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."
NO. Really. It isn't.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
lets just instate a cull. give us all "Phishing Hunting" licenses, and let us roam the country side with the weapons of our choice.
"The beast in me is caged by frail and fragile bars" - Johnny Cash
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
I just googled the phisher king's name and saw a few MMF spams from 1999 with that name and a Davenport street address. Coincidence?
Evil sig is livE.
I can't believe that the slashdot editors greenlighted such a poorly worded post on the front page. At the very least, they should have edited the post before putting it on the front page. WTF, they should know the different between file trading and phishing.
Oh, they should string up the phishers by their thumbs. Good for MS (I don't believe I just wrote that, it really is April Fools Day)
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
It pounds, the drum, the drum, the drum
The tumbril rolls to its slow beat
Condemned and damned besot with rum
the doomed kneels down his doom to meet
His neck will feel the sharpened blade
his sand of life drifts thru the sieve
Fish not in royal ponds or glade
If long you have a wish to live
doom to phishers
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Microsoft doing something for their customers? That cracks me up every time.
Illegal? Samir, This is America.
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 understand that Hotmail has to deal with a lot of this kind of spam.
The suits act as a deterent and sends a message that Microsoft is trying to hunt these people down and stop their operations.
Here's a link to the MSNBC story.
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
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?
Your writing/music/video is not your house. You have no fundamental right to prevent someone 6000km away from you from making a copy of a disc to one of his friends, an activity that has no direct bearing on you at all.
Copyright exists only to help the general public by encouraging production of new works. Giving "the right to redistribution" to the artist exclusively is a mere legal convenience. We shouldn't let our ethics be distorted by copyright holders' use of inaccurate terms like "theft" and "piracy".
Copy right. Get it?
You, and others, forget that your "right" to make copies (fair use) is given to you with the same stroke of the pen that gave you the responsibility to respect the owner of that copyright.
I'm not an **AA agent trolling here, I'm trying to make a valid point. The law gave you certain rights, but it also gave the producer of the work certain rights. Words like "theft" and "piracy" are over used, and I disagree with the legal tactics of the **AA (as I do the BSA's tactics and others who overstep their bounds, Orrin Hatch listening?).
However, as a music, movie, software or literary producer you've got the right to decide how and where your work gets used (within limits). You sign a deal with Sony or Time Warner, not for recording time and promotion, but so they can mass distribute your music and make those decisions for you. Otherwise you'd have to do that yourself - and you already had the music thing down.
The reason you go for GPL or FDL licenses is because you want to ensure people respect your wishes that modifications are made openly and so forth...
It really burns me to see the same people making issues of GPL/copyleft violations while attacking other people's right to copyright. Copyleft is still copyright, no matter which way you look at it.
Make copies for your friends, but don't hide behind that next time, thinking mass distribution is your right. It's this type of thinking, the application of the idea that "information wants to be free" to entertainment, that makes more restrictive laws necessary and possible. Stop! Because people crying about "freedom" the most are the ones costing us the most. I'm sure RMS thinks Microsoft is wrong for charging what they do for software - but I doubt he advocates breaking the law to demonstrate that idea.
Get your Unix fortune now!