Slashdot Mirror


British Spammer Gets 6 Years

Killjoy_NL writes "The BBC tells us that a 23 year old spammer has been sentenced to 6 years in prison for sending spam and other illegal activities." From the article: "He had offered thousands of e-mail and website names when he had no right. And when victims complained, he threatened to destroy their internet systems by sending millions of spam e-mails. Peterborough Crown Court heard he also threatened to fire-bomb the headquarters of the county's trading standards department and petrol-bomb his local police headquarters. When internet policing group Nominet posted warnings about his activities, he responded by saying he would attack its servers." ZDNet has coverage as well.

190 comments

  1. Title Misleading by mysqlrocks · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTA

    Peter Francis-Macrae, of St Neots, Cambs, was found guilty of threatening to kill and blackmail.

    Yes, he was a spammer but that's not what he was sentenced for.

    1. Re:Title Misleading by Iriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Precisly: this kid should be better labled as a terrorist or a thug (not the hip-hop variety) rather than a spammer. I still find it horrible that he was cleared of two accounts of threatening to kill.

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    2. Re:Title Misleading by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > > Peter Francis-Macrae, of St Neots, Cambs, was found guilty of threatening to kill and blackmail.
      >
      > Yes, he was a spammer but that's not what he was sentenced for.

      Yes, but it sounds like he thre@tened to ki1l and b1ackmai1 so many people that the threats themselves qualified as spam :-)

    3. Re:Title Misleading by cindy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like a bank robber who drove a car to the bank. "Motorist Gets 6 Years!" The article only mentions spamming in context of his other crimes.

      Francis-Macrae was found guilty of two counts of fraudulent trading, one of concealing criminal property, two of making threats to kill, one charge of threatening to destroy or damage property and one count of blackmail.

      The 23-year-old was cleared of two charges of making threats to kill.

    4. Re:Title Misleading by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, he was a spammer but that's not what he was sentenced for.

      Somebody pointed this out last time Slashdot posted this story. But hey, if Slashdot can post misleading stories twice, we can post corrections twice, right?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    5. Re:Title Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.

      The moral of the story: don't threaten people, and if you get caught just give up the money. You serve a little bit of time, and then pick up where you left off.

    6. Re:Title Misleading by Thwomp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really, they were not so much threatening as embarrassing. When I heard them on the news I couldn't help but laugh. He probably got off because there was no intent and was panicking as the police were closing in on him. Although it's a shame that all the people he scammed will probably never see their money again.

    7. Re:Title Misleading by CyricZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He's not a "terrorist". His actions were apparently not politically motivated. It sounds like he was just trying to defend his business from those who opposed it.

      I know it's trendy these days for political leaders to refer to anyone they don't like as "terrorists", but I think we can maintain a higher standard here and use the word as it should be used.

      "Thug" is perhaps a more appropriate term.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    8. Re:Title Misleading by Chr0nik · · Score: 0

      Yes, he was a spammer but that's not what he was sentenced for.

      Bummer, I'd like to see a spammer get some real serious time for spamming, a precedent might be a deterrent. Although, the sentences that have been handed out so far have not proven to be.

      --


      ... what did you expect, something profound?
    9. Re:Title Misleading by sydb · · Score: 1, Funny

      Right.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    10. Re:Title Misleading by sydb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Right.

      Now mods, I may be redundant but my twin is Funny.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    11. Re:Title Misleading by Iriel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While you are correct in the modern context (and current dictionary definition) of the word, the roots of the word itself imply that a terrorist is traditionally someone who uses fear tactics and general psychological fuckery to further their goals (see also: The current US presidency). If this thug is threatening to fire-bomb and murder a few people in order to protect his scamming business, I would classify him as a low-level terrorist, however poorly organized.

      That's just my 22 cents ;)

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    12. Re:Title Misleading by Buran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Defending one's business is one thing, but threatening to attack other people who point out that your business is based on dishonesty and illegality is another entirely. I'd say he got what he deserved, regardless of whether or not "terrorist" is the right term (I agree that it isn't).

    13. Re:Title Misleading by sydb · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, no, the other way round!!!

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    14. Re:Title Misleading by joepeg · · Score: 1

      In this particular instance, I would use the term "knob" or "giant asshat"

      --

      ZEN is a prime number in base-36

    15. Re:Title Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, no, the other way round!!!

      In Soviet Russia, maybe.

    16. Re:Title Misleading by bogado · · Score: 1

      The problem is that "terrorist" is a heavy word nowadays. It means much more, in the US I believe that is near to "traitor" to some and probably "kill him right away without questioning" to a few, at least the police of the UK is guilt of this. It is a bad thing to begin to call everyone we don't like a terrorist, it is much like using a nuclear bomb to get rid of cockroaches. The word has a very emotional response and makes people derail from the line of thought.

      Now that "kid", I'm not sure we can call a 26 years old a kid but he surely act as one, is much more then a spammer, he is a criminal and diserves the penalty he got, in fact many spammers do deserve some jail time, some more, some less, too bad this is not a case of "spammer found guilt of spamming".

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    17. Re:Title Misleading by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Well, don't forget that we have a bit more experience of terrorism than the US here ;-)

    18. Re:Title Misleading by karnal · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a technical term. Like Shittery.

      --
      Karnal
    19. Re:Title Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Thug" probably isn't the best term, either: I doubt he had anything to do with the Thuggee. Not to say, of course, that it wouldn't be worth introducing him to the Thuggee, should any still happen to be practicing...

    20. Re:Title Misleading by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      I hope he gets spammed in the ass for those 6 years...

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    21. Re:Title Misleading by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that "terrorist" is a heavy word nowadays.

      Actually, it's used more like Kleenex is used for a tissue, or Scotch Tape is used for cellophane tape, Band-Aid for bandage, etc....

      Criminal == Terrorist

    22. Re:Title Misleading by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      most spam i get looks of highly dubious legality at best even in places where spamming isn't illegal.

      prescription only meds for sale.
      big name software at prices so low it seems very unlikely to be legit.
      nigerian scam type e-mails.

      Those are probabblly the biggest categories of english language spam i get, i also get a lot of chineese spam but i can't read that.

      the only other type of spam i seem to get a lot of is stuff that advertises spam messages. (note: i don't get virus mails to my inbox as they are deleted server side).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    23. Re:Title Misleading by mqduck · · Score: 1

      In an age where the label "terrorist" is put on anyone we don't like, I find it rather ironic that one of the rare people who point this out have such a random misconception of their own about the meaning of the word. When did kidnappers who demand ransom money stop being terrorists?

      --
      Property is theft.
    24. Re:Title Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it was the actual act of spamming which led to him making the threats.

    25. Re:Title Misleading by tzot · · Score: 1
      ...it is much like using a nuclear bomb to get rid of cockroaches
      Even worse, it's useless... radiation does not kill cockroaches ;)
      --
      I speak England very best
    26. Re:Title Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, spamming is just a small part of this sick fuck's many problems. After reading the article, he smacks of having a sociopathic pathology.

