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!

Facebook Awarded $711 Million In Anti-Spam Case

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the yet-another-spam-king-dethroned dept.

Spam 179

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook is on a never-before-seen legal rampage against high profile internet spammers. Today Facebook was awarded yet another nine-figure settlement, this time for over $700 million. Facebook also has a criminal contempt case on Wallace, which means a high likelihood of prison, a big win for the internet and a milestone in cyber law. 'The record demonstrates that Wallace willfully violated the statutes in question with blatant disregard for the rights of Facebook and the thousands of Facebook users whose accounts were compromised by his conduct,' Jeremy Fogel wrote in his judgment order, which permanently prohibits Wallace from accessing the Facebook Web site or creating a Facebook account, among other restrictions."

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

A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926331)

What's wrong with this picture?

2004-10-08 FTC files suit against Wallace to stop infecting computers with spyware that promised to remove the problem for $30.
2006-03-22 FTC files suit against Wallace--Wallace and co-defendants fined for over $5 million.
2008-01-26 MySpace awarded $230 million from Wallace in LA.
2009-10-29 (Yesterday) Facebook awarded $711 million from Wallace.

If you say seven hundred million and jail time is too much, I say it isn't enough. A warning didn't stop him, five million didn't stop him, two hundred million didn't stop him and I'm sure seven hundred million won't stop him. Throw the book at him and lock him up--this is definition CAN-SPAM Act. And he's a heavy repeat offender, it's not like this guy was blindsided with a surprise ruling. Spam is too kind of a label for this guy, I would hit him for extortion and identity theft on massive scales in addition to CAN-SPAM.

How he continued to operate with a two hundred million dollar loss a year and a half ago is beyond me. Is he just declaring bankruptcy (like he did back June '09 [insidefacebook.com] ), rolling over and doing it again? Or avoiding states where there's a warrant for his arrest or what?

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (4, Insightful)

El Jynx (548908) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926441)

Heh. Nice. But the problem is as old as humanity itself: forbidding is one thing, preventing is quite another. I agree, jailtime is the only way to go for a recidivist like that. And he's just abusing international law and such: just because you go bust in one country doesn't mean you can't have $500m tucked away in another. Until treaties are formed which address these problems - and thankfully, tax havens have come under heavy fire of late - this type of crap is just going to continue.

What I don't get is why a joker like that - who is obviously intelligent - doesn't just find a legal way to get rich. It can't be that hard.

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926611)

It can't be that hard.

Yes, well, it can be that hard. There are lots of intelligent people who aren't and can't be rich, although they want to be.

More than intelligence is required.

And apparently, for this guy, he's skilled in getting rich using uncouth methods. It's what he's familiar with, it's what comes easy for him (I suppose)

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29926791)

you see there is a special feeling in bad things that you dont get while you do good things

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927233)

There's also a special feeling in good things that you do get when you do bad things. It's called prison rape. And I wish lots and *lots* of it on Sanford Wallace.

And now that I've started the inevitable rape thread that's invaded by Euro-slashers who will call me a barbarian, let the festivities commence!

That is not funny at all. (3, Funny)

Suzuran (163234) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927873)

Prison rape is a serious problem and should not be taken lightly. I am appalled and disgusted by your suggestion that some poor criminal should be forced to have sex with Sanford Wallace. There is no law on earth that can sentence a man to such an awful fate. Our constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and it would do you well to never forget it!

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927575)

First post!

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926577)

If there's a warrant for his arrest why don't they nab him and extradite him?

Surely the US Marshals can't be THAT clueless...

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (4, Interesting)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926617)

You notice that there's a billion dollars in risk here?

Sounds to me like there is considerable incentive to be an epic scale douchebag of the internet. You'd think he'd be a gajillionaire, right?

Except...

