just think how much faster ALL of our Internet connections would be if the servers of the world wasn't constantly getting pounded with spam, and if you think you waste time cleaning out spam, imagine what the guys running the mail servers have to go through every...damned...day.

But I'm willing to be an optimist and say we just kill BOTH the execs AND the spammers! What? It isn't like thinning the herd wouldn't be a bad idea, and it isn't like we don't have enough bullets to take care of them both, right? ;-)

Re:Judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28437713)

It's curious how bandwidth and storage space are costly when talking about something reviled like spam (which is generally just text), yet bandwidth and storage space are absolutely free (or nearly so) when talking about online music or movie publishing.

Re:Judgement (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437799)

Heres a bit of perspective, movies and music can be easily published with P2P, that requires very very very little bandwidth on the server because everyone uploads from their own connections. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer [wikipedia.org] for more information. But spam is sent almost purely via e-mail which comes from a centralized server and is not P2P plus they are sent in massive amounts, enough to use up a chunk of bandwidth, even more so when they embed images and such in there.

Re:Judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28437895)

I'm sorry. I thought most spam was distributed via botnets, which in effect act as many P2P systems. Again, you're presenting a double-standard when it's convenient to do so.

Re:Judgement (1)

Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438181)

Even if it is all distributed via botnets, it is still all sent to mail servers, which are then sent on to your email program, either as headers, or full blown emails. So whether you want to download it or not, you will be getting a part of the download.

Compare this to a typical P2P transfer, where you download it if you want it, not merely because you went online. The only way that you would be able to liken spam to P2P would be if you open up a P2P program and it automatically downloads 15 second chunks of every file that is available. Now that would be, I believe, a fair comparison of the difference between spam and P2P storage space/bandwidth.

That is only from the end user's perspective. Now, if we liken it to a mail servers perspective it would be more like this: You open up a P2P program, and every file is sent in full to your computer to be stored. You do not want these files, you do not need these files. Now you must spend hours of your time going through all of the files to determine which ones you do want, and which ones you don't. Now, this is a waste of both storage space, since you need to have sufficient storage space to get all of the junk just so that you are able to get the new Ubuntu build, and bandwidth, as 99.9324%* of the files that were downloaded were unwanted garbage.

I know, I know... I shouldn't feed the trolls

*This figure is completely fictional, and was pulled out of my arse. Any pedants who wish to contest this figure as being an inaccurate representation of the amount of spam on the average spam server can go and get stuffed

Re:Judgement (1)

mirkob (660121) | more than 4 years ago | (#28439175)

as 99.9324%* of the files that were downloaded were unwanted garbage.

*This figure is completely fictional, and was pulled out of my arse.

not so fictional unfortunately!

in the mail server that I administer there are about 80/90.000 connection to send mail every day, of those only about 2.000 weren't blocked by the greylist.
of those 2000 at least 10% were blocked on the first mail server as spam or virus and then at least another 10% is blocked on the final server for the same causes.

so no more than 1600 mail/day were legittimate (or at least not filtered out, because many spam still pass) and that comprise the locally generated mail (the ones that doesn't have spam or virus except for the occasional epidemic...)

so at least 78400/80000 = 98% were spam (or virus), excluding the locally generated mail at least 99% of the mail coming in from internet is certainly unwanted!

I want be surprised if only 0.5% or less were truly legitimate working mail and not unusefull mailing list never cancelled...

Re:Judgement (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438579)

True, it may be sent via botnets, but it's received by centralized servers. I work at a university that receives on average 1.1 million e-mails a day. Over 2/3 of that is spam. We have a massive infrastructure of spam filtering systems and storage networks just to handle our regular level of e-mail for our thousands of users. The additional cost and manpower to prevent spam from getting through is tremendous. Just the bandwidth alone for receiving 600,000 spams a day (approx. 10 gigabytes) is pretty high. We also have to deal with the regularly occuring student laptop that gets infected with malware and starts sending out spam from the university. Tracking those sorts of things down can be very time consuming. So the bottom line is that spam is a very real and significant cost in terms of storage, bandwidth, and manpower for large organizations like companies, universities, etc.

You want to start paying for the 10 gig of daily bandwidth costs that are directly attributed to spam for us?

