Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spammer Gets $11 Billion Fine

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the thats-a-lotta-shifts-at-the-dq dept.

Spad writes "It's not a typo, The Inquirer (amongst others) is reporting that an Iowa-based ISP has been awarded $11.2 billion in a case against spammer James McCalla, who was found guilty of sending over 280 million illegal spam emails. Under state law, the ISP was entitled to $10 per illegal e-mail sent. According to the Quad-City Times, McCalla has also been banned from using a computer for 3 years. From the article: "CIS acknowledged that it is unlikely to see any of the judgment money but said that it was time that spammers learnt that their actions would result in an economic death penalty"."

8 of 478 comments (clear)

  1. Send him to "pound me in the ass federal prison" by Zendar · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'd rather see thes guys do some jail time.

  2. Re:Bankrupcy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Surely that therefore makes it a debt to the government and uncancellable by bankrupcy (why this should be has still not been adequately explained, the government should be at the very bottom of the pile, instead it places itself at the top, even when the pile ceases to exist).

    So, he doesn't pay the ISP, they cancel the debt, he owes the IRS, they try to steal (yes, steal) his wages for the rest of his life, he leaves the country and lives off the swiss bank account that he no doubt has set up, US Govt look like idiots. What's the point of it all? Why would any sane judge hand down an $11billion judgement against an individual who isn't Bill Gates and doesn't have the capacity to pay? Perhaps the legal system should have metamoderation

    By the way, do you actually get a choice whether someone cancels a debt that you owe them or not?

  3. Re:Very rough, hopeful translation by poopdeville · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yeah, this guy deserves to have his home taken by the IRS and thrown in jail for the tiny inconvenience he caused you. Now that's justice!

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  4. Re:Bankrupcy? by poopdeville · · Score: -1, Troll
    It might be a bit excessive, but I'm pleased each time I hear that someone's held accountable for this deviant and misleading method of "earning" cash.

    Wow, that is telling. Is it the deviancy that bothers you, or is it the fact that the advertisements are misleading? Misleading advertisement is a fact of life. You don't see many marketting firms being hauled in to court over false advertisement. Indeed, sometimes they design their advertisements so you don't even know what they're about until the end, if at all. Seems analogous to those "RE: Hello!" spams.

    If it's the deviancy that bothers you, uhm, keep in mind that America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of homogenized conformists. Maybe the assumption that you're an American is too strong, but the conclusion I can draw about you still stands.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  5. Re:Very rough, hopeful translation by poopdeville · · Score: -1, Troll
    Lets sue all advertisers then. It takes me about a second to delete a spam e-mail. It takes me 20-30 times as long to not watch a TV commercial. By that metric, they should pay 220-330 billion dollars for each commercial (assuming it shows 12 times a day and 20 million people see it each time). You can't even delete magazine advertisements without damaging the magazine. They should obviously pay trillions for the inconvenience.

    I don't like advertising invading every sphere. But we need to let the punishment fit the crime.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  6. Re:A point of grammar by shaitand · · Score: -1, Troll

    Congratulations. You have been caught in a troll trap. You are the first in my campaign to capture and tag all the grammar trolls on Slashdot.

  7. Re:he's not by shaitand · · Score: -1, Troll

    Congratulations. You have been caught in a troll trap. You are the next in my campaign to capture and tag all the grammar trolls on Slashdot.

  8. Re:Banned From Using a Computer by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 0, Troll
    From what I understand from the argument, and from what I have read (granted, my understanding and knowledge comes only from what I have read on the internet), what the "Right to Travel" is about is that drivers licenses are an illegal restriction on the Constitutional "Right to Travel", which has no limits on the means of conveyance.
    By the size of your rant, you're obviously one of those anglo-saxon property rights zealot. Your rant also is totally off-the-mark, so I will not even bother busting neurons reading it.

    I will however bust all your arguments with the following:

    so, since there is "no limits on the means of conveyance", it's perfectly okay to travel by using a mechanical copy of Godzilla which merrily goes about squashing roads, cars, electric/telephone wires and buildings.

    The average reader will then have no problem getting the futility of your argument.