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!

Spam King Wallace Indicted For Facebook Spam

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the that's-guilty!-guilty!-guilty! dept.

Facebook 93

itwbennett writes "Notorious spam king Sanford Wallace is facing federal fraud charges for allegedly breaking into the Facebook accounts of 500,000 victims in 2008 and 2009 and using the stolen credentials to post 27 million spam messages. The charges are outlined in an indictment, filed July 6 but made public Thursday after Wallace turned himself in to federal authorities. If convicted, Wallace could get more than 16 years in prison."

cancel ×

93 comments

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

Hang him. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995492)

Isn't that asshole dead yet?

Re:Hang him. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995730)

Hanging is too good for him, he should get what that other Wallace got (the scottish guy played by Mel Gibson)

Send Bubba some stuff (1)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | about 3 years ago | (#36996402)

Send Bubba some instant cialis tabs and penis enlargement pills. We don't want Wallace disappointed in Bubba's size or performance.

Re:Hang him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36996774)

-1? This post should be +5 Interesting.

Re:Hang him. (1)

cvtan (752695) | about 3 years ago | (#36997674)

Off with his head! No wait, hang him FIRST.

Still? (4, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about 3 years ago | (#36995508)

I thought Spamford had turned over a new leaf? Giving interviews, promising no more spam.

Good heavens. A spammer lied to us.

This isn't spam (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995548)

Here's his business model:

Wallace, 43, allegedly used a phishing attack to steal usernames and passwords from victims and then used the stolen credentials to post spam to victims walls, the U.S. Department of Justice said. Wallace allegedly made money from the scam by driving Web traffic to affiliate marketing companies, who pay their members by the number of clicks they can deliver to websites.

So, he basically posed as other people, and those people's friends click on those links put there by Wallace thinking their friends put them there, and then Wallace gets paid.

The other thing is the people "advertising" were doing business with Wallace. They didn't check him out with a simple google search? Or did they know and not give a shit because they're that desperate for traffic?

Re:This isn't spam (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995716)

This: not give a shit because they're that desperate for traffic

I have done work for a multi-level marketing company and I can tell you they were desperate enough for traffic that they paid a couple of other companies to send traffic to them.

This IS spam (1)

subreality (157447) | about 3 years ago | (#37000828)

He's sending unwanted messages to people with whom he has no business relationship in order to collect money from people paying for eyeballs. How is that not spam?

Re:This isn't spam (1)

colonel spalding (936960) | about 3 years ago | (#37004258)

They should RICO all the associated involved. The a-hole is only successful because of the other greedy people that salivate at his services.

The Rules of Spam (3, Informative)

Eggplant62 (120514) | about 3 years ago | (#36995856)

From Bruce Pennypacker's Rules of Spam Post [pennypacker.org] on his personal blog:

Rule 0: Spam is theft

Rule 1: Spammers lie.

Rule 2: When in doubt about spammers lying, see rule 1.

Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.

Rule #4: The natural course of a spamming business is to go bankrupt.

Time and again, these simple rules have proven themselves. Too many fallen spam kings, too many spam kings sitting in jail or just plain bankrupt.

STFU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36996212)

This is a victim-less crime. Facebook users WANT to be spammed.

Re:Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36999214)

I hope get gets sent to prison and get brutally raped.

Re:Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36999268)

You accidentally the noun here.

Re:Still? (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 3 years ago | (#36999692)

I think you meant pronoun.

Already punished... (2)

Coisiche (2000870) | about 3 years ago | (#36995512)

Accessing half a million facebook accounts must have subjected him to more torment than I could bear.

Re:Already punished... (1)

somersault (912633) | about 3 years ago | (#36995704)

Um. Yeah, having a script log into 500,000 accounts and post a message must have been a hellish ordeal for him..

Read that as: (0)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 3 years ago | (#36995514)

At first, I started to read this as an imperative sentence telling me to spam King Wallace. I must say I was disappointed when I got to 'indicted.'

Re:Read that as: (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 3 years ago | (#36995624)

I read your title as an imperative to read it in a certain way, vice the past tense of read. I must say I was disappointed when I read your post.

Re:Read that as: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36997716)

And of course, king neckbeard is too stupid to realize that you totally owned him right there.

apparently still profitable (2)

rbrausse (1319883) | about 3 years ago | (#36995516)

Wallace, the guy with a $5M fine in 2006... something's rotten with the legislation/judicature if he is able to ignore the penalties

Re:apparently still profitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995672)

Maybe he was just trying to earn an honest living doing something other than e-mail spam in order to pay the fine? :-)

"...in 2008 and 2009" (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#36995530)

Is he never going to learn the difference between right/wrong?

