Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spammer settles with MS and Texas

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the whack-a-mole dept.

RedOregon writes "One of the world's most notorious spammers has settled lawsuits with the state [of Texas] and Microsoft Corp. that cost him at least $1 million, took away most of his assets and forced him to stop sending the e-mails."

36 comments

  1. We still lose... by crazyjeremy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So wait a second... Since he settled for $1 million dollars and in his career he actually made more than $1 million, how is this fair? We still all lose, right? If he's made enough money to buy the house and the BMW, what's a million dollar fine but a slap on the wrist? Why doesn't this punk go to jail?

    --
    Funnypics
    1. Re:We still lose... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm.... because people don't go to jail for losing a civil case?

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    2. Re:We still lose... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why the current spam laws must be changed.

      Sending spam without giving users the chance to opt-out would still be applied.
      Sending spam through open proxies or machines without the explicit written authorization of their legal owners should be illegal, with jail penalty.

    3. Re:We still lose... by 7macaw · · Score: 1

      And who will enforce this laws in, say, China?

      --
      Grundes!
    4. Re:We still lose... by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually using any computer without authorization is illegal. Its why you can go after someone for gaining access to your machine, sending spam is the same thing. The biggest thing is prosecutors dont care about going after easy cases. What they really want is someone who is a good upstanding citizen thats done nothing wrong to end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Such as your car hitting ice and causing a major accident. Then they'll file two felony counts against you, one completely bogus for a guy with whiplash, and another for your fiance. You could be an eagle scout, straight A student, and associated with the military. They will nail you to the wall, ruin your life, and make sure you can do nothing but flip burgers for the rest of your life. Now if you think the above is bogus, it's not. The county I live in came after me after I hit ice. Damn near ruined my life, got lucky with a plea deal that bumped it to a misdeamnor so it can be expunged after 2 years (thats the only reason I took the deal).

      Remember this, there is no corrolation between the law and justice. The law is there to protect those with the power and welth. Not to protect the law abiding.

      --
      -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    5. Re:We still lose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no, instead of jailtime or fines he should have to read *aloud* every spam he's ever sent.
      Bonus points if he had to do it in front of his kids.

      He'll need a new throat and his kids will need some serious therapy.

    6. Re:We still lose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitter much?

    7. Re:We still lose... by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And who will enforce this laws in, say, China?

      The Chinese government can deal with Chinese spammers however they want. This guy's in the US, and subject to US law. Let's work on cleaning up the spam problem in our own country, before we worry about foreign spammers, ok?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    8. Re:We still lose... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      So wait a second... Since he settled for $1 million dollars and in his career he actually made more than $1 million, how is this fair? We still all lose, right? If he's made enough money to buy the house and the BMW, what's a million dollar fine but a slap on the wrist? Why doesn't this punk go to jail?

      The article says he has to sell the house and the BMW in order to pay the fine, plus he's agreed to stop sending spam. How does that mean we lose?

      Personally I don't care if this punk goes to jail or not. I care that he stops crapflooding my mail servers.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    9. Re:We still lose... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      He'll need a new throat and his kids will need some serious therapy.

      I see no reason why his kids (if he has any - I wouldn't think so, if he's 24 and just got out of college) should suffer for his actions.

      As for needing a new throat, well, that probably wouldn't be consistent with the 8th Amendment.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    10. Re:We still lose... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Well since the cold war ended I hear there's a lot of American spies who need a job. Hunting down and executing foreign spammers seems like an ideal tide-me-over until the next cold war.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    11. Re:We still lose... by spun · · Score: 1

      We will. We're the Global Police, right? We use our powers of extraordinary rendition to swoop into other countries and kidnap their citizens for interrogation in countries with a, shall we say, less restrictive attitude towards, um, let's just call it "forceful questioning." How about we turn some of that loving goodness the spammers way?