    27. Re:Title Misleading by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Terrorist is more than just a heavy word. It has some extreme legal ramifications wrapped ip in it's use. Use it effectively in the land of the poms and you can have someone locked up for 28 days for nothing but suspiscion. The term terrorist will end up being subject to abuse, as a tool to control those who disagree with the politics of the rich. In the US you can clearly see the abuse in action with the un-republican no fly list, not to single out the americans of course, in Australia the liberals were trying to sneek in sedition laws with their anti-terrorist (politically interpretive laws with which to control speach). Remember a terrorist suspect is just someone whom a member of a government beaurocracies thinks is one or a least want other people to think they are one. There is as yet no legal redress for anybody caught up by these laws.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    28. Re:Title Misleading by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      Or buggery.

    29. Re:Title Misleading by bogado · · Score: 1

      Yes! Sure this is exactly what I think, and every time someone uses the term over broadly or carelessly the term gets strong. It's rather like that quote from peter pan "Every time a child says, 'I don`t believe in fairies,' there is a fairy somewhere that falls down dead." but it reads more like "Every time a person says, 'I fear the terrorists,' there will be a law somwhere that will pass that will make us less free".

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    30. Re:Title Misleading by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      The threatening to kill via firebombing is probably far-fetched enough that it doesn't count. I mean, if someone on the internet said they were going to come and firebomb my house, I wouldn't be sitting here scared shitless. I know the threat is just that - a threat.

      It's like me threatening to come and bull doze your house down. Do you think I'd make it there without being stopped? Do you think I would put the effort and time into it just because you said something to me on the internet?

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
  2. Only six? by slashrogue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure it's easy to dismiss out of hand comments about bomb-threats from some random guy as actually being serious, but they must be taken seriously and from the proliferate amount of threats and general assholery, surely this guy deserves more than six years as a life lesson.

    1. Re:Only six? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if the prison system wasn't so corrupt with its main goal of making a profit, maybe he could get some rehabilitation. Incarceration is not the same thing despite what the British government seems to think.

    2. Re:Only six? by sydb · · Score: 1

      The guy needs a good shock; take all his money and make him work. But (we must assume) you only live once, a few years without freedom is a big portion of all you will ever have. I think if you lock people up for too long, your basically saying that society finds them worthless. How do you treat someone who finds you worthless? Without respect, I would imagine.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    3. Re:Only six? by DarkIye · · Score: 0

      That's assuming the accused ever respected their victims in the first place.

  3. 2 much or 2 little? by yiantsbro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At first glance you think "6 years for spam...damn that's harsh". Then you read what else he did and you think "damn, only 6 years"?

    1. Re:2 much or 2 little? by egotistical · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think that spammers should be getting more than just six years for crud like this. They (spammers in general) cause so much harm by sending mass e-mails. But, then again, a bunch of twelve year old girls would probably get years in jail for the same thing.

    2. Re:2 much or 2 little? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always knew something about your posts annnoyed me. Now I realize I was subconciously picking up on the fact that you are a spammer.

    3. Re:2 much or 2 little? by hattig · · Score: 1

      Hmm, what about the £1,600,000 that the spam conned out of people.

      It wasn't just the .eu 'pre-registration' scam he ran. It was the sending out paper renewal notices to domain owners from details he scraped from the whois. It turns out that many people forget who their registrar is, and simply followed the instructions. At £60+ a shot, that is around 20,000 people who got scammed.

      That's what spamming does. What about the time wasted by Nominet, the other registrars who's customers suddenly came down on them for not renewing, the police, trading standards ... that's not configurable by tweaking spamassassin.

      There are obvious spams, and there are what this guy did.

    4. Re:2 much or 2 little? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? Threatening to destroy property is just an annoyance? If you said that to someone's face would you think the same thing? Just because the threats were made digitally does not make it just an annoyance. Secondly if you spam someone with emails constantly you can crash their server causing them to lose acutual money (i.e. cost of paying someone to get it up and running or lost revenue). The Internet gives people a sense of anominity so they can feel "removed" from the idea the are actually hurting someone or some company. I wonder if these people would be willing to do the same thing face to face?

    5. Re:2 much or 2 little? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the death threats and threats of arson. I'd say 6 years is pretty light.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    6. Re:2 much or 2 little? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Those are perhaps more reasonable reasons to sentence somebody to a significant jail term. Spamming alone often isn't. And the earlier post was talking specifically about spamming as a crime, not about death threats or arson threats.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    7. Re:2 much or 2 little? by Buran · · Score: 1

      Given how pervasive spam is and how it never seems to stop even after penalties are threatened and carried out, I actually think that it may be necessary to actually start imposing stiff penalties for spamming. Sure, it's not as bad as killing someone, but there's got to be a way to impose harsh punishments on those who do it so that things will improve. (I can hope, can't I?) The only trick is to figure out how to avoid contributing to the prison overcrowding problem that is causing people who are actually dangerous to others to be set free too soon. Any ideas?

    8. Re:2 much or 2 little? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Ah, why don't you RTFA and read the parent post and say that again. This ass-clown wasn't sentenced for spamming, he was commiting fraud. Then he threatened to kill people and burn down buildings. What part of that do you support?

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    9. Re:2 much or 2 little? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      I did read the article, and the post that I replied to. You obviously did not. The previous poster was talking about giving spammers (note: just spammers, not those making arson or death threats) long jail terms.

      Look, you're going to have to go back and read the other posts. We can't discuss this matter if you're going to continue to be ignorant of the facts and topics.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    10. Re:2 much or 2 little? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Gee, really?

      "At first glance you think "6 years for spam...damn that's harsh". Then you read what else he did and you think "damn, only 6 years"?,"

      I bolded the revelant section for your ease of reading. You're welcome.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    11. Re:2 much or 2 little? by blastard · · Score: 2, Funny

      If someone has a good sense of humour they should send his cellmate a 6 year supply of the "generic viagra". :)

    12. Re:2 much or 2 little? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      What gets over looked is that while spamming is reprehensible and illegal, it's normally a means to more nefarious ends. Spammers tend to be highly sociopathic and will rationalize any behaviour that suits them, they only follow the rules of society because we force them to, not because they believe the rule actually apply to them.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    13. Re:2 much or 2 little? by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      At first glance you think "6 years for spam...damn that's harsh".

      No, I don't think that's harsh at all. Let's say you send a million messages per batch and you do 100 batches of spam over the course of a year. (That's two batches each week.) Now, let's further say the average recipient of your spam spends 5 seconds of their life downloading it, realizing it's spam, and deleting it. That means you've wasted 1_000_000 * 100 / 3600 * 5 hours, or 138_888 hours of people's time.

      Now, let's compare that to what would happen if you spent your life doing things that are actually productive. If you work a full time job from age 18 up to age 68, that's 50 years of work and 2000 hours a year. So that's 100_000 hours of useful work you can get done.

      So what's the point? The point is, the guy has already stolen more time than he'd spend working his entire life. He's already pretty much ensured, unless he does something spectacular like finding a cure for a disease, that his net lifetime contribution to society will be negative. He has, essentially, already wasted the equivalent of one lifetime of other people's time.