Throw him in jail and fill the door lock with epoxy resin.

Re:"...in 2008 and 2009" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995642)

Is he never going to learn the difference between right/wrong?

Problem is some people are thick and some people are greedy. Some people are both.

I'm not sure you can teach such people *AND* have them learn.

Re:"...in 2008 and 2009" (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 3 years ago | (#36996004)

How about instead just give all of the other inmates some V1aGra, or other pills to enlarge their member.

Re:"...in 2008 and 2009" (1)

ego centrik (1971902) | about 3 years ago | (#36997368)

_ V1agra is not an expansion tool, its an enDurance amplifier.

Re:"...in 2008 and 2009" (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | about 3 years ago | (#36996266)

There is a difference between knowing what is right and what is wrong, and actually caring about what is right and what is wrong. You would think a would lead to b. But, for some people a is just a tool for telling people it's raining while they piss on them and b is for losers and stupid people. I cannot say this is the case in this case. But, it sure reminds me of it.

Re:"...in 2008 and 2009" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36998986)

Throw him in jail and give his co-inmates free product-samples from the spam..

Re:"...in 2008 and 2009" (1)

billcopc (196330) | about 3 years ago | (#37003740)

What ever happened to good old fashioned public execution ? This guy has a white-crime rap sheet longer than most wall street traders.

Just off him already. Maybe that will scare some of the other spammers away.

SELL !! WHILE !! YOU !! CAN !! NOW !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995552)

Sell !! SELL !! Do it before you lose it all !!

Sentance seems high (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995608)

16 years for ... spamming emails? Seems quite high, especially when compared to the average sentence for murder (~17 years). I mean, 27 million emails is a lot, but is it really worth that much time ?

Re:Sentance seems high (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995712)

Considering he already has a long history and a number of convictions, the sentence seems pretty appropriate. A third offense murderer would get a hell of a lot more than 17 years.

Re:Sentance seems high (1)

Pionar (620916) | about 3 years ago | (#36995996)

Um, he has no convictions.

From TFA:

However this is the first time he's facing criminal charges.

Re:Sentance seems high (1)

skr95062 (2046934) | about 3 years ago | (#36999804)

On numerous occasions when being hauled into court by the FTC he has settled and "promised" to not do this type of shit again.

Several times the massive fine that the FTC wanted was suspended, provided he obided by the settlement agreement.

I would really expect that the justice department would have used these failures to get an even longer sentence.

He still owes myspace millions after he got sued by them and lost

So while you are technically correct in that this is the first time he is facing criminal charges, he could have and should have been brought up on criminal charges for violating the settlement agreements.

Re:Sentance seems high (1)

somersault (912633) | about 3 years ago | (#36995720)

Yes.

Re:Sentance seems high (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 3 years ago | (#36995726)

Well, I'll put it this way: I wouldn't want my taxes paying for his jail cell for that long.

Re:Sentance seems high (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#36995842)

I bet if you met him in person you'd be setting up a direct debit after ten minutes listening to his exploits...

Re:Sentance seems high (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 3 years ago | (#36997642)

I'll concede that if I had personally been bitten by him there's a damn good chance I'd agree with you.

Re:Sentance seems high (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#36995832)

Seems quite high

The law has this thing about repeat offenders...

Re:Sentance seems high (1)

myth24601 (893486) | about 3 years ago | (#36996520)

Stories always show the highest possible prison term. Likely, he could trade a plea for much less time but I don't think he should be allowed to avoid some decent amount of jail time (a couple of years at least).

Re:Sentance seems high (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | about 3 years ago | (#36996596)

Not just spamming through email, unauthorized access to 500,000 accounts, then spamming their walls. Those are 3 different crimes I assume the accessing 500,000 accounts is most of this sentence. The 17 years is the sum of those three acts.

Give him a life sentence... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 3 years ago | (#36995610)

...of manually filtering out spammy emails from non-spammy ones. It'll be like community service. Sure it won't do much in practice but it'll teach him how the rest of us feel when some new spam gets through the filter.

Re:Give him a life sentence... (1)

zget (2395308) | about 3 years ago | (#36995640)

Yes, because I really want him to read my and other peoples emails. That's such a great idea.

