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."
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.
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
That's because in general, most spammers haven't broken any significant laws in their jurisdiction, or those who have broken laws, have not caused significant enough damage (monetary or otherwise) for a criminal investigation (which must precede a trial) to start. There's bigger fish for the DA to fry.
Remember that this story isn't about a criminal case. MSFT filed a civil suit to seek relief directly from the courts in monetary terms.
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.
Not intentionally. People still use them as "FROM:" addresses w/ proxies or open relays. Back in the day they were victrims of these bastard ass programs called "Internal Mailers" that utilize thousands and thousands of botted accounts, and send out 250 or so mails each. This guy sounds like he wasnt near that sophisticated. That's why he got caught.
Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?