Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wins Record Amount from Hotmail Spammer
mytrip writes to tell us News.com is reporting that Microsoft has won a record $87,177 against spammer Paul Fox who used a hotmail account to direct users to his pornographic download site. From the article: "But while Microsoft has clearly won, the case highlights a failure in the British legal system to tackle spam. Despite efforts by the Information Commissioner's Office to gain power from the Department of Trade & Industry to deal with spam, Information Commissioner Richard Thomas remains hamstrung."
Spam! I get jokes! Perhaps the pig icon should be in a blanket though.
Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
Despite efforts by the Information Commissioner's Office to gain power from the Department of Trade & Industry to deal with spam, Information Commissioner Richard Thomas remains hamstrung.
Sounds like Information Commissioner Richard Thomas is into the kinky stuff. That's why there's no action on this topic.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Yes Microsoft, that means you with your bcentral bollocks!
Okay - so earlier today I posted about testing weapons on spammers... and Microsoft... this is creepy.
I'm the Deej, and I approve this message.
Sooo basically the Spammer had to pay 1/10th what he earned doing all that spamming? Say it ain't so!
If they really step it up and go at him perhaps they'll take away his tinker toys.
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
As long as the penalties for spamming are less than the spammer's seeing in revenues, this shit is just going to keep piling up. I vote for flogging the bastard.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Symbolic: "Microsoft making a world full of online threats safer for Y-O-U!"
Best case scenario:
1. the guy/organization/whatever claims bankruptcy and it's pennies on the dollar for MS.
2. Microsoft charges you more for their spam security software.
Lately with MS and most mega-corps, it's about maintaining a very high level of fear of non-compliance.
I'm glad I get paid to work on their product because it requires so much babysitting. Thank dog I don't run it at home anymore.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
This is going to sundy crazy, but it seems as though Microsoft has recently been using the using the courts for good. First they use the coursts to punish those who have been scamming users with pirated copies of Windows for cash and now they're providing a better anti-spam deterant than the British legal system.
/. may stand for, but I have to say that I'm surprised and pleased.
I know this goes against what many on
Go Microsoft! The **PAA could learn much from you.
But don't most people survive flogging?
I really hope they get to collect... What is really needed is a two pronged approach.
The first step is to eliminate most of the pseudo-anonymity of email... Not necessarily so much as to create the authentication system that Yahoo, or MS seem to be pushing for, even the lighter SPF system would be a good start. Of course the big guys need to work together, most internet email goes to MSN/Hotmail, AOL, and Yahoo, with larger ISPs like Earthlink, Qwest, etc. taking up a huge portion of the rest... If even half of the above required either A: SPF, or B: the sending MTA *IS* authenticated, or the MTA in the MX listing for the header's "from" this would do it... Now the responsible parties for email would be at least more trackable, since the spam zombies would be ineffective, or at least less effective (Responsible ISP mail admins flagging accounts with >10 emails an hour for review).
The second is to allow suits like this to have more teeth... Bankrupt the scum, ceize their assets.. Procecute under whatever applicable laws (most likely fraud).
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
As a quick aside, would someone please tag this "typo"? That "ut" and the beginning took about .3 seconds to process as "But;" .3 seconds I'll never get back. kthx. ;-)
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
...Microsoft goes after record judgement.... last name "Fox".... coincidence? I think not.
Why on earth is it being left to the Information Commissioner to pursue spammers? Does he not have enough on his plate with the British Govt...
a) ... about to reverse
the legal right to privacy trying create the
world's most intrusive database on citizens. ... using taxpayers' resources to frustrate
hundreds of thousands of valid requests under the Freedom of Information Act?
b)
I thought hotmail was a spam-hoster? It isn't? Wow, could've fooled me!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He's ham strung to deal with spam? Maybe there was too much pork in the legislation.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
So someone used bandwidth he was paying for, without using a botnet, to send emails for companies that sponsored him. While I understand the logic in complaining about a nuisance, I am unable to relate to thos individuals who wish the assign some sort of punitive action to this spammer.
Is it really that hard to just hit delete? Is it a reasonable assumption that spam will be less profitable (and, sooner or later, unprofitable), if people stop opening spam email and purchasing the products advertised?
These individuals are obviously providing a service that many people utilize, and, botnet-mailed-spam notwithstanding, no actual harm is being perpetrated. The mere fact that some people are annoyed is not enough to warrant legislation or legal action.
While this sort of thing does help give Hotmail and Microsoft in general a bad name (thus justifying the fine) the point isn't that MS was able to get $84k out of this spammer; it's that without a violation of the terms of use, the most he could have been fined for is 1/9 of that. That's hardly a deterrent, considering how easy automated spamming is, and how few clicks would be needed to recoup the loss.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
You're two hours late for a first post, dude.
So if you have recieved spam from me, please send me your name, your address, your social security number, your bank account number, your mother's maiden name, the first pet you owned, the first car you owned, the name of your high school, your credit card number, expiry date and the card verification number.