Re:Give him a life sentence... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#36995848)

He'd just spend the time writing down all the email addresses.

And this is why it's still true that... (3, Insightful)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | about 3 years ago | (#36995652)

...there is no such thing as an ex-spammer. Nobody, NOBODY, can produce a living example of one (either individual or corporate). Oh, they sometimes take a hiatus; they sometimes disappear and come back under another name; they sometimes switch tactics, strategy or modality; and they often claim that really, this time for sure, they've stopped...bu they never do.

And this in turn why blacklist entries associated with these individuals and corporations should be permanent. It's kind and noble of people to try to forgive them, to give them yet another another another chance; but it's extremely naive and stupid.

I think he may be in for an ass kicking (2)

kaptink (699820) | about 3 years ago | (#36995658)

I think he may be in for an ass kicking -

"Wallace has also been sued by Facebook, which won a $711 million civil judgement against him. As part of that judgement, he was banned from Facebook, and the criminal indictment accuses Wallace of contempt of court for allegedly logging onto the social network during an April 2009 Virgin Airlines flight from Las Vegas to New York. Wallace also allegedly set up a Facebook profile in January of this year under the user name David Sinful-Saturdays Fredericks."

Either way he should be banned forever from the interwebs for all our sakes. If ever there was a case to throw the book at someone, this would be it.

Re:I think he may be in for an ass kicking (1)

pz (113803) | about 3 years ago | (#36995744)

How did this guy afford a plane ticket *anywhere* with a fine that large levied against him?

Re:I think he may be in for an ass kicking (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about 3 years ago | (#36996804)

Big fines pretty-much destroy the ability for somebody to live a normal life (raise kids, pay for their college, etc). However, they have little impact on the ability of somebody to be a scumbag since there a man with no dependents can easily hide assets, not own anything like a house that is easy to sieze, use exceptions in laws to allow people to pay for living expenses, and so on.

If I got hit with a $711 million fine it would ruin my life. But, if I decided to become a scumbag and just abandon my family and live a life of crime, it probably wouldn't do much but force my wife slog it out with whoever I own money to in divorce court - I'd already be resigned to not getting a penny so it would just be pure entertainment for me.

In fact, these kinds of punishments actually give people perverse incentives to become criminals, just like the tendency of companies to not hire ex-cons.

I settle for... (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | about 3 years ago | (#36996214)

I think he may be in for an ass kicking

I settle for ass-pounding in prison.

this guy is a friend of a friend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995788)

Set him free!

FAIlZORwS.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995918)

Found o#ut about the

And the net result ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 years ago | (#36995940)

... was negligible at best. Throwing spammers in jail doesn't solve the spam problem. While I support seeing something done, we need to be careful not to go patting ourselves on the back whenever we punish a spammer.

And no, murdering them won't help, either. Plenty of people voice support for murdering (or executing) spammers but that won't help the case. We've seen spammers murdered in Russia and that didn't make a difference; indeed some spammers even moved to Russia to fill the void.

Until we actually go after the root economic problem behind spam, we won't see a real change in the matter. Spam is an economic problem, and requires an economic solution.

Re:And the net result ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36995980)

uh the economic problem is spamming results in money... so we should abolish currency i say.

Re:And the net result ... (2)

halcyon1234 (834388) | about 3 years ago | (#36996062)

And no, murdering them won't help, either.... Until we actually go after the root economic problem behind spam, we won't see a real change in the matter. Spam is an economic problem, and requires an economic solution.

The root economic problem is that there's a demand for spammed products, and thus money flowing to people who supply those demands.

So we should compromise between murder and economics. We should take his customer list, and mail everyone on it a free sample packets of cyanide labeled "ur free V!AGR@ sampel!"

Re:And the net result ... (2)

bberens (965711) | about 3 years ago | (#36996090)

Part of the process of throwing spammers in jail involves tracking down and stopping the bot nets they use for spamming purposes. Killing the bot nets has definitely proven to reduce spam. Often practically overnight.

Re:And the net result ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 years ago | (#36996228)

Killing the bot nets has definitely proven to reduce spam

Except it is temporary. Kill one botnet and another pops up. We find that there is less time now between the collapse of one botnet and the emergence of another. Killing one botnet is just a band-aid on a gushing head wound.

Re:And the net result ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36996566)

Killing the bot nets has definitely proven to reduce spam

Except it is temporary. Kill one botnet and another pops up. We find that there is less time now between the collapse of one botnet and the emergence of another. Killing one botnet is just a band-aid on a gushing head wound.