    14. Re:2 much or 2 little? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would sure hate to be his call mate... that's all I would need is a sex starved spammer after my arse. Sheesh - raped by a spammer - what can be worse?

    15. Re:2 much or 2 little? by Fafnir43 · · Score: 2, Funny

      At first glance you think "6 years for spam...damn that's harsh". Actually, as far as I'm concerned there's only one fit punishment for a spammer: 1) Nail his genitalia to a tree. 2) Hand him a butter knife. 3) Set the tree on fire. 4) If he survives step 3, shoot him. (No sense in risking re-offence!) Seriously, these people take the pristine fountain of communication that is e-mail and, with malice of forethought, piss in it. Six years is too light a sentence for a prolific spammer.

      --
      To know recursion, you must first know recursion.
  4. hmmm, SPAM? by macaulay805 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Out of all the other violations he had commited, why is Slashdot working the SPAM angle?

    For instance;
    A person arrested for hacking a website!
    And the details are;
    The person murdered everyone in the building, killed the world economy, and he hacked a website.

    Yet, Slashdot would glorify that the person was arrested for hacking a website.

    1. Re:hmmm, SPAM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything, /. is pointing out what a bunch of pricks spammers are even away from the keyboard.

  5. bait and switch by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This was a lot less about his spamming activities and a lot more about the "threatened to fire-bomb the headquarters of the county's trading standards department and petrol-bomb his local police headquarters." part.

    The fact that he was also a spammer is a side-story. Had he not done the other stuff, I'm sure he'd still be happily spamming away.

    And after looking at the picture, what a smarmy little punk.

  6. Good observation by unik · · Score: 0

    That's exactly it. I got excited when I read this headline, and it felt good to see things finally being done about the global nuisance. Sort of a let down.

    --
    "You won't eat our meat, but you'll glue with our feet.." --Some cow
  7. Jailed more for fraud than spamming by external400kdiskette · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know it's nice to think some guy peddling generic viagra got put away for 6 years but this guy seems to have other serious issues:

    "The 23-year-old was also convicted of threatening to destroy or damage property, concealing criminal property and fraudulent trading. "

    It doesn't appear he was even charged with spamming, "Francis-Macrae was found guilty of two counts of fraudulent trading, one of concealing criminal property, two of making threats to kill, one charge of threatening to destroy or damage property and one count of blackmail. ".

    And when he's making 100k pounds per week I doubt that many ppl are paying for junk, he prob was scamming somehow.

    1. Re:Jailed more for fraud than spamming by KitesWorld · · Score: 1

      It doesn't appear he was even charged with spamming

      There are no laws against spamming in the UK - the Computers Misuse Act, while broad enough to catch most offences, doesn't quite cover spam.

      Hence, 'tis currently impossible to charge someone in the UK for simply spamming. You can, however, take civil action against them for any damage/expenses they incur on your network.

    2. Re:Jailed more for fraud than spamming by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Yes there is. However the maximum penalty is a fine of £5,000, so in this case, it isn't really worth worrying about.

  8. Good Riddance. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Jackass. Interesting that this particular model citizen didn't stop with mere spamming, but added arson threats and murder threats to his repitoire. Hopefully, this will serve to further erase the fictitous dividing line between spammers and "real criminals".

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Good Riddance. by r1_97 · · Score: 1

      Yes, good riddance. While there are different types (property vs. physical) and degrees of crimes this jerk is a bona fide "real criminal" for spamming as well as other more serious offences.

    2. Re:Good Riddance. by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you ask me spamming is just a gateway to much harder and addictive crime. You spam a little, you know, just with your friends and then before you know it you're thinking "gee this is great, I wonder what firebombing the local police station feels like"...

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    3. Re:Good Riddance. by mqduck · · Score: 1

      So... you're hoping that more spammers commit crimes that are taken seriously, just to create the association?

      --
      Property is theft.
  9. TheReg had it earlier... by anonymo · · Score: 2, Informative

    'Vindictive' UK spammer jailed for six years
    http://www.theregister.com/2005/11/17/spammer_jail ed/

    Good news!

    1. Re:TheReg had it earlier... by anonymo · · Score: 1

      On the other side the BBC had a picture of him. Maybe I start practicing the dart game...

      I reminds me one day I walked into my workplace and told that the guy who stole my bike was found and my bike was still intact. And at last he got 3 months in jail!
      - !!!???
      - Well, he has 23 other bikes and some narcotics too :)

      Naturally criminals aren't kinky: thay take what the opportunity will give.

  10. Domain Registry Of Europe by hattig · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think it was this guy.

    He sent out fake renewal notices to people, using whois data. The notices asked for a renewal fee of around £60 for 2 years renewal.

    I reported that company several times to trading standards, as my line of work was in the same area, and it was affecting my customers who would get in contact and ask about their renewal status, that they'd sent in the cheque a while ago... this happened dozens of times, and I was running a tiny internet company.

    His response? He moved his company to a Mailboxes Etc (Regent Street, Cambridge, UK) that I also used, thus sullying my companies name. Mailboxes Etc were not interested in the fact that their customer was a scammer.

    1. Re:Domain Registry Of Europe by Buran · · Score: 1

      Uh huh, and the fact that another customer uses the same PO box shop you do sullies your reputation ... ooookay. I'm not following here. If I rent a PO box, how do I know someone selling porn is using the next box over? I don't. What does that have to do with my reputation?

    2. Re:Domain Registry Of Europe by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      >Mailboxes Etc were not interested in the fact that their customer was a scammer.

      Then what happened? Did you drop mbe, move your business elsewhere and threaten to take them to court for the expense?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    3. Re:Domain Registry Of Europe by hattig · · Score: 1

      I dropped them, decided I didn't need a PO Box address. But quite some damage had been done - the number assigned was similar to mine as well. Also it appeared that they misdirected my mail to him on a couple of times.

    4. Re:Domain Registry Of Europe by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      wow, that sucks

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    5. Re:Domain Registry Of Europe by hattig · · Score: 1

      It truly did - and at the time it was the last thing I needed. I was getting abusive phone calls from customers (well, a couple - I don't wish to exaggerate) who thought I was the other guy and had taken their money. That guy probably took a month off my life due to stress.

      (since then I sold off the business and decided to go back to a job where I could do more of what I like doing - programming and being creative - and less of the paperwork. I'm a lot happier now, maybe I'll regain that month!)

  11. got what he deserved by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 0, Troll

    That stupid little parasite got what he deserved. Just look at him, he's a punkass. Have fun in prison, beyotch.

    -d

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  12. 1 word for mister spammer/bad guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pwned. BAaaaaaaaaaahahahaha

  13. Any yet, stuffing ballot boxes... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    2 year sentence. Ahhh, the oldest democracy, nice to see we have our priorities spot on.

    --
    Deleted
  14. www.troubl.eu by demon411 · · Score: 1
    "He is accused of fraudulently selling unavailable .eu domains among other dubious business practices dating back five years." Where do i sign up?

