Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Awarded $711 Million In Anti-Spam Case

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook is on a never-before-seen legal rampage against high profile internet spammers. Today Facebook was awarded yet another nine-figure settlement, this time for over $700 million. Facebook also has a criminal contempt case on Wallace, which means a high likelihood of prison, a big win for the internet and a milestone in cyber law. 'The record demonstrates that Wallace willfully violated the statutes in question with blatant disregard for the rights of Facebook and the thousands of Facebook users whose accounts were compromised by his conduct,' Jeremy Fogel wrote in his judgment order, which permanently prohibits Wallace from accessing the Facebook Web site or creating a Facebook account, among other restrictions."

6 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. A Time Line of Sanford Wallace by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's wrong with this picture?

    2004-10-08 FTC files suit against Wallace to stop infecting computers with spyware that promised to remove the problem for $30.
    2006-03-22 FTC files suit against Wallace--Wallace and co-defendants fined for over $5 million.
    2008-01-26 MySpace awarded $230 million from Wallace in LA.
    2009-10-29 (Yesterday) Facebook awarded $711 million from Wallace.

    If you say seven hundred million and jail time is too much, I say it isn't enough. A warning didn't stop him, five million didn't stop him, two hundred million didn't stop him and I'm sure seven hundred million won't stop him. Throw the book at him and lock him up--this is definition CAN-SPAM Act. And he's a heavy repeat offender, it's not like this guy was blindsided with a surprise ruling. Spam is too kind of a label for this guy, I would hit him for extortion and identity theft on massive scales in addition to CAN-SPAM.

    How he continued to operate with a two hundred million dollar loss a year and a half ago is beyond me. Is he just declaring bankruptcy (like he did back June '09), rolling over and doing it again? Or avoiding states where there's a warrant for his arrest or what?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace by El+Jynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heh. Nice. But the problem is as old as humanity itself: forbidding is one thing, preventing is quite another. I agree, jailtime is the only way to go for a recidivist like that. And he's just abusing international law and such: just because you go bust in one country doesn't mean you can't have $500m tucked away in another. Until treaties are formed which address these problems - and thankfully, tax havens have come under heavy fire of late - this type of crap is just going to continue.

      What I don't get is why a joker like that - who is obviously intelligent - doesn't just find a legal way to get rich. It can't be that hard.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
    2. Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It can't be that hard.

      Yes, well, it can be that hard. There are lots of intelligent people who aren't and can't be rich, although they want to be.

      More than intelligence is required.

      And apparently, for this guy, he's skilled in getting rich using uncouth methods. It's what he's familiar with, it's what comes easy for him (I suppose)

  2. Idea! by gcnaddict · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook should just use this as their business model.

    I mean hey, if the money ever actually does come in, it's perfectly viable given how often people spam Facebook users.

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
  3. Good ol' Spamford by willith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sweet merciful crap, is Spamford Wallace still around? We were stabbing voodoo dolls with his picture on them more than ten years ago. His C.V. reads like list of things that are wrong with the Internet. If there were ever someone that the world would be a better place without, it's this guy.

  4. Re:Nice by DurendalMac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey, the little guy isn't always the good guy and the big guy isn't always the bad guy.