"As of October 2003, he is working as a DJ in Las Vegas, making weekly appearances at OPM nightclub (name changed to 'Poetry Nightclub' October 5, 2007) in Caesars Palace Forum Shops on the Las Vegas Strip. Wallace performs under the name DJ MasterWeb.[8]"

"Wallace filed for bankruptcy in June, 2009. On 2009-10-29, a Northern California District Court Judge awarded Facebook $711M in damages.[12]. Although unlikely to collect due to his bankruptcy, the presiding judge in the case also recommended Criminal Contempt charges against Wallace, who may face jail time as a result." -wiki

So uh, it's not like he's ridonculously wealthy as a result of being a sleezebag? What gives???

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29928149)

Unless he keeps all his finances separated. Sooo, when you do score a lawsuit, he has "nothing". Where does he live? What about his house? What does he drive? Those would be good indicators on whether or not he has something.

Even so, most people live beyond their means. Maybe he has to spend all that without having assets to get the REAL payoff. :D

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926691)

1) They'd have to actually find him first (odds are good that all but the first cases were done with him in absentia).

2) Good luck collecting.

3) this may sound a bit trollish, but a thought occurred to me: as of right now, Spamford Wallace likely owes enough money to buy a brand new ballistic missile submarine. No one will ever see so much as a dime from him. So... why did they even bother? It's similar to the RIAA and Jammie Thomas - there comes a point where it becomes less of a statement and more of a parody. Trust me, I have zero sympathy for the son of a bitch, but do we have to make a mockery of our own legal system just to make a point?

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (0, Troll)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926823)

This is why we need debtors prisons - so people can't escape responsibility by fiddling books and declaring bankruptcy.

Make him work it off in a sweatshop for the rest of his days.

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (1, Informative)

Courageous (228506) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926911)

No, we need a criminal conviction, not a "debtor's prison". In some states you cannot discharge by bankruptcy a civil outcome that proceeds from a criminal conviction. I.e., we need to go after folks like this criminally. His actions are clearly criminal. What Facebook should have done was sued the DA.

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (1)

csartanis (863147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927087)

We already have this, it's called the middle class.

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927475)

Zing!

Technically, Bill Gates is middle class.

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (3, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927215)

Make him work it off in a sweatshop for the rest of his days.

"Mr. Wallace, you are hereby sentenced to spend the remainder of your natural life logged in to a mail client pressing the delete key."

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (2, Insightful)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927667)

Nah, let's make him a mail server. Give him one of those old green and black text terminals. Give it an IP and make any requests to port 25 go to his screen. His job is to read the incoming SMTP commands and respond accordingly. He would then swivel his chair to a second terminal where he would use telnet to connect to port 25 of the destination servers and send the message on... manually. I'm sure he will get a special kick out of messages with attachments! He can do this eight hours a day 5 days a week (I can only be so sadistic even to him) for minimum wage applied towards his debt. No doubt the server will get backlogged quickly and I wouldn't expect him to keep up with it all. I would deduct for typos though. I'm sure some Slashdotters could think of things to send via the Spamford Mail Server

Facebook for Grand Nagus. Re:A Time Line (2, Funny)

Forge (2456) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926919)

Unwritten Rule of Acquisition #317-: " If you are a big bully, go beet up on someone who annoys the hell out of everyone else. It's highly profitable in direct Latinum and customer willingness to give you more Latinum."

Facebook should be appointed Grand Nagus for coming up with such a lucrative idea.

Re:Facebook for Grand Nagus. Re:A Time Line (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927511)

I shall spray you with my purplish juices!

Or did you meen something else?

Re:Facebook for Grand Nagus. Re:A Time Line (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927519)

LOL

Re:Facebook for Grand Nagus. Re:A Time Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927823)

Unwritten Rule of Acquisition #317-: " If you are a big bully, go beet up on someone who annoys the hell out of everyone else. It's highly profitable in direct Latinum and customer willingness to give you more Latinum."
Facebook should be appointed Grand Nagus for coming up with such a lucrative idea.

Maybe... but what does borsht have to do with this?

