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."
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.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the "Can-Spam Act" is meant to stop people from spamming, specifically from the false and misleading type?
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/
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.
Facebook have turned a profit now right?
Jonathanjk.com
It's good to see a corporation winning a $700,000,000 against an individual once in a while.
Now, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
There's a certain point where we need to consider the death penalty for this sort of thing. Sure, we normally only use the death penalty for heinous crimes, but from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society. If Wallace is taken out and shot he'll lose about 365*50*24= 438,000 life hours. On the other hand, even a year or two of Wallace's normal behavior causes the rest of society to lose far more time. We should consider a death penalty for serious spammers or possibly a long sentence where he is kept far away from any computer.
... the money to the users who suffered damage?
"Facebook's application for a default judgment against Wallace for violating the Can-Spam Act"
Cool new app!
I crack myself up.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
The CAN-SPAM act ruined it by superceding prior federal law that made sending junk faxes/e-mail subject to a per-message penalty to be paid to the recipient, prior to the act.
Before then.. individuals did sometimes did sue spammers, I believe it was ~$500/message..
1) Start Web 2.0 web site utilizing every buzzword you can find
2) Desparately woo users until you get large enough to matter
3) Sit down a year or more later to desperately figure out a revenue model
4) Provide Spammers a way to proliferate
5) Sue them!
6) PROFIT$$$$$$$
Not only that, but this also avoids the usual problem in Slashdot business plans in that there is no question marks in either steps 3 or 4.
Anyone got a good idea?
Unwritten Rule of Acquisition #317-: " If you are a big bully, go beet up on someone who annoys the hell out of everyone else. It's highly profitable in direct Latinum and customer willingness to give you more Latinum."
Facebook should be appointed Grand Nagus for coming up with such a lucrative idea.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Now if only people would stop 'spamming' me with their Facebook invites...
... waiting to see a collection on that. Most likely he won't pay a dime of that fine. There is no reason to expect otherwise.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Wallace and his company Smartbot.net" Sort of like naming your firm "Ruthless Swindlers, Inc."
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
There's a certain point where we need to consider the death penalty for this sort of thing.
Are you trying to actually accomplish something or are you just trying to make yourself feel better?
from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society
OK, we'll go for the latter (much) more so than the former.
There are multiple reasons that any sensible person can quickly come up with as to why this would be a useless guesture:
And thats just getting started...
You'd might as well use a voodoo doll, it would be just as effective and far less expensive.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
From the summary:
I thought criminal cases were always "The State v. ___" or another government agency. I have a hard time believing that Facebook has a criminal case against the guy.
Is there a lawyer in the house (or at least someone who plays lawyer on Slashdot)?
If you aren't willing to carry out the sentence yourself, with your parents watching, you don't really believe in it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Wallace is the guy that invented mass email spam. If his ISP had shut him down on day 1, the world might be a different place today. Spam exists because ISPs tolerate it.
It is almost unheard of for a plaintiff to collect money from a spammer. They're either broke, or they've successfully hidden their money. The $711M judgment is purely symbolic. Facebook knows full well that they'll never collect a dime.
I agree that jail time is the only solution. Wallace is the recidivist's recidivist.
Prison rape is a serious problem and should not be taken lightly. I am appalled and disgusted by your suggestion that some poor criminal should be forced to have sex with Sanford Wallace. There is no law on earth that can sentence a man to such an awful fate. Our constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and it would do you well to never forget it!