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."

4 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. I bet that really hurt... by HatchedEggs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  2. Not nearly enough. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
  3. How's the weather in Hell? by solevita · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    I know this goes against what many on /. may stand for, but I have to say that I'm surprised and pleased.

    Go Microsoft! The **PAA could learn much from you.

  4. Anti-Spammer nonsense by apologetichardcore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.