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (2, Interesting)

eh2o (471262) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927059)

Spammer makes profit from facebook users. Facebook (+lawyers) make profit from spammer. Is this a new business model? Why isn't this a class-action lawsuit?

This is why death penality is appropriate (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927223)

The man is clearly a sociopath that does not give a flying f_ck about what he done to others. There's no cure for people like that, and the only benefit they can provide for the planet is as fertilizer. If our legal system pursued spammer with the same vigor as copyright violators, we would've rid them some time ago.

Re:This is why death penality is appropriate (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927911)

If our legal system pursued spammer with the same vigor as copyright violators, we would've rid them some time ago.

Erm, since that same vigor hasn't stopped copyright violators, what makes you think it'd succeed in stopping spam?

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (1)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927527)

Hmm...

I hate spam. I'd love to see all the spammers burn as much as anyone but...

Is the damage he has caused really worth $946 million? I'm sure somebody paid the $30 but there couldn't be THAT many. How much monetary value is there on having to clean a spam cluttered inbox? This reminds me of the RIAA and MPAA's methods of justifying their big money lawsuits against individuals. "No, a few songs are not worth 10s of thousands of dollars but we need big damages to discourage piracy."

Can we have it both ways? I don't really think so. This kind of ruling is dangerous because it validates using the same heavy handed tactics against the people we do like.

celebrate your kike pride!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29926333)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/10/28/new.and.emergent.jews/index.html

Stupid Name (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926381)

Does anyone else find it ironic that the "Can-Spam Act" is meant to stop people from spamming, specifically from the false and misleading type?

Re:Stupid Name (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29926471)

The complaints about CAN-SPAM when it first came out was that it was so weak and watered down that it was essentially legalizing spamming, and exactly that: you can spam.

Re:Stupid Name (2, Interesting)

pz (113803) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926503)

Does anyone else find it ironic that the "Can-Spam Act" is meant to stop people from spamming, specifically from the false and misleading type?

I believe the intent was to have the first word in CAN-SPAM be a verb, with the meaning of "can" being, "to throw in the trash."

Re:Stupid Name (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926661)

Yeah, but it was written by politicians apparently too proud of themselves for coming up with the acronym to realize that it has another more widely used meaning. Its like when my dad calls his monitor " the computer", The desktop "the cpu", and the Ram "the hard drive". He's sort of just proud he's in the right ballpark and doesn't call the keyboard a typewriter.

Re:Stupid Name (2, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927705)

I think it's such a weak law (and probably intentionally so) that it means that you can spam with impunity.

Re:Stupid Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29926509)

Wrong homonym, genius. Can spam, as in put spam in a can. It's the only bit of legislation I'm aware of with a nickname that's actually clever and punny.

Re:Stupid Name (1)

TimeElf1 (781120) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926513)

I think they were trying to invoke an image of a trashcan but had a epic fail moment.

Re:Stupid Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29926527)

I think the name was intended to be humorous, alluding to sealing Spam(the Hormel product) into a container (a can).

Re:Stupid Name (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926733)

Does anyone else find it ironic that the "Can-Spam Act" is meant to stop people from spamming

Yes, it's ironic, in this context it's meant as "to put it in a can", you know, like the meat Spam.

And this guy is going to go spend time in a metal box, so it seems fitting.

Re:Stupid Name (3, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927041)

Yes, it's ironic, in this context it's meant as "to put it in a can", you know, like the meat Spam.

You mean, the thing you do to spam before you deliver it to millions of people all over the world?

Free Viagra! (2)

jornak (1377831) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926385)

Why can't -I- sue people for emailing me mindless spam?

Re:Free Viagra! (4, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926663)

The CAN-SPAM act ruined it by superceding prior federal law that made sending junk faxes/e-mail subject to a per-message penalty to be paid to the recipient, prior to the act.

Before then.. individuals did sometimes did sue spammers, I believe it was ~$500/message..

Idea! (4, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926395)

Facebook should just use this as their business model.