      No, I'm not actually serious, but when your country is kidnapping foreigners to torture them in some third-world hell-hole, you either have to make jokes about it or shoot yourself in the head.

      Yes, this is flame-bait, and off topic, but if you mod me down, THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  2. Dear reader... by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have recently had to settle with my creditors for the sum of $1 million... could you please send some money to down_to_my_last_BMW.guy@spam.city.com I promise I will not do it again, and with the grace of God, your donation and kindness will set me on the true path

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  3. Corporation == Person (legally) by cataclyst · · Score: 1

    Um, legally corporations have the same rights as individual citizens. It's just that they tend to have better legal counsel.

    --
    E = m * c^(Hammer)
    1. Re:Corporation == Person (legally) by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      Um, legally corporations have the same rights as individual citizens. It's just that they tend to have better legal counsel.

      Both wrong and misleading! Can corporations vote in general elections? In addition, rights is only half of the issue. Corporations have far fewer OBLIGATIONS than people.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    2. Re:Corporation == Person (legally) by cataclyst · · Score: 1

      Who says that people have the right to vote? Know any felons?

      --
      E = m * c^(Hammer)
  4. Re:So sad by MrSquirrel · · Score: 4, Funny

    spammers aren't people. now, soylent green -- that's another story!

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
  5. Re:too bad by pthor1231 · · Score: 1

    I really hope that was sarcasm, and I'm too tired to detect it...

  6. Dear Mr. Slashdot by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, I am to be saying that a Mr. Sting died in Nigeria yesterday, with his Estate not settled. If you can contact me, we will send you $1 million as your inheritence. Please be of utmost privacy in responding to this request, as otherwise it will be spent on bribes and this would be double plus ungood.

    Contact me at Gully_B_L_Fool@nevertrust.ng or if our service is not working, send a copy to U_R_A_Sucker@aol.com just in case.

    Hoping to hear from you soonest, and not from Texas,

    I remain,

    Pay-ing von Court d'Case

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Dear Mr. Slashdot by grolschie · · Score: 1

      Dear Mr Pay-ing von Court d'Case. You don't fool me. If this were legit, you would've typed in CAPS. All legit emails are formatted in this manner.

  7. Re:too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, did you just say that someone sending out 25 million unsolicited emails each day is the same as a poor student handing out flyers for a few bucks? Maybe you have sympathy for the poor student who has to sell his $430,000 house and 2005 BMW to pay for his criminal activities, but, I don't know, call me crazy, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for social parasites like that.

  8. This is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a dangerous precedent for Texas. They have a strong image of refusing to settle with anybody. This will probably damage that.

  9. Re:too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I should pimp out your mom... shady, I know... but hey... college ain't cheap these days...

  10. Re:So sad by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except this person was a SPAMMER - he's lucky to not have been nailed under the CAN-SPAM act and actually thrown in jail - though I say he should've been charged under the act first, then taken to court. Jail time, AND fines afterwards to add on to his humiliation. Also, in the case of spammers - I heartily suggest the same route we take when we seize drugs from people - seize EVERYTHING. Leave him with nothing, as he'll have one hard hell of a time proving that the legally acquired stuff was acquired without the help of his spamming efforts.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  11. [OT] Block Spammers For Good...Essentially. :) by iamcf13 · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: I wrote it (and use it). Free Windows program. Keep your money.

    My badmouthed, 99.67% effective solution to spam..

    My approach used behind public email addresses will make spam email essentially unprofitable. It will be impossible to conveniently convey 'spam' as we now know it to people with such 'extreme filtering' in effect while still allowing email communications to take place. Sure, the desparate spammers can still spam but it will be painfully obvious and can be ignored. If 'too much' of it comes through, then I will have to implement some sort of 'Bayesian Filtering' which is already pwned by the spammers.... :P

    Slashdot captcha for this post: sincere (coincidence?)