Re:Judgement (1)

Imagix (695350) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437975)

But spam is sent almost purely via e-mail which comes from a centralized server and is not P2P plus they are sent in massive amounts, enough to use up a chunk of bandwidth, even more so when they embed images and such in there.

That probably hasn't been done in a long time. Spam frequently originates from a botnet, not from a centralized server. However, from your perspective it does come _to_ a centralized server. To a certain degree, spam is a DDoS attack.

Re:Judgement (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438095)

Yes, my mistake I was getting the two confused what I really meant to say is that spam goes to a centralized server (although it does come from a centralized server from the user's point of view).

Re:Judgement (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438439)

It's curious how bandwidth and storage space are costly when talking about something reviled like spam (which is generally just text), yet bandwidth and storage space are absolutely free (or nearly so) when talking about online music or movie publishing.

There is at least one month a year when my mail server gets DDoSed offline from the insane amount of spam coming through. It would cost me too much to get a better setup. Additionally I'd say about 40% of spam the mail server receives has image attachments embedded in the message.

Re:Judgement (1)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438571)

Movie/Music "distribution" uses your bandwidth and time by your own choice. On the other hand, spam takes up your bandwidth and time whether you like it or not. The only way to avoid it is to not have e-mail, which causes you to lose a lot more than just spam.

Re:Judgement (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438211)

Isn't Ralsky just an Exec of a SPAM company?

Re:Judgement (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437641)

The spam industry has imposed escalating usage costs on every mail server out there (bandwidth, storage, filtering, etc.). I'm sure someone did a guestimate study on total cost of spam that quantifies this, and while it isn't bringing down the banking system, it is something when taken in aggregate. Is stealing $1 from 1,000,000 people better than if someone steals $1,000,000 from one person? It's the same loss of economic capital (to those who should have it, at least), plus broken-window-esque inefficiencies that can drag down the economy.

Re:Judgement (1)

lazyforker (957705) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437993)

A little perspective please...

Yes, spam is damn annoying and the guys deserve imprisonment, and confiscation of every penny they earned through spam. But to compare fraudulent execs favorably to these, is a little overboard. Cheating you out of your money is lesser crime than spam?!?!

I think it's a tough call between the two: both cause enormous waste. You probably don't realize just how much email is spam because companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft do a pretty damn good job of filtering it out of their webmail products. Similarly your employer probably has spam filters etc. All of that junk email costs time, money and power; and those resources could probably be more effectively used elsewhere.

Some good stats are in this informative article: http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2009/01/2008-year-in-spam.html [blogspot.com]

The average number of spam emails a user would have received per day: 194.

Re:Judgement (1)

Digital End (1305341) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438071)

and instead they get a year and a million fine... you think spam on that scale made less then a million a year?

Re:Judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28438097)

For one thing only the government is cheating me out of money. All the stock scammers did not get a dime out of me why? I'm not stupid enough to invest in "The Market". The Market is a gamble and anyone that invested in it and lost well too bad. You should have taken you money to Las Vegas and "Invested" it there. You might have done better and you would not have been able to cry to the government about your losses at the crap table.

Hang this bastard yes. I am able to make a choice about investing in the market and if I do that is "My Choice". Getting spam and having to put up with this shit being a Postmaster was not a choice I made but an invasion of my private life and still is.

Think man over 90% of all email today is shit because of people like this and billions are lost by companies trying to keep this shit off their networks.

Re:Judgement (0)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438723)

Theft is theft, Period.
Anyone who tries to differentiate is a co-conspirator.

Re:Judgement (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438935)

These scum already take up the majority of bandwidth of the tubes.
They are one reason why ISP's need to buy bigger servers and couldn't lower their prices.
So, these scum directly cheat me out of my money, yeah.
My time is also money.
Losing a mail in the heap of spam can also cost you money.
While i don't say they should be burnt or hung, i would like their fingers broken and banned from the net for a life.

Re:Judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28439459)

Cheating you out of your money is lesser crime than spam?!?!

No, but there are plenty of lampposts to go around.

Re:Judgement (5, Funny)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437249)

Hey, at least those execs and investors didn't clog up my inbox with V|agr@ ads

1999 called. They want their spamfilter back.

Re:Judgement (2, Insightful)

hansraj (458504) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437349)

Clearly they are calling the wrong guy - it is obvious that he doesn't have 1999's or anyone's spam-filter.