Now you're back to also imprisoning (or killing) the spammers. Both things drive the costs of spamming up, as does improving the security on consumer PCs.

Given that many major ISPs are owned by media corporations, not known to be warm and cuddly, I'm surprised things have remained as they are. Each month fund a hit on a randomly selected spammer in the top ten Spamhaus ROKSO list. It will become dangerous to be a big spammer so spam runs will cost more. Spam won't end, but gigantic spam runs won't happen as often and that spells cost savings for big ISPs. The ability to skip the next network/email server upgrade for the top 10 media cartel ISPs would be a giant cost savings. The ROI is great! Why aren't they doing this already? yeah yeah - the idea won't work because.... but this idea is FUN!

Re:And the net result ... (2)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | about 3 years ago | (#36996192)

And no, [executing] them won't help, either.

I'm willing to give it a go.

Re:And the net result ... (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 3 years ago | (#36996878)

So, the whole point of punishing criminals is to deter crime.

I could make a lot of money if I robbed a bank. However, most likely I'd end up in prison. So, why take the chance?

If we didn't punish bank robbers because people still rob banks, then now I have no incentive to not give it a try myself.

Now, I agree that this doesn't work perfectly, and some nutcases will be criminals no matter how little sense it makes. However, it isn't like every civilization in history invented a criminal justice system of some sort simply because they're all crazy.

Re:And the net result ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 years ago | (#36997052)

So, the whole point of punishing criminals is to deter crime.

Sure, but not every country considers spam to be a crime. After all, we aren't talking about murder here. All a spammer has to do is live in a country where spam is not outlawed, and they can spam all they want. It doesn't matter if their spam is going to people in countries where it is illegal, or if it is going through computers in those countries, as long as the spammer lives someplace where spam is not illegal, they will be fine.

Re:And the net result ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36998888)

Spamming is never the only law spammers break. Faking your identity with intent to defraud and breaking into other people's computers is illegal just about everywhere you can expect to own property.

Re:And the net result ... (1)

Saxophonist (937341) | about 3 years ago | (#36997996)

Your post advocates a

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

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

(To finish the form, I would need to know what economic solution you are proposing.)

We need the accessories to the crime (1)

swb (14022) | about 3 years ago | (#37000254)

The hosting companies, ISPs, credit card processors and banks that make it possible to actually make money off of spam.

Sure, some of it is purely criminal -- viruses, malware, etc. But that's more easily filtered and is something of a seperate problem.

The problem with just going after the "spammer" is that the life support system that makes it possible to be a spammer and actually make money off it stays intact and they just become the vendor to the next douche-bag spammer.

A RICO prosecution targeting everyone involved would be highly beneficial. Even if the above accessories to spam weren't actually prosecuted, an FBI investigation involving grand juries, subpoenas and a host of negative publicity might have a deterrent effect on its own, discouraging those businesses from dabbling in spam businesses.

If spam can be pushed further to the margins, its less profitable and higher risk. From a technical perspective, it makes it easier to identify ISPs and hosting companies willing to accommodate it, making them easier to null-route or block, and thus raising their costs for access.

You may not be able to stop spam 100%, but you may make it economically non-viable.

Re:We need the accessories to the crime (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 years ago | (#37000598)

You have the idea much more so than most around here - or at least most that reply to my comments about the economic roots of spam.

In fact you are so close to what I have been saying for some time I should warn you someone may come and accuse you of being a sock puppet to me.

A RICO prosecution targeting everyone involved would be highly beneficial. Even if the above accessories to spam weren't actually prosecuted, an FBI investigation involving grand juries, subpoenas and a host of negative publicity might have a deterrent effect on its own, discouraging those businesses from dabbling in spam businesses.

That is pretty close to what I have been advocating, although I wouldn't often bother with the FBI or any other particular agency of a single nation. After all, most spam is international in nature; including ISPs, registrars, web server hosting companies, CC processors, mail relays, and other such facilities scattered around the world. A registrar based in China, for example, won't sweat an FBI investigation much - for that matter I rather doubt you could talk the FBI into initiating one anyways.

However, there is a common language between all of it, the language of money. Everyone is in on the take, you just need to interrupt it and they'll find their role is dramatically less profitable. There was a recent study on drug spammers that found that 90% or more of all their credit card processing was done by a short list (on the order of 3 or 4) groups. Clearly if no transaction clears, nobody gets paid; targeting the credit card processor is a very effective way to ensure this.

