Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Vs. Spammers, Round Two

Posted by Soulskill on from the round-one-went-well-enough dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Three months after being awarded $873 million in a lawsuit against Atlantis Blue Capital for violating the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, Facebook earlier this week filed a federal complaint against 'Spam King' Sanford Wallace in San Jose District Court. Las Vegas night club manager Adam Arzoomanian and Scott Shaw are also named as defendants in the suit." These filings do not mark the first time Wallace has faced legal action; last May, MySpace won a $230 million judgment against him.

14 of 57 comments (clear)

  1. Judgement-proof by schmidt349 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Usually these spammers insulate themselves from the effect of negative verdicts against them by moving all their assets to offshore accounts where the fed can't touch them and neither can lawyers looking to claim their $x million in damages.

    If only we could literally take the shirts off their backs in partial fulfillment of their obligations we might start to make some headway against the spam kings. Any other suggestions?

    1. Re:Judgement-proof by MrMr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They use the same legal constructions that protect your average CEO from negative verdicts. Good luck with changing that system.

    2. Re:Judgement-proof by queequeg1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the courts have good evidence that the defendant has hidden funds, there are ways to pressure disclosure. I imagine this would particularly be the case for a habitual offender. Here's an article about some of the more severe uses of such power: civil contempt

    3. Re:Judgement-proof by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Usually these spammers insulate themselves from the effect of negative verdicts against them by moving all their assets to offshore accounts where the fed can't touch them and neither can lawyers looking to claim their $x million in damages.

      If only we could literally take the shirts off their backs in partial fulfillment of their obligations we might start to make some headway against the spam kings. Any other suggestions?

      Don't underestimate the ability of the feds to get at accounts; the most powerful being imprisoning them on contempt charges.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Judgement-proof by JNSL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now this is just silly. It misses the point of a justice system, ours in particular. Put the conspiracy theories away.

    5. Re:Judgement-proof by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it wasn't for viruses, there wouldn't be antivirus vendors. If it wasn't for online scam artists, there wouldn't be any cyber-crimes divisions in law enforcement.

      Broken-window economics don't work, of course. If people weren't employed in these professions, they'd be doing something else.

      If the government really wanted to shut down SPAM, it can easily do it by making up bullshit laws and detaining people indefinitely.

      Your post advocates a

      ( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

      approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work....

      Need I go on?

      The most obvious reason is, it's too profitable for them, too hard to track them down, and there are too many countries for them to hide.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  2. Imprisonment? by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imprisonment can be a deterrent.

    Rich man or poor man, they all have only about 70+ years or so on average, max maybe twice that.

    A rich man that's sent to prison for 5 years loses out more than a poor man who has nothing.

    It's not like a poor man is going to be missing out on party cruises to the Bahamas, and all that.

    --
    1. Re:Imprisonment? by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes I am stupid, but where did I say that poor people didn't enjoy their freedom?

      Go look up the term "opportunity cost".

      If you do not understand a simple fact that a rich spammer is likely to enjoy his freedom a lot more than some poor, cold and hungry homeless person in the street, then perhaps I'm the wrong person to explain stuff to you - I'm stupid after all.

      My stupid guess is you probably don't have an idea of what it really means to be poor.

      Sure, the poor can be very content and happy when they have their basic needs met. As Euripides said, "When a man's stomach is full it makes no difference whether he is rich or poor".

      Unfortunately for the really poor, that doesn't happen regularly enough.

      As for your last paragraph see:
      http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Homeless-Man-Smashes-Cruiser-to-go-to-Jail.html

      Unlike Robert Jenifer, the filthy rich aren't going to be intentionally smashing police cruisers just to get themselves in jail for free food and shelter.

      --
  3. thats a lot of spare cash.. by deckitbruiseit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At some point, these lawsuits have to just not even matter to these guys. "Well, we're already in the hole for $1.2 billion, what's another $200 million? It's not like we actually have all this money anyway..." Kind of like someone who is put in prison with 150 life sentences. Really? What's the point?

    1. Re:thats a lot of spare cash.. by DiveX · · Score: 2, Informative

      It also provides closure for other cases. What if a lifetime sentence was really that long. If someone was accused of multiple crimes that carried that sentence and you are a victim (or family member of the victim) would you necessarily want the prosecution to stop after the first case and go "we got all we can get, why even bother proving the other cases anyway?"

      --
      Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
  4. 'War on SPAM' by ericspinder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the government really wanted to shut down SPAM, it can easily do it by making up bullshit laws and detaining people indefinitely.

    Yea, that's worked so very well with the 'war on drugs'.

    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
  5. Bullets! by swordgeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OK, I'm not a cruel man. At heart, I can't really support the death penalty for anyone.

    But if I read tomorrow that Sanford Wallace was found dead with a bullet in his brain, I would have a hard time suppressing a loud cheer. Fucking deadbeat doesn't deserve the life he's wasted on crime.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  6. reminds me of a quote by eltaco · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.

    http://bash.org/?203815

    --
    It's not about fate, it's about character.
    there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
  7. Why? by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Funny

    As a non-American, I think I speak for the majority of the rest of the planet when I say "Why the shuddering f*** haven't you lived this guy up yet?"

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a