Microsoft to Fight Crime With Spammer's Millions

daria42 writes "It looks as if the $7 million Microsoft won from spam king Scott Richter won't go into a Swiss bank account and never be seen again after all. The company plans to dedicate a cool $5 mil to helping law enforcement agencies address computer-related crimes. Another $1 million will go to New York State to "expand computer-related skills training for youths and adults", with the rest being flagged to pay Microsoft's legal costs."

Comments

"Punitive damages" and "loser pays"

[ReformedExCon]

First, I'd rather Microsoft come out on top than spammers.

But I am interested and baffled by the concept of "punitive damages" and how they are paid to the litigating party rather than to the general tax revenue base. If a company or person is to be punished for doing something wrong, shouldn't the government be the one to mete out that punishment? Why should a private citizen or company be allowed to reap the windfall of punitive damages? I think the justice system turns the court into a lottery by allowing such huge awards to be paid to offended parties.

In a sense, Microsoft is doing what I think ought to be done with punitive damages. That is, 1) to pay the winner's court expenses, and 2) to have the government receive the punishment money. Not that I don't think that Microsoft isn't doing this out of self-serving long term planning, but I do agree with the action (perhaps not their guiding principle).

I would like to see more spammers put out of business. However, as long as there are people willing to buy their products, spammers will be out there trying to bilk them.

Re:"Punitive damages" and "loser pays"

[usurper_ii]

On the other hand, there are plenty of instances where the government gets money and it shouldn't. For instance, some guy is speeding and hits my car. Police give him several tickets for failing to obey speed, control car, wear seatbelt, etc. Who does the guy pay his tickets to? The State. Now my car was damaged, but the State figured out a way to make money out of it. How does that work out?

Some guy breaks into a house and gets caught. He does some time, for which the tax payers pay his room and board, and then he gets out on probation. Who does this guy have to pay every month as part of his probation? Not the person whose house he broke into, but...the State.

In Texas, they now have a law that if you get a DWI, you have to pay 1000.00 (1st offense, it's 1000.00 a year for X amount of years for 2nd offenses) to the state of Texas, ON TOP of your fines to the city/county/court etc., you get caught in.

How exactly did that work out? Most probably, "We need money for some program, lets figure out a way to screw someone out of 1000.00 and see if we can get away with it."

I say, there is a big difference between protecting the public, and using them as a source of revenue. Especially when the public already pays taxes that is supposed to pay for this stuff. But it looks like they are getting it from all sides, and it never seems to be enough.

Usurper_ii

Re:computer related crimes.

[Darth_brooks]

If it's going to law enforcement, It'll end up going to the "OMG Kiddie PorN!!!!!!!! It's teh evil!!!!!" fund.

Don't get me wrong. Child pornographers deserve their own special ring of Hell. But it seems that to law enforcement, computer crime == kiddie porn. Period. No other crime occurs on a computer. Ever. Just child porn. Nothing else. End of line.

There are other crimes occuring involved the magic, glowing grey box.

NY Law enforcement

[inode_buddha]

As a resident of NY, I'm actually in favor of this, even though I'm a linux die-hard. I *really* hope NY doesn't just toss this into the General Fund and lose it on some left-wing pork barrel project. That sort of thing is all too common here; the highway tolls were supposed to disappear years ago, and yet the tolls are still there. The power company in my part of the state is the single largest land-owner, and yet it pays no taxes. So, I really hope these MS funds are used for cyber-crime law enforcement. FWIW I think very highly of the police here; they usually require at least a 4-year degree and military/para-military background in my area. So, these guys tend to be big, strong, and smart. That doesn't mean they know jack-all about computer crimes or even computers. So if this means they get some computer crime training, that's fine with me. There are some *big* dataenters and backbone here, so I imagine the field is ripe.