Re:Judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28438293)

That works fine at home, where I can get the spam filter working.

At work on the other hand... I basically just read the 'spam' folder and ignore anything that goes in the inbox. None of the real mail goes there.

Re:Judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28439743)

I've recently had to abandon an email account (which forwarded to my old ISP email account (BT), which was picked up by gmail on yet another email account) because I was getting spam in Russian, and neither yahoo nor google's spam filters stopped any of it, despite me marking it all as spam in both.

Using translate on it (replacing dashes and underscores which were tripping it up with spaces) revealed that it was typical spam, just in Russian.

Re:Judgement (4, Funny)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437229)

We do have more lamp posts.

Re:Judgement (2, Funny)

ChaosAddict (816801) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438999)

In case we need another lamp post, here you go:

Lamp.

Re:Judgement (1)

ChaosAddict (816801) | more than 4 years ago | (#28439023)

In case we need another lamp post, here you go:

Lamp.

Re:Judgement (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437299)

Yeah, we should only allow company executives and rich investors to take vast amounts of money through share price manipulation.

Not to worry. If there are three things we have in abundance, it's rope, lamp posts and gasoline.

Re:Judgement (1)

Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437467)

Not to worry. If there are three things we have in abundance, it's rope, lamp posts and gasoline.

Rope and lamp posts, yes. We are slowly running out of petroleum though

Re:Judgement (2, Informative)

emocomputerjock (1099941) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437527)

I say we go green and focus a concave mirror on the guy. We get our pound of (burnt) flesh and the planet doesn't suffer for it!

Re:Judgement (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437651)

Don't worry, I have a ready supply for pitchforks you can borrow.

Hey, I've been watching our government's doing for a while, I thought it could come handy soon.

Re:Judgement (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438057)

Please send shipment to Albany New York as soon as possible!

Re:Judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28438315)

Should be hung drawn and quartered then feed him to the rats!!

Spammers and hackers nearly brought my business to its knees several times.

Bring back capital punishment!!

Re:Judgement (1)

JesterUSCG (1371271) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437307)

Dirty SOB... Let him rot!

Re:Judgement (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437593)

This also allows us to come up with a new method of judging these guys: If Alan Ralsky weighs the same as a duck, then he floats in water, so he's made of wood, so he burns, so he's ... a spammer!

Re:Judgement (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438449)

This also allows us to come up with a new method of judging these guys: If Alan Ralsky weighs the same as a duck, then he floats in water, so he's made of wood, so he burns, so he's ... a spammer!

Perfect witch hunt logic, but its not a witch hunt if its true is it?

Re:Judgement (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437621)

Only $1million?

Clean him from everything he owns and assign an orange tight jump-suit, then locate him at a maximum security prison somewhere unknown and forget about him. Just make sure that he ends up in the "wrong" cell block.

Re:Judgement (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438005)

You realise of course this is the one guy who would get beaten to death in a white-collar Club Fed.

Re:Judgement (2, Insightful)

jcaplan (56979) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438049)

I get as livid as anyone about spam, but the whole prison rape thing really bugs me. Its real and is allowed to occur by our prison system, but is not part of the sentence. Nobody, not even spammers, deserve rape. What I don't get is why it took so long to take down this known spammer.

Re:Judgement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28439249)

It bothers me too, but I guess some folks only the guys who deserve it get rape. Or even that only guys who deserve it go to prison anyway.

Whatever.

Personally I feel that indifference to the wrongness of it is just a shame in itself. If you're going to say you want somebody punished by being forcibly raped, make it a part of the justice system. Don't be a coward and leave it to the inmates.

And for what it's worth, I wouldn't mind this spammer being flayed alive on national television with a warning that says "Spammers this will happen to you"

Re:Judgement (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#28439131)

In the interest of sustainable living I would suggest feeding them into a tree chipper instead. Use the remains as fish food.

Besides, that would make great footage for a FUD campaign to get people to install working antivirus software. "Don't let this happen to you, keep your machine clean.".

Re:Judgement (1)

EmmDashNine (1082413) | more than 4 years ago | (#28439757)

Hang him from the nearest lamp post and then burn him.

