Slashdot Mirror
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."
Does this mean we're going to see Bill Gates in a bizarre spandex outfit combating spammers around the world? I smell a Ben Affleck film!
It's not a dupe, it's a followup. If you'd Read The Fucking Blurb, you'd see a link to the very same article (different URL though, admittedly).
Crimes like piracy of Windows ?. Patent policing ?. More SCO like allegations on newer projects that imitate or duplicate Microsoft products ?.
Another $1 million will go to New York State to "expand computer-related skills training for youths and adults"Train them to use Outlook, Word and Excel or do they mean .NET,C# and Monad ?. Sort of catch them young approach ?.
I've seen a lot of Microsoft charity - it's often just building a new market for themselves, locking in an expanding market or blatant tax evasionary steps . They sent 250 XP Cds to a school and mark the cost as donations. I went on TV to help FSF guys call foul on that in Kerala - apparently it seems to have made some impact there (they teach about using OpenOffice and FireFox now).Essentially the money is in Microsoft's pockets and they are trying for Maximum ROI, rather than paying it out as dividends to their shareholders right now.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
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.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
This appeared to be a straightforward case, but somehow I can still see the lawyer, holding his pinkie to his mouth and saying "Sure, I can help you prosecute this spammer. For one million dollars!"
No surprise the the article and comments have taken the sarcastic and cynical route. You guys here seem to never be satisfied with anything Microsoft does.
The fact is Microsoft has no obligation to use this money to do anything. But they make a nice gesture, and nobody here can say one positive word? There's not one good outcome out of this?
The bitterness with Microsoft got old and stale 10 years ago. It's past time you people gave up this hatred and obsession with the 'Borg'.
It's called charity for a reason; they're giving of their own free will. Who are you, or anyone, to tell somebody else how generous they should be?
Charity, when compelled through coersion or threat, is just a nice word for slavery.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
We have probably all done it at some stage (piracy that is), and flame wars aside about ethics and monopolies, it's really time for people to pull their heads out of their collective butts and accept that it is stealing (and no I don't want an argument about definitions. I know nothing physical was taken, but under current law it's still stealing. Don't like it? Get the laws changed).
This doesn't mean I'm against pushing for change in the software industry, and moving to OpenSource (where it makes sense) but people have got to accept that it's not right, no matter what your politics, views or anything else are.
I think the GP points out rightly that it isn't 'charity' when the intention is not noble... read PR. Also, 5mn is a miniscule microscopic portion of the amount MS spends in R&D anyways, so it's doubtful this money is gonna help fight crime or spam. Or improve the IT skills of the average New Yorker.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Who cares if it's such a small percentage? The recipients of the $6 million that Microsoft didn't actually have to donate to them definately don't care.
$6 million is a hell of a lot of money irrespective of who gives it and their own monetary situation. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Unless of course you would have rathered that Microsoft kept the entire lot for "legal fees"?
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
1. Bash Microsoft no matter what they do.
2. Get mod points
3. ???
4. Profit!
As always this is slashdot. If MS closed up shop, put their source code in the public domain, and gave all their money to starving street kids, close to half the posts would be insulting them or questioning their motives.
East Coast Brewers
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.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
There's a whole lot of back and forth going on here. The only thing everyone can agree on is that the spammer deserved the fine. Now everyone wants to know why Microsoft is entitled to that fine? I personally believe they are entitled to it. First and most obvious they are the ones that created the law suit and did the actual suing. Microsoft isn't a government agency, what they win shouldn't be stripped from them. In all honesty if Microsoft didn't sue this guy, he would probably still be spamming. In which case no one is better off. Secondly anyone and everyone can sue. I know I'm going to get shit about how the American legal system sucks and blah blah blah. But that's a perk/pitfall of living in this country. As far as Microsoft donating the money, it's a brilliant move from a business standpoint. As mentioned earlier the cost of an advertising campaign would far exceed that of the $5m donation. The donation created goodwill and great PR. It's almost impossible to put a price on goodwill. People need to stop looking at Microsoft (and other corporations) as a public service. These companies exist to make money. Period. Microsoft did a good thing, they are the heroes here. They are the only ones who stood up against this guy and dished out the cash to do it. Yes the Million bucks in legal fees is pocket change to them. But I don't see anyone else willing to anti up. Plus if you really wanted an argument to show they are directly affected. They own an email service. I'm sure millions of this guys email has gone through there servers at some point, costing them money and inconveniencing clients. Congratulations Microsoft on your victory!
Everyone who thinks that Gates is going to dress up in a batman costume is very wrong. The costume would be more like Howard Sterns fart man!
That is stupid. $5M might be a "miniscule" portion of their R&D - it's not, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument. Even so, it does not follow that because it is a small amount in relation to their R&D budget, it is not a sufficient sum to aid law enforcement. That inference just does not make a bit of sense.
Of course, not only both your premise and your logic are off here, so is your conclusion. I guess people are jaded when they hear about how much money their elected officials are spending on toys, but five million dollars is a fucking lot of money and police organizations which aren't federal tend to be under-funded. So it could conceivably make a difference.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
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.
C|N>K
No, his company didn't make anything. Bad hackers exploited the program(s). The fault resides SOLELY with those hackers. Windows is spending millions of dollars trying to prevent these holes, fix these holes, and stop those who are exploiting them. Sometimes its not even holes. It is not MS's fault when someone downloads a virus from a website. That is 100% user fault.
People need to stop pointing the finger at MS and start pointing the finger at the malicious hackers, and then themselves.
Bill Gates owes the planet nothing. Any charities they perform they are not obligated to. Their only obligations are to their share holders, employees, government taxes, and to those who are under warranty.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
The bitterness with Microsoft got old and stale 10 years ago.
Oh ... and there I was under the impression that the anti-MS sentiment was about the fact that the company actually continues to behave unethically to this day, not about whether or not it was "fashionable" or "not fashionable" to be anti-MS ... silly me. I didn't realise bashing Microsoft "was, like, so yesterday!"
Your post reminds me of how Nike successfully turned around rising negative sentiment against the company over their sweatshop labour practices by creating a clever youth-targeted ad campaign that manipulated young people into simply thinking it was no longer "cool" to whine about the sweatshop labour because the topic was, well, 'so yesterday'. Of course they never stopped the sweatshop labour practices.
Are we so divorced from reality that our opinions about serious, real-life problems are now mostly based on how "hot", "current" or "fashionable" a topic is, rather than on, you know, facts?
Is reflected in today's cartoon by David Horsey in the Seattle-PI.
We need to come up with something more agressive and effective. I for one am a fan of the much discussed idea DOS attacks against the spammers websites, despite the moral and ethical issues people have raised. A nice side effect is that it will somewhat discourage ISPs from hosting them also.
which is the american government?