    "... He's accused of threatening to slit the throats of trading standards ..." Tha's what a 24 should be doing, not spamming

  15. Not only is the guy a piece of crap spammer, hes also a psycho. Good thing he is locked up, maybe the amount of spam floating around will decrease by some small fraction of a percemt

    --
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    - Winston Churchill
  16. Good! by Whackjob23 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now hopefully he'll know the feeling of having unwanted items shoved into his inbox. Or outbox, depending upon your view of that type of thing....

    1. Re:Good! by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Actually...now that you mention it, and this is quite an odd question, but what are British prisons like? We all know the stories about US Pound-Me-In-The-Ass prisons, but are they like that in the UK?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    2. Re:Good! by Bad+Ad · · Score: 0

      no, we dont have the "i can fuck you in the ass, because im not gay" retards in our prisons.

    3. Re:Good! by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      so....where do you put them? Parliament?

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    4. Re:Good! by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 1

      As I understand it prison rape is much less of a problem in this country than it is in the US. That's at least in part because our justice officials don't talk as if rape is a proper part of the criminal justice system. See Stop Prisoner Rape for more details.

  17. Speaking of spam... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

    could someone explain the "Reunite Gondwondaland!" at the bottom of the Slashdot page to me? Googling the phrase yields nothing but drug spam posted to blogs.

    I feel so ignorant.

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
    1. Re:Speaking of spam... by Sabaki · · Score: 1

      The spelling is a little different, but it's the original supercontinent, before the family split apart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwanaland

    2. Re:Speaking of spam... by Requiem+Aristos · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwanaland

      Apart from the incorrect spelling, Gondwanaland was one of two supercontinents resulting from the breakup of Pangaea. (The other was Laurasia.) It came into existence around 200 million years ago, then began to break up around 160 million years ago.

    3. Re:Speaking of spam... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      Thanks...but any idea why Googling the mispelled phrase gets all the drug spam?

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
    4. Re:Speaking of spam... by debraj · · Score: 1

      I think you should think of it as:

      someone musing about re-uniting the split up Gondowonaland..
      +
      while loosely re-reading the word as "Gone to Wonderland"...
      +
      of course, thinking of the guy being on dope

    5. Re:Speaking of spam... by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      It seems to have something to do with a forum spam generator that incorporates parts of real messages, and apparently that 'reunite gondwondaland!' is in some fortune file that both Slashdot and some forum software uses?

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    6. Re:Speaking of spam... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      "Reunite Gondwondaland!"

              Gondwondaland is one variant spelling of a name given to the primal supercontinent around 750 million years ago (give or take). You are more likely to find serious articles on it under other spellings, i.e. Gondwonaland (no second 'd'). A lot of sources have taken to calling it Pangaea instead. The basic idea is part of continental drift: under the theory, all the continents have gradually drifted apart to their present positions, and running the record backwards suggests they were all once united as a single mass. So the joke here (such as it is) is the phrase sounds like a political sentiment, like "Free Tibet", but is really a scientific reference. Well, it was hysterically funny for about 11 seconds the first time.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  18. This may come as a shock to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. but spam *IS* fraud.

    1. Re:This may come as a shock to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not automatically, some spammers might actually deliver what it is they are selling

      In his case he appears to have been impersonating another organization [fraud], and then not delivering what he sold [fraud again], and he did both via email and snail mail

  19. He's keeping the money? by external400kdiskette · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "During the trial, Francis-Macrae defied Judge Nicholas Coleman QC by refusing to reveal where he hid up to £425,000, saying Cambridgeshire Police would "steal" it."

    That'd be an outrage if he really ends up with all that, they should make a condition he never gets released unless he says where he hid the cash if he withdrew it or moves it all back into the UK if he transferred his profits offshore. Otherwise he should rot in jail forever.

    1. Re:He's keeping the money? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      You realize that him remaining in jail for the next 60 years will cost far more than £425,000, correct?

      They should just offer him the equivalent of £425,000 in today's American dollars. If the value of the dollar keeps falling, by the time he's release he'll perhaps be able to buy himself a loaf of bread.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    2. Re:He's keeping the money? by external400kdiskette · · Score: 1

      "You realize that him remaining in jail for the next 60 years will cost far more than £425,000, correct?" Obviously but that's a flawed arguement. Society keeps people in jail at great cost in theory to protect the population from harm which may or may not end up costing more than keeping whoever in jail. Nobody sane releases criminals from jail to save costs and taking into account human nature it's surely the publics will, most people would rather the government pay 4.25 million incarcerating him for life than having him running around in 6 years with 425k and living in a private helicopter.

    3. Re:He's keeping the money? by abscondment · · Score: 1

      If the money is considered stolen property, it will still be illegal for him to possess it once he gets out of jail. So, if they are able to link him to any unaccounted for source of income, he'll probably do more time.

    4. Re:He's keeping the money? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      How can you say he shouldn't be imprisoned for defrauding people? It's a classic con-man scheme, and guess what? It's illegal!

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    5. Re:He's keeping the money? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I America, the parole board would view that as not take responsiblity for his crime and delay his release for as long as possible. Additionaly our IRS would take a dim view on his not "paying his fair share" as determined by congress and collected through income tax and do everything they could to correct the situation. Normally our courts add court costs, restition and a healthy payment to the victim's rights fund. If he did achieve parole, he would of course have to pay for the parole officer's supervision. His lawyer if a public defender, would spend his time negotiating a deal with the procescuter rather than actively defending him, if he hired his own lawyer, the lawyer usually demands payment up-front. All considered being convicted of fraud is a costly affair.
      How are things on your side of the pond?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re:He's keeping the money? by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      "[spammer] defied Judge Nicholas Coleman QC by refusing to reveal where he hid up to £425,000, saying Cambridgeshire Police would 'steal' it."

      That'd be an outrage if he really ends up with all that, they should make a condition he never gets released unless he says where he hid the cash if he withdrew it or moves it all back into the UK if he transferred his profits offshore.

      Nah, they should just watch him like a hawk when he's released. If he goes to get the money, wherever it is, they should then arrest him a new charge of trafficking in stolen goods or something along those lines. Surely it's still a crime to try to get the money or use it if you didn't earn it legally in the first place.

      Then when they've got their new evidence of him committing a new crime, lock him up again. The best part about this is that he'll look forward to his release for 6 years, and then very shortly after he's released, it's right back into the slammer. It's got to be more of a buzz kill to get your hopes up and then have them dashed.

      Also, can't the victims either press charges or bring a civil case against him to have their money returned plus damages and court costs? Maybe even a class-action suit if they have those in .uk?

    7. Re:He's keeping the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a very strong feeling that if this arsehole weren't in jail, he'd be costing the public a lot more than it costs to keep him locked up.

    8. Re:He's keeping the money? by Valacosa · · Score: 1

      "How can you say he shouldn't be imprisoned for defrauding people?"
      You know, I looked to see where the grandparent poster said this, and I'll be damned, I couldn't find it.

      "They should just offer him the equivalent of £425,000 in today's American dollars. If the value of the dollar keeps falling, by the time he's release he'll perhaps be able to buy himself a loaf of bread."
      This is a joke, clearly indicated by the hyperbole at the end of the sentence.