I mean hey, if the money ever actually does come in, it's perfectly viable given how often people spam Facebook users.

Re:Idea! (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926751)

That was my first idea when I heard the numbers! I somehow doubt it'll work out, but it's an interesting thought.

Good ol' Spamford (4, Insightful)

willith (218835) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926417)

Sweet merciful crap, is Spamford Wallace [wikipedia.org] still around? We were stabbing voodoo dolls with his picture on them more than ten years ago. His C.V. reads like list of things that are wrong with the Internet. If there were ever someone that the world would be a better place without, it's this guy.

Re:Good ol' Spamford (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29926695)

I'm kinda wondering why this guy isn't dead yet, after all these years. Seriously.

Wrong "Method and Process" for stopping spammers (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926961)

We were stabbing voodoo dolls with his picture on them more than ten years ago.

Obviously, stabbing the voodoo dolls had no effect.

I would suggest that the Court anoint its forearm with Tabasco, and fist Mr. Wallace.

. . . and I do mean him, and not the voodoo doll. Then, he might get the message.

Re:Wrong "Method and Process" for stopping spammer (3, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927561)

If you aren't willing to carry out the sentence yourself, with your parents watching, you don't really believe in it.

Re:Good ol' Spamford (1)

mitgib (1156957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927697)

First off, I have no love for spammers, but to wish death upon them? Don't you think wishing death upon another human being is a bit extreme for anything other then capitol offenses? I'm sure you are smart enough to tweak your .procmailrc file.

SO.. (3, Funny)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926419)

Facebook have turned a profit now right?

Nice (5, Funny)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926425)

It's good to see a corporation winning a $700,000,000 against an individual once in a while.

Re:Nice (2)

jhfry (829244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926795)

Whoever modded this as troll is unfair... I think it was kinda witty and should have at least got a Funny or two.

It is kinda funny to see an individual taken to the cleaners by a corporation and the /. crowd being pleased about it.

SANFORD Wallace? (2, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926465)

Now, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time.

Re:SANFORD Wallace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927695)

Now, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time.

Not long enough.

Re:SANFORD Wallace? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 4 years ago | (#29928327)

That sounds like an admission to being Wallace, to me.

Time for the death penalty (5, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926549)

There's a certain point where we need to consider the death penalty for this sort of thing. Sure, we normally only use the death penalty for heinous crimes, but from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society. If Wallace is taken out and shot he'll lose about 365*50*24= 438,000 life hours. On the other hand, even a year or two of Wallace's normal behavior causes the rest of society to lose far more time. We should consider a death penalty for serious spammers or possibly a long sentence where he is kept far away from any computer.

Re:Time for the death penalty (2, Funny)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926623)

Hmm, this is an interesting concept. However, to carry it to its natural extreme.... what then would we do with Microsoft? I've wasted hundreds of hours of my life trying to fix their crap.

Re:Time for the death penalty (4, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926851)

You agreed at some point to buy a Microsoft product. You or someone you are helping opted in. And most likely once you've got it working you will actually have saved time overall. There's no claim that a) people opted in to Wallace's crap or b) that anyone will save time overall from what Wallace is doing.

Re:Time for the death penalty (2, Interesting)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927787)

You agreed at some point to buy a Microsoft product. You or someone you are helping opted in. And most likely once you've got it working you will actually have saved time overall.

I and someone else didn't opt in to Microsoft wasting our time. More importantly, me helping someone else doesn't save me any time overall. Perhaps that someone else bears some of the blame, but I don't think all the blame can be shifted on people who quite clearly are incapable (either intellectually or through gross lack of information available) of having truly opted in to all that was entailed.

There's no claim that a) people opted in to Wallace's crap or b) that anyone will save time overall from what Wallace is doing.