Please allow six weeks for your account to be cleaned^H^H^H^H^H^H credited.
Have a nice day.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Just on the recieve side. We should be able to write some bots with some amount of AI to respond to spam. Suddenly the spammer is getting 990 bogus replies and may be 10 legitimate replies to his 100 million spam emails. We should be able to swamp out those dumbos who respond to spam. If the spammer has to go through 10 or 100 emails to get one chump, well it is that much more expensive to him.
,p> Would it be illegal to respond in bad faith to spam? IANAL.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I went after a spammer. I got a $100,000 stipulated judgment. As part of the judgment, they agreed to provide the information on other spammers. Their money went to the California Attorney General's office. I wanted the information on the other spammers.
Taking out spammers is not about getting money. It is partly about making points, partly about getting information on other spammers, and to encourage others to go after spammers.
Fight Spammers!
Wow! MS collected 10% of their legal bills.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
Wow, modded down for the first time in several years of posting on Slashdot.
How can a unrated post be "Overrated"? Was what I wrote unjustified by the sources? Was it irrelevant?
Or did the moderator simply feel that Slashdotters needed to be protected from what I wrote?
In other news, Hotmail sets the record for allowing the most spam through it filters.
My current empirical estimate is 1,000,000,000 per day.
If a spammer sends you spam, and is refusing to own up to it, can you DoS his server and wait for him to go to the authorities, just so you can get him in an arrestable situation for the spam? I mean, it would be pretty funny to get him to tell the judge you did it in retaliation for the porno spam he sent you.
I know it's risky, but I think retaliatory hacking and cyberwarfare is justified, provided you can present adequate documentation and research verifying the targets actions, against spammers. It's cheap, if free for the government, since the public it doing the work for them, and they take out spammers without having to spend millions taking them out themselves one by one. Plus, it think it would be very satisfying, like many other things, to be able to fry the server of a spammer, inconveniencing them, and costing them money instead of letting them profit from their flagrant public nusuince and greed.
-----
Sig Sauer
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Yes, we did get a goldmine of information out of the spammer against which we got the stipulated judgment. I knew there was money in spam, but to see one spammer taking in $90,000 - $110,000 every day was an eye opener.
If any of you hate spam, you should thank Mr. Sorehands ... he is a one-man litigational nightmare to spammers and the kooks who use them to market their crappy products.
(Yes B, I will call you back ...)
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
but I'm starting to worry about the implications and far reaching effects of determining what is spam, and unlawful usage of email systems, etc etc.
... but then who gets to determine the definition of spam?
... (and I remember hearing the same thing about the DMCA and some of its glaring faults).
It reminds me vaguely of companies slapping down DMCA suits on anyone who mentions their product or company in a negative light.
Eventually, companies and law enforcement will have the tools and the law on their side (everyone hates spam, right?)
I'm sure we can all come up with a number of scenarios which would highlight the problems of when companies, with money at stake, can arbitrarily determine what is spam. Which of course, will NEVER happen
Eventually, it just seems it will become another tool for stifling what you and I may consider free speech, but yet again, the little guy can't afford $$$$$ to protect himself from big company with mega-lawsuit-fund.
Sigh.
$87177 Time for Bill to buy himself that new ivory back scratcher.
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
"Two years from now, spam will be solved" - Bill Gates, January 2004.
No sig today...
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
For what it's worth, our Information Commissioner is one of all-too-few good guys holding public office in the UK. He and his department have very consistently acted in the public interest, even when it meant directly opposing government policy over things like ID cards, or telling the government that freedom of information requests could not be dodged on technicalities (as with some MPs' expenses just this week). They also provide genuinely helpful guidance, e.g., on their web site there's a simple interactive system that tells you whether your organisation is exempt from requirements to register under the Data Protection Act, which has been useful and reassuring for several local clubs/community groups I've been involved with.
However, it is clear that his department is under-resourced, given the backlog of unhandled requests under the data protection and freedom of information legislation. I suspect this is not an accident, but it's not their fault. Similarly, the various data protection and freedom of information rules the Office of the Information Commisioner deals with have some (IMHO) unnecessary limitations that aren't really in the public interest, but he can't act against people taking advantage of them because the law says it's OK to do so.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You just have to read (-1, Overrated) as (-1, I Don't Agree) these days.
I don't have exact counts, but as a fair estimate, 75% of my down-mods are (-1, Overrated) on posts also moderated up, often with multiple (+1, Insightful) mods.
Don't take it personally. I, for one, found some new and interesting material thanks to your links, and I'm grateful that you took the time to share them.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
He's gotten his 87 grand cut, he's happy, it's solved.
My little site.
The article forgot to include the link to the "pornographic download site." Please post link ASAP.
I have one drug spammer, Robert Smoley -- in Florida that has paid me with a bad check. He wrote the company check as an installment on a stipulated judgment. Tonight, I plan on taking the bad check to the police for to start the prosecution for a bad check.
I wonder, if he can get discounts for his cellmate on viagra.
Fight Spammers!