      "Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos."
      Sorry. I was just disappointed that someone with such an awesome sig just doesn't "get it". Seems to be the classic case of someone on slashdot not understanding humour. (Read the first four posts in the thread)

      --
      "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
  20. Token Measure by cyberscan · · Score: 0

    I guess the Government of U.K. has to do something to make it look like they take spamming seriously. I wish the U.S. would pass a real law against spamming as well as enforce it.

  21. Death threat=spam? by D-Fens · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wouldn't a death threat be "unsolicited?"

    1. Re:Death threat=spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily... To whom it may concern: I am interested in your death threat service. Please send me information or actual death threats at anoncow@slashdot.org. Yours, Annonymous Coward

    2. Re:Death threat=spam? by 920714 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wouldn't a death threat be "unsolicited?"

      Maybe they were asking for it.

      --
      english is way to easy
  22. It was the threats which sunk him by Demerara · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was the malevolence of his threats which sunk him.

    Peterborough Crown Court heard he also threatened to fire-bomb the headquarters of the county's trading standards department and petrol-bomb his local police headquarters.

    Just the spamming alone wouldn't have got him such a sentence.

    --
    Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
    1. Re:It was the threats which sunk him by hattig · · Score: 1
      Peter Francis-Macrae of Cambridgeshire was found guilty of fraudulent trading, concealing criminal property, threatening to destroy or damage property, making threats to kill and blackmail


      Fraudulent Trading

      via Spam - both postal and email

      £1.6m (which is around $3m) ... I wonder if he ever declared his VAT bill?

      I'm sure it added a year or two onto his sentence.

      Oh, and I hope he isn't released until he reveals where the money he scammed is - no parole for this particularly low-life scum.
    2. Re:It was the threats which sunk him by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      The schmuck probably spent it all.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    3. Re:It was the threats which sunk him by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      Addendum: I didn't catch the part of the article with his response to the judge about the money he swindled people out of.

      Yeah, the bastard needs to tell where the money is. Perhaps what should be done is he should serve out his sentance at Guantanimo Bay, he serves real hard time, we learn where the money is, and he wouldn't be the finantial drain he would be if they just kept him in prison untill he fessed up to the money was hid.
      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
  23. Appropriate jail-time for spammers by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

    When I read the very misleading title I assumed that he had gotten 6 years for just sending spam. Turns out, he did things way worse than that, but still, when I read the title I was a little bit shocked. Six years!!! For spam!!! Ok, it's very annoying, but I would violently protest anyone getting anything more than a month for just sending spam. Does anyone know how long you actually get/how much you have to pay for sending spam?

    1. Re:Appropriate jail-time for spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ok, it's very annoying, but I would violently protest anyone getting anything more than a month for just sending spam."

      Violently? So - you're willing to give up your life to defend the right of spammers to spam, while they cost businesses millions, if not more, dollars?

      I waste about an hour a day dealing with spam. It's easy to automatically filter out c14l1s and such crap. It's not so easy to filter out random strings of psuedo-sensical babble, especially when you're dealing with international clients who might not have the best grasp of English.

      Based on myself alone, this costs my company $2700 a year. I'm a single person, we're a small company, and I'm horribly, absofrigginlutely horribly underpaid. (Alas, for living in a technological asshole of the world.)

      Imagine what spam costs large corporations. Or even home users, those on dialup who pay for access by the minute - such places sadly still exist in the world.

      A month?

      These asshats should be sodomized with a can of Spam and then thrown into a cell for a few decades.

    2. Re:Appropriate jail-time for spammers by nsasch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A month? Spam costs corporations a lot of money, I can't estimate it though. If it takes you 1 minute to filter the spam out of your e-mail, and half a billion people have e-mail accounts, spammers are responsible for half a billion minutes per day. Time is money, and that's a lot of money. Spammers make foolish people on the internet lose their money as well.

      I feel that spammers should get at least a year in prison. A second in jail for every e-mail sent sounds reasonable. If an e-mail takes a second to delete, even though it actually takes longer, the criminal is making up for his crime equally with the wasted time of the victims. If one spammer sends 1 million e-mails a day, that's 11 days per day of spam.

      --
      Make your computer faster: rm -rf /mnt/windows/
    3. Re:Appropriate jail-time for spammers by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      Six years!!! For spam!!! Ok, it's very annoying, but I would violently protest anyone getting anything more than a month for just sending spam. Does anyone know how long you actually get/how much you have to pay for sending spam?

      I think I have an idea for that. The punishment should fit the crime. And here's how it should work.

      Just like people are sentenced to community service for lots of things, spammers should be sentenced to community service as well. But in their case, it should be a specific type of community service: they have to be manual spam filters.

      Everybody knows that for certain messages, humans are better at figuring out whether the message is spam or not. If there were no cost to determining if a message is spam, then spam would really not be a big problem. (Yes, it would bog down mail servers, but that would be the limit of the damage.)

      So, if a spammer sends a million spam messages, the punishment should be that he has to go through a million mail messages and correctly mark them as spam or not spam with an error rate below a certain percentage, say less than 0.5%. As soon as he manually detects as many spam messages as he has sent (or maybe twice as many, in order to make up for the other costs to society, such as the cost of putting him on trial), his debt to society is paid and his punishment is over.

      Obviously, you would need a way to ensure that he is doing the work correctly. But that can be addressed by having other spammers classify the same messages (and by having a few non- criminals also classify some) and seeing if their decisions correlate. If the spammers (and the others) are given no knowledge of whose work theirs is being compared to and whether a given message is being checked, it will be very hard for them to defeat the mechanism.

      If the spammer's work doesn't meet the quality standards for a given batch of messages, then that batch simply doesn't count against his debt and he makes no progress.

      I'm not sure how many seconds it will take the spammer to do the average e-mail, but if it takes 1 second per message, and if they work for 8 hours a day, then they should be able to get through a million messages in about 35 work days, so about 7 weeks. And if 75% of those are spam, then that means they will have made up for sending 750_000 spam messages.

      Naturally, if the spammer wants to use some software to automate the classification, they are free to do that. But they must still maintain the 99.5% rate of correct classification, or whatever rate is deemed appropriate.

      To me, it seems hard to argue that this punishment is unfair in any way. It just requires the spammer to compensate society for exactly the kind and exactly the quantity of damage they did by spamming.

  24. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm gonna post this on Digg, that way /. can point back and say SEE! SEE! We got it first baby!

  25. Spam by certel · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hopefully, this will strike some fear into spammers and some of the spam will be reduced!

  26. I blame the parents. by borkus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Okay, at least his dad. According to the BBC article,

    Francis-Macrae, who made more than £100,000 per week from the scam, spent £28,000 on designer clothes and on learning to fly helicopters

    If any of my offspring are over 18 and wandering around the house in an outfit that's more than my mortgage payment, they best get packing - quickly. Oh, and they need to get that helicopter out of the front yard - it's murder on the azaleas.

  27. Flawed logic, TripMaster. by CyricZ · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Your logic is faulty. There's not necessarily a connection between spammers and "real criminals", even if there is one in this case.