People opted in to Wallace's crap the same way they "opted-in" to Microsoft's crap: it's a consequence of using the system for which most people acknowledge there really is no solution, short of avoiding the system. With e-mail, you can't hold the system at fault nor can the system be fixed, but in Microsoft's case you can hold them at fault and in many cases they can fix the problem. As for saving time overall, presumably somewhere Wallace spammed someone who actually bought what Wallace was peddling, thereby saving themself time overall. Your argument only plays well if you look at overall societal utility, but then I'm not really sure Microsoft gets a positive score in that area either (perhaps they and all OS makers (and Wallace) do by shear inherent increased efficiency due to computers and telecommunication.

Re:Time for the death penalty (2)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#29928121)

I and someone else didn't opt in to Microsoft wasting our time. More importantly, me helping someone else doesn't save me any time overall. Perhaps that someone else bears some of the blame, but I don't think all the blame can be shifted on people who quite clearly are incapable (either intellectually or through gross lack of information available) of having truly opted in to all that was entailed.

Oh, were you forced at gun point to install MS software? If not, and you still did, you opted in.

Re:Time for the death penalty (2, Funny)

CraftyJack (1031736) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927123)

Hmm, this is an interesting concept. However, to carry it to its natural extreme.... what then would we do with Microsoft?

What would we do with Slashdot?

Re:Time for the death penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927167)

You didn't have to. You didn't even need to use a computer.

Computers improve productivity/save time overall. That they don't improve it as much as possible is not the same.

Re:Time for the death penalty (1)

baKanale (830108) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927461)

On one hand Microsoft constantly wastes centuries of manpower.

On the other hand, since corporations are essentially immortal, Microsoft has an infinite number of life hours left...

Re:Time for the death penalty (5, Funny)

AJWM (19027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926649)

And an appropriate execution method might be death by ten thousand paper cuts. Or just leave him naked in mosquito country at the start of the season. I mean, it's not like any one cut or bite is that serious....

Re:Time for the death penalty (4, Funny)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927151)

Force him to eat nothing but spam until he dies of malnutrition.

Re:Time for the death penalty (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 4 years ago | (#29928345)

Sorry, but that won't work. The people of the Hawai'ian Islands have proven over the years you can subsist on only spam for many decades.

Re:Time for the death penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29928177)

Chinese water torture. One drop of water per spam occurrence.

Re:Time for the death penalty (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926701)

We could sell the body to hormel, and they could use it to make a canned meat product!

Re:Time for the death penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29926965)

Repent, Herlequin! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Time for the death penalty (1)

drdrgivemethenews (1525877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926981)

Back in the bad old days, a few days in the stocks would have done it. Spectators threw stuff. If you were lucky enough to get out alive, you possibly didn't have eyes anymore, and for sure would be an expert on the taste of various species' feces.

Re:Time for the death penalty (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926987)

Just have a small pebble thrown at him, (and it can be thrown lightly), for every spam he sent...

Re:Time for the death penalty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927001)

Statements like this make me VERY VERY happy I live in a country where there is no death penalty.

Not only is the death penalty a barbaric practice but it also costs more than simply locking people up ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty [deathpenaltyinfo.org] )

Though I wouldn't put it passed a population that watches steel buildings fall at the speed of gravity, and declare it a product of fire not demolition?????? Then go on a killing spree for oil and defense contracts.

The laws of the United State of America, INC apparently trump the laws of physics and the sovereignty of the rest of the world.

 

Re:Time for the death penalty (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927063)

Way to destroy the credibility in the first part of a post with bat-crap craziness in the second. You win my prize for the most schizophrenic post of the day.

You may collect your prize of a bloody mary with a shot of mole sauce at your convince.

Re:Time for the death penalty (1)

DiademBedfordshire (1662223) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927035)

A tad over zealous, don't you think? Spam is a business and as such we need to hit it were it hurts. If we stop the flow of money to spammers we effectively stop the spammers. Teach every person you know how to spot spam, how to avoid it, how to not click it and the simple restraint of not signing up for every god damn "Free" offer. I am generally spam, virus, and malware free because I assume I'm not the one millionth visitor to EVERY site I go to.