There's a special place in hell for people like that- on an IT help desk answering unlimited calls and emails, and resetting passwords for all eternity.

You forgot to include... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28439761)

... some torture involving his testicles. Of course since he's 64 maybe they atrophied and he doesn't have any? OTOH, he musta had some balls to pull this kinda crap....

Nahhh (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#28439879)

Let him serve his 6 years in a Nigerian jail.

An old Nigerian Tradition (4, Funny)

ultraexactzz (546422) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437247)

...involved leaving 10% of him here, sending 50% to the Prince of Nigeria, and sending 40% to the corrupt Nigerian government officials as a bribe. It has worked well for generations - But we'll need your help to complete the transaction...

Re:An old Nigerian Tradition (2, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437471)

Sounds like a fair punishment to me.

Nice. (1)

SalaSSin (1414849) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437253)

Nice to read that finally one of those guys will be convict'ed.

Hopefully the rest will follow, but i'm afraid that won't be as simple, as in several countries sending spam still isn't illegal...

Math (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437309)

Ralsky acknowledges he is facing up to 87 months in prison and a $1 million fine..

Summary says 6 years, then 87 months. Someone want to RTFA and tell me where the difference comes in?

Re:Math (3, Informative)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437365)

Alan M. Ralsky, 64, of West Bloomfield, Mich., and Scott K. Bradley, 38, also of West Bloomfield, both pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and to violate the CAN-SPAM Act. Ralsky and Bradley also pleaded guilty to wire fraud, money laundering, and violating the CAN-SPAM Act. Under the terms of his plea agreement, Ralsky acknowledges he is facing up to 87 months in prison and a $1 million fine under the federal sentencing guidelines while Bradley acknowledges that he is facing up to 78 months in prison and a $1 million fine under the federal sentencing guidelines.

John S. Bown, 45, of Fresno, Calif., pleaded guilty ... facing up to 63 months in prison and a $75,000 fine under the federal sentencing guidelines

William C. Neil, 46, of Fresno, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the CAN-SPAM Act and violating the CAN-SPAM Act. Under the terms of his plea agreement, Neil acknowledges he is facing up to 37 months in prison...

James E. Fite, 36, of Culver City, Calif., ... up to two years in prison and a $30,000 fine under the federal sentencing guidelines.

Re:Math (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437453)

Thanks for the in depth analysis...

Re:Math (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437537)

I still don't see why they say '6 years' if they could say 7. Maybe lawyers really have a problem with math [rusbasan.com] .

Re:Math (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437491)

I've not read the article, but maybe 87 months is the maximum penalty, and 6 years is what he is likely to get?

Plan of action (5, Funny)

Mr_Icon (124425) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437437)

Once he's in jail, we need to find out who his cellmate is, so we can send him inordinate amounts of penis enlargement ads.

because nothing is funnier than anal rape (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28437515)

yay slashdot, putting the rape in anal since 1997.

Re:Plan of action (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437681)

And all the V1@gr4 and C!5al1s he can swallow!

Re:Plan of action (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437857)

Once he's in jail, we need to find out who his cellmate is, so we can send him inordinate amounts of penis enlargement ads.

Or you could donate a dollar to his enlargement fund.

Re:Plan of action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28438411)

I don't think prisoners in the U.S. get laptops and WLAN access. It's not Austria! [readnrock.com]

Re:Plan of action (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438733)

I don't think prisoners in the U.S. get laptops and WLAN access. It's not Austria!

What you linked is not a jail, it is a rehabilitation centre. Check out the rehabilitation centres in the USA, some of them are quite comparable.

Re:Plan of action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28439455)

I don't think prisoners in the U.S. get laptops and WLAN access. It's not Austria!

What you linked is not a jail, it is a rehabilitation centre. Check out the rehabilitation centres in the USA, some of them are quite comparable.

It's not a rehabilitation centre. It's a prison. Here's their website [justiz.gv.at] .

They offer computer and german classes. Makes me regret going to Goethe Institut!

Re:Plan of action (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438473)

I always had my doubts if these things worked, but with your posting I understand that the pills do work, so now I am going to order them.

Sorry Dude (4, Informative)

sir_eccles (1235902) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437483)

"Greetings friend, this is Homer Simpson, aka, Happy Dude. The courts have ordered me to call everyone, and apologize for my telemarketing scam...I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, send $1 to Sorry Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the power!"