    If somebody who violates copyrights on occasion turns around and kills someone, that does not make all copyright violators murderers.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Flawed logic, TripMaster. by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      I'd say in this case there most certainly WAS a connection between spamming and "real crime". And just because lawmakers are slow to respond and put laws into place to prevent spamming doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    2. Re:Flawed logic, TripMaster. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      Your reading comprehension is faulty. I never implied any connection between spammers and other types of criminals...I stated that spamming is a criminal act, and deserves to be classified as such, along with such other acts as murder threats and arson threats.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  28. the first SPAM terrorist by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    make him write out all messaging/mail by hand, forever

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  29. Nominet is not a policing organisation by nicolaiplum · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nominet is hardly a policing organisation. They are operate the registry for uk. and so I expect they got a lot of complaints about him and decided to warn other people.
    Also his main crime was not spamming, but simple fraud: offering to sell that which he was not entitled to sell.
    This is poor sub-editing even by Slashdot, and BBC technology, standards.

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
  30. What do you think he would get if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..he threatened to break in to each person's computer and ensure that no one was using his 'intellectual property' for reasons he did not beleive fit? OH WAIT SONY did this--and they get nothing. bull shit

  31. Not Spam that got him in trouble by intmainvoid · · Score: 1
    Email was just the medium, not the message. I get plenty of spam that doesn't break any laws, even spam that's tweaked so much to beat spamassassin that I can't even tell what they're selling, but it's just as annoying as fraud based spam.

    It's like arresting a mafia boss for jaywalking. Why not just pass laws that make the real problem illegal in the first place?

    1. Re:Not Spam that got him in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's like arresting a mafia boss for jaywalking"

      -- so you're saying it's like arresting somebody guilty of major criminal acts for a minor acts

      So let's see, this guy did: spammer AND fraud, death threats, money laundering, etc.

      So, according to you, this guy got held up on minor issues [fraud, death threats, money laundering, etc] rather than his real crime - spamming?

      I hate spam as much as the next guy, but sometimes I really think people have things out of proportion.

    2. Re:Not Spam that got him in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps because money can buy politicians?

    3. Re:Not Spam that got him in trouble by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      It's like arresting a mafia boss for jaywalking.

      Or for failing to pay his taxes?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  32. Fly? by RalphBinaca · · Score: 1
    Like most of you, my first reaction was, "what? only six years?" But then I read this:

    Francis-Macrae, who made more than £100,000 per week from the scam, spent £28,000 on designer clothes and on learning to fly helicopters, the court heard.

    Helicopters? Sweet. Ok, give him six years. ;-)

    1. Re:Fly? by nsasch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yuck! Helicopters. He deserves far more. I'm just glad he hasn't made himself a real part of the aviation community! My theory on helicopters: They can't really fly, they're just so ugly, the Earth repels them.

      --
      Make your computer faster: rm -rf /mnt/windows/
  33. Time for people to take responsibility. by CyricZ · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Often times it is only the stupid who get scammed. Had these people taken the time to investigate the notice they received, then they most likely would not have been defrauded. They should have contacted their registrar to confirm the need for renewal, for instance. If they forgot who their registrar is, then they're just being irresponsible.

    You speak of this guy owning up for the threats he made. Perhaps he should. But then again, his victims should own up to their mistakes. It was through their own negligence that they lost money. They willingly and voluntarily sent him the money. It's not like he came and took the money out of their wallets.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Time for people to take responsibility. by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      "It's not my fault these suckers leave their wallets in their back pockets where they're so easy to get at. I'm just taking money from the stupid ones."

      Yeah that's gonna fly in court.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  34. Editors are Jackasses! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1, Insightful

    WTF?!?!? I'm tired of this sensationalized, misleading garbage we're seeing in article summaries! This site has gone to hell and if the community moved elsewhere I would too. I don't even come here for the articles themselves any more, just to read the comments. Enough is enough! Try to at least PRETEND to have credibility!

    Go ahead and mod me -5 FlAmEbAiT!!!!

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Editors are Jackasses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. Pretty much every article is nonsense. I ignore the article and read the comments to find out why, and usually pick up something interesting along the way - and there is the value in this place. The stupid articles are just bait to bring the people with something worthwhile out to speak, without having to pay them. Magic.

  35. I say.... by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

    I say good riddence and I hope he rots in hell.... Wait thats what my friends and I are gonna say at each other's funerals, he's not good enough for that.

    Why don't they just lock him in Irons and create a website where each time its visited he's shocked... Then we just slashdot it. :D

    Sadly I am very dissappointed that he's only getting 6 years, the US goverment tried nailing me for more than that for something I didn't even do. They didn't even have evidence. *It was a accident in bad weather and they tried nailing me on two counts of felony vehicular assault, one count was nothing more than whiplash, the other was my fiance and she ripped the prosecutor a new one. All they had was eye witness statements none of which were the same.* This guy had more evidence against him than you could shake a fist at, including threats to those willing to stand up to him, including threats to government buildings. Doesn't that classify him as a terrorist? Lock his ass up and throw away the key.

    Just my two cents.

    pbtpu40

    --
    -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
  36. off topic : Re:2 much or 2 little? by onepoint · · Score: 1

    >>I'd say 6 years is pretty light

    it's real interesting to see what people from 2 different nations think about punishment. I find that I were to commit a crime, I think it would be better to do it in France or Italy than in USA.

    Prison sentence seems shorter over there.

    Onepoint

    --
    if you see me, smile and say hello.
  37. A win for gun control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a good thing the Brits aren't allowed guns. Who knows what this guy could have done with one!

  38. Typo... by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

    or subtle dirty joke?
    Naturally criminals aren't kinky: thay take what the opportunity will give.

    "Dude, that chick is so kinky. She took everything I had the opportunity to give!"

    --
    ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    1. Re:Typo... by anonymo · · Score: 1

      Nope, English is not my 1st language.

      Probably "picky" or "choosy" would have been better.
      What I ment was that shady types won't hesitate and will use any opportunity to grab some value from anyone. Threats, lies, spam, nigerian bussiness, whatever a conmen can missuse (s)he will use it without hesitation.

    2. Re:Typo... by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I actually managed to parse what you were trying to say; I just found it too funny to avoid commenting on it.

      BTW, your English is VERY good (much better than my <INSET ANY OTHER LANGUAGE>, but you might want to make sure you have a firm grasp of the word "kinky" before using it. Its just one of those words that is too easy to say something embarassing with...

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
  39. Spammer/Thug/Asshole by billstewart · · Score: 1
    The correct term for him is "asshole", and while "spammer" implies that, he's expanding the range of activities for which he's an asshole.


    Saying he's a thug implies he actually would carry out his threats; he may just be talking like a thug without actually intending to do anything, or he may be the type to hire thugs to go beat people up for him. From a criminal prosecution standpoint, making threats is probably enough, though obviously carrying them out is a lot more prosecutable.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Spammer/Thug/Asshole by woluwedal · · Score: 1, Informative

      'The correct term for him is "asshole", and while "spammer" implies that, he's expanding the range of activities for which he's an asshole.'