Re:Time for the death penalty (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927189)

Think about the dumbest person you know. The person THAT person thinks is really stupid is the kind of person who clicks on these things. There's nothing you can do. They're out of your reach. Out of 6.5 billion people, it doesn't take a very high percentage to be a millionaire.

Re:Time for the death penalty (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927361)

Spam is a business and as such we need to hit it were it hurts. If we stop the flow of money to spammers we effectively stop the spammers

It seems there is an echo here...

I've been saying that about spammers for some time [slashdot.org] . That, however, doesn't change the fact that you will still have people yearning for blood over the matter - even though it would be a useless guesture.

Re:Time for the death penalty (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927077)

>> There's a certain point where we need to consider the death penalty for this sort of thing. Sure, we normally only use the death penalty for heinous crimes, but from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society. If Wallace is taken out and shot he'll lose about 365*50*24= 438,000 life hours.

so... watch out for your 15 minutes of fame lest people consider you wasting their time?

Are you for real? (3, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927139)

There's a certain point where we need to consider the death penalty for this sort of thing.

Are you trying to actually accomplish something or are you just trying to make yourself feel better?

from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society

OK, we'll go for the latter (much) more so than the former.

There are multiple reasons that any sensible person can quickly come up with as to why this would be a useless guesture:

  • There are too many spammers to kill them all (or even make a dent in the spam volume by trying)
  • Spammers are stateless, and will just flee to countries where spam laws don't exist - where they can continue to make money through spamming
  • There is too much money in spam to prevent people from going into it just because there is a remote chance of facing criminal charges in one country for it

And thats just getting started...

You'd might as well use a voodoo doll, it would be just as effective and far less expensive.

Re:Are you for real? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927533)

There are too many spammers to kill them all (or even make a dent in the spam volume by trying)

We offer up bounties on pests like nutria and gophers and there's far more of them than there are spammers.

Re:Time for the death penalty (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927245)

To be serious for a moment, why has this jackass not been completely prohibited from using the internet? Judges have already told him that he can no longer use Myspace or Facebook - why not just bite the bullet and tell him that he cannot use the internet at all?

Considering his track record in junk faxes as well, I'd probably suggest disallowing him use of any communication service whatsoever. If he still wants to "spam," he can do it in person where his "potential customer" can easily respond... preferably by a swift kick to the balls.

Re:Time for the death penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927375)

i cannot believe this got modded interesting. It's spam for god's sake. No one died. Some people may have had some full inboxes or some irritating email.

You dicks

How is Facebook going to distribute... (5, Interesting)

JBL2 (994604) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926567)

... the money to the users who suffered damage?

Re:How is Facebook going to distribute... (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926755)

By continuing to provide a free service??

Re:How is Facebook going to distribute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927319)

By continuing to provide a free service??

Surely you say this in jest. As anyone with half a brain knows that purchasing items from Facebook advertisers pays for the service. Thus, buying any product from any of their advertisers makes it not such a free service after all.

Re:How is Facebook going to distribute... (2, Funny)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926779)

Become a pay site and give them all free accounts?

... and why should they? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926943)

If the users wanted momentary damages, they should have formed/joined litigation or a class action against Wallace themselves.

That aside, you don't get money for criminal charges, so it's not always about the cash. Having facebook actually go after guy - hopefully enough to get contempt charges and have him thrown in the slammer - will hopefully help deter him from further victims, and give a similar "moral victory" to those that were wronged.

If somebody did something to screw me out of $100, it might not be worth it for me alone to sue for damages in court. However it would likely still put a smile on my face if $BIGCORP managed to wipe them out.

Re:How is Facebook going to distribute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29926971)

Ha, ha, ha, hah.

Hint: they probably aren't.

Will you take a check? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927045)

Just let them know where to send a check for zero dollars and zero cents to, and whom to bill for the postage. There is no reasonable chance of them collecting money from the spammer, so there won't be any money to distribute, either.