Question to a lawyer out there... (1)

fgaliegue (1137441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437557)

I suppose that if Mr Ralsky has pleaded guilty, he had a good reason... To my non-lawyer eyes, it is because he would have faced a much bigger sanction if he were proved guilty in the end.

Does my reasoning stand, or not at all? In a more general way, are there any quantitative differences in penalties depending upon yours pleading (non) guilty?

Re:Question to a lawyer out there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28437613)

RTFS. "Under the terms of his plea agreement..."

Re:Question to a lawyer out there... (1)

fgaliegue (1137441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438243)

I _have_ RTFS. Which is exactly why I asked the question in the first place. RTFQ.

Forget the prison sentence. (2, Informative)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437559)

Let's just simplify it all at no expense to the taxpayers.

Anyone who ever got an unsolicited email from Ralsky gets one shot at him. One for each email. No weapons, no tools, nothing lethal, and no closed fists. Then he goes free.

And then after a few million slaps to the nuts, we all jump up and go "HAHA! Don't you just HATE being misled!" and throw him in prison, take all his money, and give his cellmate (who has anger issues due to being conned in stock scams) a box containing his body weight in Viagra.

THEN we hang him from the nearest lamp post and burn him.

Re:Forget the prison sentence. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28438265)

You are an idiot. Do you want to cripple somebody just because he sent you e-mails? Fix your fracking perspective on this world, dude...

Summary fix (2, Funny)

swb (14022) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437563)

"...Ralsky acknowledges he is facing up to 87 months in A FEDERAL, POUND-ME-IN-THE-ASS prison..."

There, fixed it.

Re:Summary fix (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437807)

Will there be water boarding?

Re:Summary fix (1)

Korey Kaczor (1345661) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438091)

Only poorly-run state prisons have that, um, "feature," I believe. And Mac OS X shops.

A bit of a bummer (3, Interesting)

hoarier (1545701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438231)

Is anal rape really all that hilarious? Me, I'd have him sentenced to 87 months of sorting dumpster content. But his ass would remain his own.

$1 million fine (4, Insightful)

smdm (1125481) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437577)

Finally we make real money from SPAM!

Nice (1)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437589)

So is he's going to a nice minimum security prision for 6 years on the tax payer dime and getting fined a million eh? How much do you want to bet he'll earn more then a million in 6 years in interest on the money he's taken in.

Sentence should have been 6 years and all assets seized.

Re:Nice (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437711)

How about a RIAA-style punishment? No time, but an amount of USD that we imagine he could have made in that time with all the spam?

What good does it serve if he gets locked away? He costs my money that way. Fine him for a few trillion bucks and lock some nice shackles to his ankles so you have a useful handle to shake him at.

Spammers don't care how much you hate them (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28437737)

Because people STILL buy their products

Re:Spammers don't care how much you hate them (1)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438823)

One in a million shots don't seem as bad when you've got 6 billion bullets.

Man... (1)

azav (469988) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437835)

I'm so so so happy about this.

A suitable punishment (3, Interesting)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437989)

There are many here who say "It's just a little spam - have some perspective."

OK, so how about this perspective:

Let's just slap his wrist.

Once for every spam reported to Spamcop.net.

Just for one day.

After all, it's just a slap on the wrist - that's not so bad, is it?

Re:A suitable punishment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28438567)

There are many here who say "It's just a little spam - have some perspective."

OK, so how about this perspective:

Let's just slap his wrist.

Once for every spam reported to Spamcop.net.

Just for one day.

After all, it's just a slap on the wrist - that's not so bad, is it?

I don't think we could fit that in one day.

Re:A suitable punishment (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438585)

Let's just slap his wrist. Once for every [...]

That was the ending of Les Onze Mille Verges [wikipedia.org] , a classic porn book of over a century ago.

Re:A suitable punishment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28439567)

Most of who say so probably have never seen what happens with a modest domain without spam filtering...
That they don't see spam doesn't mean it wastes resources daily, everywhere.

Pleaded? (1)

destroyer661 (847607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28437991)

Shouldn't it be they plead as plural?

Re:Pleaded? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28438603)

I believe pled would be proper tense here.