      He's a brit, therefore the correct term is "arsehole" :0)

      --
      Down with sigs
  40. Title Not So Misleading by tzot · · Score: 2, Informative
    He's not a "terrorist". His actions were apparently not politically motivated.
    Terrorists are not just those who terrorize for political reasons.

    B (terrorists) is a superset of A (terrorists with political motives>, so for every x in A, x in B is implied; I believe we agree on that. What you just said is that x is not a member of A, therefore he isn't a member of B too, which logically is flawed.

    What do you call someone who threats to bomb a building unless they are offered a large amount of money? Do they have to actually bomb the building to earn the title "terrorist"?

    --
    I speak England very best
  41. So he got 6 years, but was it for the spam? by CFD339 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    He threatened people, threatened to bomb government buildings, etc. What exactly was the six years for then?

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  42. Forgetting your registrar by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1
    If they forgot who their registrar is, then they're just being irresponsible.

    I don't know... I have several customers who have had their registrar change names several times! If you were, for example, a "Network Solutions" customer over the last decade, and you weren't paying close attention to Verisign's purchases, renaming, rebranding, etc., could anyone blaim you if you weren't 100% sure that the letter you received about the time you domain was up for renewal was from your registrar, or a different one with a "similar" name?

    1. Re:Forgetting your registrar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, anyone could blame you for not taking 10 seconds to do a whois search you moron.

    2. Re:Forgetting your registrar by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      It's easy enough for such a customer to run a whois on their domain name. It will list whatever name the registrar is currently using. It's easy enough to then locate contact information from the registrar's website or via a phone book, and to see if it corresponds with that of the notice they received.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    3. Re:Forgetting your registrar by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1
      It's easy enough for such a customer to run a whois on their domain name.

      Domains are not exclusively sold to people who have a knowledge of how internet works. In fact, many large registrars are making well-publicised pushes to get people "with no IT guys" and "better with a hammer than a keyboard" to register a domain and have a "professional website in 20 minutes". Most of these people have no concept of WHOIS, or how to find a WHOIS server that will display arbitrary registrar information (some will only show domains managed by the particular registrar). Such people do not automatically deserve to be defrauded because of how the whole mess that is our domain registration "system" works.

      After all, computers are supposed to help us solve problems, rather than being the source of them!

    4. Re:Forgetting your registrar by slappyjack · · Score: 1

      It's easy enough for such a customer to run a whois on their domain name.
      REPLY:
      Domains are not exclusively sold to people who have a knowledge of how internet works.


      Too. Goddamn. Bad. The world's population, in general, needs to take a little self responsibility.

      Maybe the guy with the brilliant idea for a site with its own domain name could get the kid next door to send him a couplle of links on how it does work? Then the kid could show him first how to click a link in his email? Maybe as a bonus, the kid could show him how to use Alt-Tab on his windows box and teach him the idea of multiple windows being open.

      Drivers licenses are not given exclusively to people who know how to drive, either. That doesn't make it any safer for the rest of us that pay attention.

      Guns are not sold exclusively to people who understand how to handle them, but that doesn't excuse the guy whos kid who accidentally shoots himself after finding the peice in a drawer.

    5. Re:Forgetting your registrar by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      What exactly is your point? If people purchase something that they have no idea how to use, it's not surprising that they'll run into problems.

      Even if they didn't do a WHOIS lookup themselves, they could have always asked a relative or a friend to look into the matter for them.

      Then again, these are people who voluntarily mailed this guy money. It's almost as if taking responsibility for their actions is something they cannot handle.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  43. You're describing a different situation. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    You're describing a completely different situation. Indeed, to get to the money in the peoples' wallets he would have to forcefully take it from them. That is not what happened in this case. Remember, the people voluntarily sent him the money.

    A more apt analogy would be him standing beside a building, with a Coke logo on his chest, pretending to be a pop machine. People would voluntarily put money into his pocket, thinking they'd get a bottle of Coke. Of course, they wouldn't, because he's not really a pop vending machine.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:You're describing a different situation. by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      And an even better analogy would be him setting up a Coke machine beside a building that would take people's money, but not give them a bottle of Coke. They have a word for that. It's called fraud.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  44. Don't blame slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To all those blaming slashdot for a misleading title look at the tile fro BBC

    Spammer jailed for £1.6m net scam

    I belive slashdot only para-phrased thier title so in this case the title on slashdot is somewhat justified.

  45. Mislabelled... by Vexler · · Score: 1

    "Angry-Little-Black-Hat"? Angry, perhaps, but "black hat"?

    If a blackhatter wanted to take down a server, he would have kept his mouth shut and just done it (and erased his footprint when he sneaked out). He would have also concealed his identity a lot better than what this scumbag did.

  46. Unfair world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got really pissed when I read this because it reminded me of case here in Norway where an 18-year old and three friends unprovokedly beat up a guy so he now has to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair with the need of constant attendance for daily tasks (i.e. to live). The sentence was 4 years and 9 months. This spammer only cripples a persons damn machine, not their ability to move their body. No wonder people lose respect for the law.

  47. You're still not understanding the situation. by CyricZ · · Score: 0, Troll

    But the fact remains that he did not directly take money from these people. They voluntarily sent the money to him, for whatever reason.

    The fact also remains that they need to take responsibility for their actions. They should not have voluntarily sent him money if they were not completely sure that he was in fact their registrar, much as they shouldn't voluntarily put money in his Coke machine if they're not sure it will give them a bottle of Coke.

    Notice that the key word is voluntary. That means that the victims themselves should take some responsibility for becoming victimized. They made the mistake of sending him the money when they obviously did not have to.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:You're still not understanding the situation. by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      for whatever reason

      For whatever reason?!? THAT IS THE FRAUD! Good God man! They sent him money because he sent out notifications to domain name holders based on WHOIS info and told them to pay up or lose their domain name.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    2. Re:You're still not understanding the situation. by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting, you believe that fraud should be legal because only irresponsible people would "fall for it"? I can't really argue that point any more than saying I disagree.

      But, hey, thanks for the name calling, that's very mature! And kudos for the straw-man there too, if you can't argue the point argue the opponent!

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    3. Re:You're still not understanding the situation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way are you 60. I've read your comments today and I figure you're closer to 15 (or have an IQ of 50). You've been ranting and attacking people unfairly then trying to change the subject. If you are 60, then you'd know the people used to beat the shit out of fraudsters instead of calling the law. They didn't just go, "Oh, I got tricked, stupid me."

    4. Re:You're still not understanding the situation. by lgw · · Score: 1

      She voluntarily wore that short skirt in that neighborhood. She had it coming.

      Te fact that someone is easy to take advantage of is no justification at all for taking advantage of them. Or do you believe that only the strong have rights?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:You're still not understanding the situation. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      I grew up in a time when people took responsibility for their stupidity.

      There is a difference between stupidity and naïvete. Everyone is naïve about something, no matter how experienced they may be about life in general. In a sense, law only exists because to protect society, it's necessary to protect any given individual from having to know everything about everything in order to be safe and fairly treated.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    6. Re:You're still not understanding the situation. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Yes, anyone who voluntarily goes around flaunting their body should be aware that he or she may be raped, and should be prepared to accept if it does happen to them. That may not make it "right", but a little common sense could have prevented the situation.