Re:How is Facebook going to distribute... (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927097)

>> How is Facebook going to distribute... ... the money to the users who suffered damage?

coupons with no monetary value... and no non-monetary value.

Re:How is Facebook going to distribute... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927205)

They can't do that. They've finally found a business model! Suing people that bother their users.

Where do I add this new app? (4, Funny)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926613)

"Facebook's application for a default judgment against Wallace for violating the Can-Spam Act"

Cool new app!

I crack myself up.

No facebook profile? (1)

funehmon (648132) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926679)

NO!!!

This sounds like a fantastic business model... (3, Interesting)

Gybrwe666 (1007849) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926783)

1) Start Web 2.0 web site utilizing every buzzword you can find
2) Desparately woo users until you get large enough to matter
3) Sit down a year or more later to desperately figure out a revenue model
4) Provide Spammers a way to proliferate
5) Sue them!
6) PROFIT$$$$$$$

Not only that, but this also avoids the usual problem in Slashdot business plans in that there is no question marks in either steps 3 or 4.

Anyone got a good idea?

Re:This sounds like a fantastic business model... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927327)

Yeah, doesn't any of the fault lie with Facebook for not providing protections to their users against some of this spam? I realize that social engineering tactics were used but it seems to me that it would be possible to detect scripted mass "wall postings" and that sort of thing.

Facebook business model unveiled! (1)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926785)

Nobody expected it, I guess.

Re:Facebook business model unveiled! (1)

czmax (939486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926951)

Nobody expected it, I guess.

Nobody expects the Spamish Inquisition!!

Stop the invites (3, Insightful)

adosch (1397357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29926989)

Now if only people would stop 'spamming' me with their Facebook invites...

Re:Stop the invites (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927253)

If I get one more invite to the "Watch Grass Grow" app, I'll just poke out an eye. Seriously - if it's not fun in real life, what makes people think it's fun because "it's on Facebook"

And yeah - I did a sanity check. Thankfully, no such app actually exists on Facebook...yet.

Re:Stop the invites (1)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927439)

If I get one more invite to the "Watch Grass Grow" app, I'll just poke out an eye. Seriously - if it's not fun in real life, what makes people think it's fun because "it's on Facebook"

And yeah - I did a sanity check. Thankfully, no such app actually exists on Facebook...yet.

Don't worry, Rule 34 has you covered.

Ooh, you mean you didn't want there to be grass growing porn? Shouldn't have thought about it.

Oh, or the Verruca Gnome.

Don't hold your breath... (2, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927023)

... waiting to see a collection on that. Most likely he won't pay a dime of that fine. There is no reason to expect otherwise.

What's in a name? (3, Funny)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927029)

"Wallace and his company Smartbot.net" Sort of like naming your firm "Ruthless Swindlers, Inc."

Facebook is now the government? (2, Insightful)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927197)

From the summary:

Facebook also has a criminal contempt case on Wallace

I thought criminal cases were always "The State v. ___" or another government agency. I have a hard time believing that Facebook has a criminal case against the guy.

Is there a lawyer in the house (or at least someone who plays lawyer on Slashdot)?

Re:Facebook is now the government? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29927753)

Try not to read too much into the summary. If there is a criminal contempt case, it likely involved Facebook complaining to the court that Wallace isn't complying with the order, and the court handling the matter as a criminal one, probably due to well, gross contempt of it.

That's just a bit of speculation though, haven't read the matter enough to certify my explanation.

A few notes about Wallace (2, Interesting)

efalk (935211) | more than 4 years ago | (#29927671)

Wallace is the guy that invented mass email spam. If his ISP had shut him down on day 1, the world might be a different place today. Spam exists because ISPs tolerate it.

It is almost unheard of for a plaintiff to collect money from a spammer. They're either broke, or they've successfully hidden their money. The $711M judgment is purely symbolic. Facebook knows full well that they'll never collect a dime.

I agree that jail time is the only solution. Wallace is the recidivist's recidivist.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?