    1. Re:[OT] Block Spammers For Good...Essentially. :) by turnipsatemybaby · · Score: 1

      Does your 'program' filter out 'ainfully obvious' slashdot 'spam' such as 'yours'?

  12. But he's turned a new leaf, don't ya see?? by BeneDux · · Score: 1, Funny
    He's trying to help us now. He's in the trenches with all of the victims of spam across the country. He's offering us his unique knowledge to help protect us now. He's one of us, guys, really. Here's a sample quote off of his Anti-Spam blog that will show you that his kind of knowledge is just what we need in this spam jihad.

    http://combatspam.blogspot.com/

    How's this for inside info from a veteran spammer?
    "Do not put your email address on your website. Email spiders look across all websites looking for email addresses that can be used to spam."

    and this one...
    "If you do start getting emails, unsubscribe yourself from those emails as soon as you get those emails."

    Wait, there's more!
    "If a spammer is being persistent, then you can report the spammer to its ISP. This starts to get technical...[extreme technical info about using tracert from a DOS command window]"

    Oh boy, thanks to Ryan Pitylak, we really have those spammers on the run now!!!

    --
    In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
  13. Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Waaaaaaah the man's keeping me down

  14. Re:So sad by lon3st4r · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I totally agree with the despicable act that spamming is. But we should get a grip on how acute an issue it is. I am not a spammer, and if everything were seized from me and I were asked to explain how I got them - it would be difficult for me to explain. My nose is 100% clean, but still it would be difficult, and a royal pain.

    There are remedial measures, ways and methods of dealing with these things - and they have been codified as laws. If some authority gets the right to sieze everything you have, then you will be the first person to complain against such draconian measures and human-rights violation.

    There are more than one ways to convict spammers - including much stiffer penalties and more thorough accounting investigations. Spamming offends others, and spammers do make a lot of money out of it. But it doesnot physically/mentally harm anyone. There are worse crimes than spamming, and we should reserve some punishments for those as well ;)

    * lon3st4r *

  15. Re:So sad by Khyber · · Score: 1

    If some authority gets the right to sieze everything you have, then you will be the first person to complain against such draconian measures and human-rights violation.

    I've got a nice book for you, my friend. "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do" written by Peter McWilliams. I've already once been a victim of a full-seizure (my fault for having ONE JOINT in my apartment.) In fact I think that book should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to hold a political office. Maybe then we'd have some useful politicians.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  16. Re:So sad by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know. But spammers make A LOT Of money - $1M is a tiny fraction of the amount he made ($55M), and his assets have to be sold to pay that $1M. So I don't feel one iota of guilt that this guy makes $55M by stealing from people, and now loses his house because he spent $55M on god-knows-what.

    And yes, spammers steal - everytime they send an email, the recipient pays for it and all intermediaries that carry it. Even if it only costed 1 cent per spam in total costs (bandwidth, electricity, hardware - to handle spam requires more bandwidth, more electricity to power more servers and cooling) from the time the spammer starts his run to when it arrives in my inbox (10 or 11 copies of same), that penny suddenly becomse $10,000 stolen from all of us. And guess who pays? We all do - in increased service fees. And what does the spammer pay? Probably a few cents for the connection time, and 10 or 15 minutes crafting the email. An hour if they want to use graphics. It certainly doesn't cost $10,000 in *his* expenses.

    And I'm not even going to talk about zombie'd computers.

  17. Poor kid ... by Batou · · Score: 1

    Selling his $430K house and BMW? I'd venture a guess he has at least one good kidney he could spare. Maybe his buddies in the Russian mob or China could lend him a hand.

    Cruel and unusual punishment should really be brought back for instances like this. I say make an example of this jerk for the other Ralsky's of the world to take notice of. As a mail admin who has to continually clean up the messes morons like this create, I'd love to get a few sucker punches in myself.

    Sorry, but no sympathy whatsoever here.

    --
    "Oh my God! The dead have risen! And they're voting Republican!" - Bart Simpson