Similarly there are some groups - registrars in particular - who actively assist and pull money from the deal. While you can argue that mail relay managers and some web hosting services might not know what is going on, the registrars almost universally know what is going on. After all, they collected registration data - and in some cases intentionally obfuscated it to prevent the domain owner from being found.

If spam can be pushed further to the margins, its less profitable and higher risk.

You hit the nail on the head. Spammers can run from the law, but they will stop running when they run out of money. And when they stop running, and find they can't pull in more money via spam because their former co-conspirators won't do business with them anymore, then you can drive spam away.

You may not be able to stop spam 100%, but you may make it economically non-viable.

Which will be orders of magnitude more effective in the long run than filtering could ever hope to be.

Re:We need the accessories to the crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37003774)

In fact you are so close to what I have been saying for some time I should warn you someone may come and accuse you of being a sock puppet to me.

Not likely, swb is a polite, intelligent poster whereas you are a belligerent jack-ass.

Forgive my ignorance... (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 3 years ago | (#36996466)

...but what part of what he did was illegal?

Wallace, 43, allegedly used a phishing attack to steal usernames and passwords from victims and then used the stolen credentials to post spam to victims walls

So people were stupid and fell for this crap, that sucks and all, but i get emails every day about how I won a lottery overseas or how there's some princess in another castle.
I use half a brain cell and ignore them, so again I ask, what law is in place that makes tricking people illegal? I see CONgress doing that all the time...

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36996600)

Living up to your username, huh?

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (1)

DigiTechGuy (1747636) | about 3 years ago | (#36996728)

The spam is a lesser issue here, the main legal issue as I see it is the violation of someone's privacy byh logging in to their account without their explicit permission. Unauthorized access... Kind of like cracking someone's email password, or encryption on an encrypted flash drive, or picking the lock on the door of their home (and placing flyers for the local car wash or pizzaria in every room). Illegal or a violation of their right to privacy, to the breaking and entering part... not so much the "Buy my Rolex" part.

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 3 years ago | (#36996984)

The issue I see is that the article mentions he used a phishing scam. So he didn't break in, per se, they stupidly invited him in while he placed the "flyers for the local car wash or pizzaria in every room."
Unless I misunderstand what a phishing scam is, it was my thought that it is when someone asks you for your information, and if you're an idiot you give it to them.
Also...right to privacy? Isn't...facebook by far the biggest offender to this?

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (1)

Maritz (1829006) | about 3 years ago | (#36998338)

Phishing is more to do with impersonating a legitimate site. So you get an email that *looks* like it's from Facebook/Blizzard/whatever, and might say something about 'verifying your account' for some legitimate sounding reason (to the uninitiated anyway). The fake site collects your credentials for the real site. Someone who is familiar with phishing is unlikely to be fooled but many less wary people are taken in, as at a glance the sites can appear kosher. This is why 'blame the victim for being stupid' isn't really a good response, as often you'd have to closely at the URL to determine if the site you've gone to is the real deal or not. But from this you can see why the activity is certainly fraudulent and criminal. It's somewhat more subtle than 'give us your username and password please'.

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 3 years ago | (#36998644)

So, in essence it's also impersonation, I didn't think about that.
Thank you for your response.

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36996754)

fraud /frôd/ Noun
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Legal dictionary:
fraud
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Wire fraud is codified at 18 U.S.C. 1343
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 3 years ago | (#36996920)

You posted the part that was illegal. He stole their credentials and used those credentials to log into their Facebook accounts and post spam to their walls. It is illegal to log on to someone's account without their permission.

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 3 years ago | (#36997520)

Illegal? Against the TOS of the website maybe, so his ban from Facebook is justified.
But point me to a single law that states that it's illegal to use or obtain the credentials of another person.
So often I see users of this site confused "illegal" with "morally wrong".
Also, unless my understanding of a phishing scam is incorrect, he didn't steal them, he tricked users into giving their info away.

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36997952)

But point me to a single law that states that it's illegal to use or obtain the credentials of another person.

I'm pretty sure the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, PATRIOT Act, and Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act may be applicable. What was done was fraudulent access to a computer. No different than someone social engineering a username/password out of someone at a bank and then using then to access the bank's computers.