      I believe that people should take responsibility for their own actions. The people in this case voluntarily mailed him money. He didn't force them to do it. They chose to do it. And as such, they should own up to the fact that they made a mistake, and ended up getting hurt financially.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    7. Re:You're still not understanding the situation. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      This isn't a matter of not knowing everything. This is a matter of using common sense.

      Common sense dictates that if you receive an unexpected notice demanding money from you, that you should investigate it before paying (assuming you pay at all). It's a very simple concept that most children would be able to understand.

      If people lack common sense, then too fucking bad for them. Let them get hurt. It'll teach them a good lesson.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    8. Re:You're still not understanding the situation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Yes, anyone who voluntarily goes around flaunting their body should be aware that he or she may be raped, and should be prepared to accept if it does happen to them."
      May you forever be known by this quote. It really sums you up, you nasty little man!
  48. Dumbass tag by ShecoDu · · Score: 1

    I think we agree that this thread should've had the dumbass tag. :)

    1. Re:Dumbass tag by Torinir · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... he does sound like some of the people calling my phone at work... ;-p

  49. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  50. you'd think.... by adnausium · · Score: 1

    ...in this day and age that anyone seriously threating any type of bombing would be subject to harsher penalties.

    --
    Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
  51. One bad apple by greenegg77 · · Score: 1

    Guys like him give the rest of us spammers a bad name...

    --
    --- This .sig for sale - $500 OBO.
  52. Re:Send him condoms here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I'm sure posting someone's information on the internet is very noble indeed. He may have broke the law, but he still has a right to privacy.

    I'm glad we all think it's okay to just willy nilly about with someone's personal information, but I'd be willing to bet a left arm that you'd want to sue if someone just up and disclosed public information about you, telling them to harass you.

    It works both ways, asshole.

  53. Wait a sec by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else pick up on the fact that he made over £100,000 a week, spent only £28,000, yet still lived with his father?! Man, my inner geek aspires to be this guy.

    On the bright side, at least we know ONE aspect of being a geek that never gets any that'll be fulfilled in prison *grin*

    "So YOUR the bloke that got me hooked on generic viagra... I've got something for ya"

  54. I wanna Be a Spammer by cyberscan · · Score: 1

    I might annoy millions, but at least I won't have to worry about being offshored.

  55. You do? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    At first glance you think "6 years for spam...damn that's harsh".

    Odd, that's not what came to my mind. I was actually thinking how sad it was a crime that affects so many gets such light punishment.

    You're right though they other stuff he did was even worse. Should have got life.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  56. It would look like it was from them by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    In the pron case, in all likleyhood your business would be very different from that of the porn company so there is no confusion.

    But think about what happened to this guy - the scammer now has the exact same address as the official company that only differs by a P.O. Box. People would naturally start thinking it was indeed from him and be more inclined to think it was a billing screw-up.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:It would look like it was from them by Buran · · Score: 1

      But it wouldn't have the official company's logo, etc. on it, though, now would it? (If it did the guy would be liable for hefty fines). I've never gotten a bill that wasn't very distinct and clearly from who it claimed to be from. The dodgy ones always look dodgy.

    2. Re:It would look like it was from them by hattig · · Score: 1

      You're probably a lot more intelligent than the average person. Also I think a lot of people are naive about these scams, nor do they know that details are so readily available. They think 'Ooh, a letter to me about my domain, must be legit'. Hence what must have been >10,000 people were scammed (if he took £1.6m at around £60 a pop).

      Whilst unethical (and he sent out invoices, not advertising, I know that the company got a warning about that even before this stuff came up), if he'd at least done the work once getting the money and offered a service ...

  57. oldest democracy in the world? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    which is? Iceland possibly for oldest parliament? New Zealand and other contenders for Universal Suffrage? Other contenders?

  58. Just one line item? by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1

    Why does the BBC report 28,000 pounds spent on flash clothes and learning to fly a helicopter as one line item?

    Did he need the flash clothes so he would be appropriately dressed for helicopter lessons? Were the clothes and helicopter lessons purchased at the same store?

    How come you can't buy Helicopter Lessons at Marks & Sparks, or Tescos, instead having to go to some poshish booteek?

    When are we going to be able to walk into our local McDonalds and hear the magic words "Would you like helicopter lessons with that?"

    --
    Squirrel!
  59. In Other News... by settsu · · Score: 1

    "Jailed Spammer's Ass Victim of DOS Attack" ...Bandwidth Severely Affected...

  60. Spammer gets slap on wrist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Threatens to firebomb, kill, retaliate, refuses to surrender illegal gains...

    Mario Cuomo, the Kennedys and Shelley Silver...proud of the Brits humanity.

  61. NO bility ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (WCATFA?)... as in Who Cares...

        Was he dressed in black armour ?
        did he look like this and resist arrest ?

  62. You can't read definitions. by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    Look at your definition. It specifically contains the word "employs". That means that to be considered a "terrorist", he would have had to have a political motive, and he would have actually had to carry out his threats. Until then he's just a threatener of violence.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  63. Ha! Enlarge your... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet he is regretting sending out all those "Enlarge your Penis!" spams now he is going to jail.

    Don't drop the soap mate, it's a gonna hurt!!! LOL

  64. Really?-) Re: You can't read definitions by tzot · · Score: 1
    he would have had to have a political motive
    You don't say? In the definition for the adjective 'terrorist' (I hope you know you used 'terrorist' as a noun) it says: "characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon)"; I hoped you would understand the difference between "especially" and "always"... do you?
    Later on, there is a sub-sentence saying "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon"; it is obvious to me that your comment is based on this from all the information given on the term. Well, if you think that this is the complete definition, arrange that the guys in dictionary.com remove everything else except from that sub-sentence; it must be obvious to you that "they can't write definitions" ;-)
    and he would have actually had to carry out his threats
    No, read the definition again: he would have to "employ terrorism".

    Francis-Macrae employed terrorism by threatening to attack other computers with massive incoming email and DoS attacks. Notice that he had been already successful in using massive emailing during his business, so his threat about multiple attacks can be considered substantial, and his further threats about "burning" and "bombing" can therefore be considered possible.

    These threats are an act of terrorism.

    OTOH, Ballmer's "I'm gonna forking kill Google" cannot easily be considered a terrorist action, even if he said that he'd done it before, since these previous actions are not known to his potential victims, and therefore he can't be taken seriously however large the chair being thrown around, because he hasn't the means to destroy another company. ...Or has he?-)

    This horse is dead as far as I am concerned, I promise you I won't write back, feel free to reply as you like.

    --
    I speak England very best
    1. Re:Really?-) Re: You can't read definitions by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Sending somebody large amounts of email is not terrorism. You're a fool if you think it is.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  65. not even a dent by manojar · · Score: 1

    Russia, china are the biggest spammers, and we know they can't be controlled! If this guy has been punished, the next one would just set up his shop in eastern Europe