Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sues 117 Phishers
An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this week Microsoft filed 117 John Doe cases today to learn the identity of scam artists who have been targeting its Hotmail and MSN customers in phishing scams, according to a Washington Post story. This is the same tactic the music and motion picture industries have used to mixed success against file-swappers, except in this case the ISPs themselves are some of the biggest targets of phishing scams. The story says the tactic has already worked once for Microsoft; in a case last year where ISP subpoenas led to a kid in Iowa who was caught phishing MSN users from his grandpa's dial-up account. The 21-year-old was ordered to pay Microsoft $3 million, but I doubt his job at Blockbuster is going to make a dent in that debt."
between file swapping and phishing.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
What's the problem? Phishing scams need to be stopped, plain and simple.
Now that more and more of the "unwashed masses" are using online services like Paypal and eBay, phishing scams are all over the place. It's getting a little ridiculous. These phishers need to be sent to Federal "pmita" Prison sooner rather than later.
Phishers of that type (those stealing money and credit card numbers) lack integrity and they lack honor, and they need to be put away.
In my years of reading slashdot, this is one of the most horribly worded article submissions.
Does slashdot editors consider music sharing in the same light as phishing/spamming and the magic love pill? The teenager seems to be mentioned on the same lines of the other youngsters who were targetted by the RIAA.
In related news, which company makes the most focused effort to bringing the spam-pigs to justice? Check Here
I can see only one reason for all this. Its Microsoft!
i always hate this line of reasoning. the fact is, whether or not filesharing helps the actual copyright holder is irrelevant. you don't have the right to re-distribution, plain and simple. let the copyright holder decide for him/herself if they want to allow sharing. otherwise, it's just poor attempt at justifying copyright infringement.
i have the right to determine who enters my house. even if there are outsiders that can help me out, ultimately i make the decision whether or not they enter my house.
What's really funny is that the submitter tried to make MS look like the bad guy. In reality, what MS have done is good for everyone who wants to use the internet legitimately.
I believe that's what they call "spin".
More
How severe a crime is normally comes from what kind of harm it causes. Murder is a very severe crime since the harm is massive. Shoplifing is quite a minor crime since the harm is minimal. Speeding is just a civil matter, since there is no direct harm (just an increased probability of a mistake causing harm).
The way the MPAA/RIAA/etc talk about file sharing, they act like it's on the severity level of grand theft or so. They act as though massive amounts of actual harm are being caused. Thus they argue for stiff penalities, currently lawsuits in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and they want a law making it criminal carrying prison time.
In actuality, file sharing is like speeding. There is no direct harm. There is no loss of money, since they never had the money in the first place. There is a potential loss of money, since you now have something you potentially might have paid for, but then a bad review, friend's suggestion, or alternate product can cause the same thing. Also, even the potential loss is small.
Now phishing is a moderatly severe crime. It causes serious economic damage to the victim (phishers generally take them for all they can) as well as damage to their credit, which is difficult to repair, and the necessity to essentially recreate one's identity. The harm is very real, not at all potential.
Thus it's quite relivant to point out the difference. One is a much more severe crime. I fully support agressive tactics and stiff punishments to shut down and convict phishers, just as I do for armed robbers, car thieves and so on. I do not support agressive tactics and stiff punishments to shot down file sharers, any more than I do speeders, those that litter, underage drinkers and so on.
Surely somebody who has reached the age of 21-years should no longer be considered a kid in any sense of the word? Is labelling him a "kid" somehow meant to explain or even excuse his actions?