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 3 years ago | (#36997968)

The law he was violating is the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It does not matter how he got the credentials, unless the users actually and explicitly authorized him to log into their Facebook accounts to make these spam posts, he was violating the Act.
Tricking someone into giving you something is stealing. If I convince you I am from the tax collector's office and get you to give me the money that you owe in taxes, it is theft even though you willingly gave me the money. The courts will not buy a defense that it was not theft because I only tricked you into giving me your money.

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 3 years ago | (#36998630)

I was not aware of this act, thank you for pointing it out.

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (1)

e3m4n (947977) | about 3 years ago | (#36997150)

there are financial damages from spam. 1/3rd of my bandwidth as an ISP is email. If 50% of email is spam then I am paying for bandwidth at the 90% percentile accounting, based on a large chunk of it as unsolicited bulk mail. I should be able to make the spammer pay me for this but there is no way to do that. If 100Mbps of my bandwidth is spam, and that amounts to an extra $10k per month I have to pay for that bandwidth that we end up filtering from our customer in our spam filters, then shouldnt someone else have to pay for that $10k in damages we have to pay? Regular bulk mail from the post office requires the 'spammers' to pay postage to deliver. I get the mail but at no time do I have to go to the post office and shell out money against my will to pay for that crap that shows up in my mailbox.

Re:Forgive my ignorance... (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 3 years ago | (#36997472)

This post I can agree with, thank you for pointing it out.

Just ban this asshole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36996654)

From using a computer or the internet.
And bankrupt him, take every penny and every penny he will ever "earn"

Blacklist Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36996718)

66.249.64.0/19
67.192.35.191
69.63.176.10
69.63.176.11
69.63.176.0/20
69.63.181.12
69.63.181.0/20
69.63.184.11
69.63.189.11
69.63.189.0/20
204.15.20.80
204.15.20.0/20

The correct way to deal with people like Wallace . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36996836)

Kill them with fire.
THEN nuke them from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Spam this man through the courts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36996992)

If Wallace accessed my facebook account without my permission, I'd file a civil suit against him. He allegedly accessed hundreds of thousands of accounts. That's hundreds of thousands of victims, all of whom deserve their day in court. Working together, (but not in a class action suit) we can eat his time, just as he has taken up ours.
The volume of crime alleged here is astonishing. I think he should get at least a week in prison for each hacked account. No volume discounts for computer crime, or any crime for that matter.

Donations? (1)

e3m4n (947977) | about 3 years ago | (#36997090)

to whom can we make donations to ensure he is put in a cell with a extremely large (in both senses of the word), horny, sex offender? Death to all spammers!

First they came for the spammers.... (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | about 3 years ago | (#36997536)

As much as I hate spam, I have major problems with the guy going to jail for 16 years for sending emails that people don't want to receive. The penalty is way out of line with what he did.

Re:First they came for the spammers.... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 3 years ago | (#36997744)

OK. What about illegally accessing 500,000 Facebook accounts?

Re:First they came for the spammers.... (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 3 years ago | (#36997886)

No, the guy's incorrigible and has been in legal trouble for spamming before.

Plus, as mentioned, the illegal access of other peoples' accounts. I'm thinking a long jail term is indicated.

Re:First they came for the spammers.... (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | about 3 years ago | (#36998048)

Fine, then give him 16 years for stealing login information and impersonating users to get around Facebook's anti-spam architecture. Works for me.

A tiger can't change his stripes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36998068)

A tiger can't change his stripes.

Couldn't happen (1)

Grand Facade (35180) | about 3 years ago | (#37000290)

to a nicer guy...

I suggest some western justice.

Public stoning??

Public stoning?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37050432)

He'd just move to have the trial relocated to Amsterdam.

spam king (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37003086)

how on earth did this guy ever get in this deep with facebook? where are the cyber police here? facebook is in trouble up to its lol,s and roflol,eds,all they needed was a spam king i say lock this creep up and swallow the frakin key.better yet let the facebook people beat him into submission.im disgusted.

TOS enforcement? (1)

jdg1 (1792166) | about 3 years ago | (#37011108)

In the "cyberbullying" case when a girl committed suicide, EFF intervened on the bad woman's behalf, saying it would be a slippery slope to tyranny if federal law were used to make sites' Terms of Service enforceable by law. I disagreed then, but it will be even worse if EFF opposes this prosecution on the same grounds and defeats it. Forums need to be able to have rules and enforce them, or no one will have real freedom of speech except the spammers.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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