Spam revitalises local economies! (3, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438047)

Email filtering company MessageLabs reports that Egham, Surrey, on the suburban outskirts of London, is the town that receives the most spam in Britain [today.com] .

"It's not like there's much else to do," said Boris Busybody, 77 (IQ), of Egham Hythe, idly whirling his four-foot penis around his head in a desultory fashion. "Expanding your manhood, growing your breasts, increasing your sperm ... the Lib Dem phone calls get a bit much. That's Doctor Busybody, by the way. My Ph.D arrived last week."

Spam has revitalised the local economy. Busybody has given up cab driving and is now working a lucrative job processing payments from home after he sent them his bank details in response to an urgent security message. "I had that King Otumfuo Opoku Ware II in the back of my cab once. Very generous and helpful fellow."

The Egham Tourist Board has seized the day, with plans for a 50 foot tall penis sculpture at Junction 13 of the M25 on the exit ramp to the town. The sculpture will be encircled by a genuine imitation Rolex and spray a fountain of Spermamax, obtained at a very reasonable rate from a Canadian pharmacy. "You will search an hour for your underwear in the ocean of our spam!" is to become the new town motto.

"I did get a good one the other day," says Busybody. "Barrister Matthew Sergeant Busybody of MessageLabs said we could promote our town to millions of people just by sending them an advance fee to process our incoming email. The stuff they try! 'Scuse me, V!k@grk@ kicking in, got to go have sex again. Sorry."

Mod parent up! (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438165)

I wish I had mod points. Very creative, very funny!!

Well, (4, Informative)

TheMightyFuzzball (1500683) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438051)

That is less money that you will have to pay for downloading 25 songs, at least.

Can I sue now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28438195)

Do I have the right to sue him for the time and money I've had to dedicate to stopping his now admitted spamming operation?

I don't get it (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438323)

I don't get it anymore. Someone shares 24 songs online and she gets a 1.92 M$ fine, and this guy, who annoyed a whole lot of people and got money for that too, only gets a 1 M$ fine? So if you do something for others you are fined more than when you annoy people because you get money for it? Unbelievable. What happened to the Land of the Free?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28438509)

It got bought out by corporations.

He annoyed individuals, she annoyed a corporation (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438527)

Quite simple really when you know how. Remind me again what they call a State where corporations and the Government work in close collaboration, Signors Mussolini and Berlusconi?

This Guy Was My Neighbor (5, Interesting)

Tempest_2084 (605915) | more than 4 years ago | (#28438401)

This guy was my neighbor when I was growing up. It doesn't surprise me that he grew up to be a spam king, he was always looking for a way to 'get rich quick' and had a more than average understanding of computers (and a less than average understanding of just about everything else). I can remember him running some sort of telecommunications software on his Apple II every time I was over at his house playing with his daughter. Now looking back on it, I wonder what he was doing and if it was legal. Then again he gave me hundreds of pirated Apple II games at the time so probably not (although I was one happy 10 year old).

Re:This Guy Was My Neighbor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28439207)

I know it's not right, but I'd vote to kill these guys if it were an option.

Yes yes, punishment doesn't fit the crime but I *hate* them.

Re:This Guy Was My Neighbor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28440071)

> every time I was over at his house playing with his daughter. Now looking back on it, I wonder what he was doing and if it was legal.

Careful with stuff like that. Nowadays with all the hysteria around people might also wonder what you were doing with his daughter and if it was legal ;).

6 yrs long time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28438621)

Has anyone here actually been to jail? I have and 6 years is a Long F kng time.

It could be worse (2, Insightful)

incripshin (580256) | more than 4 years ago | (#28439695)

He got off easy. Just think of how much money he would owe if he had been downloading music. And I'm sure he got paid well with his spam business.

Why do they allow it to be profitable? (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 4 years ago | (#28439877)

Maybe I'm just a simpleton but shouldn't fines exceed the amount of money a person profits in a scam? Ralsky supposedly made over $4 million in less than 18 months. Not that I'm surprised the same thing happens with corrupt CEO's and their ilk. The idea that someone looses a fraction of their ill gotten gains, spends a couple years in jail then gets to live out the rest of their life in relative comfort with the rest of the fortune they managed to gain through their illegal activities does nothing but make the idea seem relatively attractive to those willing to give away a couple of years of their life in exchange for riches.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?