Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Spammer Fined Over $1 Billion

innocent_white_lamb writes "A man has been fined ONE BEELYUN DOLLARS (yes, really) for sending 4,366,386 spam messages that were posted on Facebook. He was fined $100 for each message, and including punitive damages he now owes $1,068,928,721.46. A ruling by a US District Court judge in San Jose, California has now been upheld by the Quebec Superior Court (the defendant lives in Montreal)."

74 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. Now he's sending out spam.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Asking for help paying for it!

    1. Re:Now he's sending out spam.. by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      You think that Nigerian prince will help him out?

    2. Re:Now he's sending out spam.. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have any better ideas? Hm, actually that's not a bad idea... What else does the guy have to lose?

      Another billion dollars, perhaps.

      Maybe we should tell the RIAA that he's been embedding Britney Spears songs as background music in his spam.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:Now he's sending out spam.. by naz404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did no one else notice the even more horrifying fact that he set up phishing websites to steal account usernames and passwords?

      According to Facebook, Guerbuez fooled its users into providing him with their usernames and passwords. One method was the use of fake websites that posed as legitimate destinations.

      This guy deserves to be repeatedly sodomized in jail with the use of unpeeled pineapples.

    4. Re:Now he's sending out spam.. by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dear Canadian court. Your BILLION DOLLARS is currently in an account in Bahrain. Unfortunately I am unable to get to it without bank fees of $5,000. If you transfer the money into this account .....

  2. I don't feel sorry, but... by wealthychef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just have to think -- when was the last time a large corporation was fined $1 billion for anything? This has to be just because he had a crappy lawyer or something. Justice quality depends on personal resources in America, no doubt about it.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
    1. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just have to think -- when was the last time a large corporation was fined $1 billion for anything? This has to be just because he had a crappy lawyer or something. Justice quality depends on personal resources in America, no doubt about it.

      The real question is when have they paid it... There have been fines. (Reduced on appeal)

    2. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just have to think -- when was the last time a large corporation was fined $1 billion for anything? This has to be just because he had a crappy lawyer or something.

      If my lawyer had come and said "Great news, I got your fine reduced from $1 billion to $10 million" I'd say "Great, that's like reduing my 20000 year sentence to a 200 year sentence." Corporations try their best to avoid a billion dollar fine because they might just have the money to pay it. If my lawyer wasted his time doing the same, he would be a crappy lawyer.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by euphemistic · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder how much the fine would have been if each spam message contained a song "owned" by one of the MAFIAA. You could generate a fine larger than the entire money supply of the whole world put together. This feels almost like a challenge now.

    4. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll believe it when the money is paid. How much time does BP get to produce the money? Under what circumstances would they not have to pay? Nobody writes a check just because Big O said to.

      Obama and BP needed a public relations victory, so the most expedient thing to do was for BP to offer a huge settlement. The loopholes could be discussed after the cameras were turned off.

    5. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In this case, the spammer went with the, no lawyer defence and didn't even bother to turn up. Big catch with that is "Guerbuez fooled its users into providing him with their user names and passwords" and that is interfering with a computer network a criminal offence. The evidence for which has now been established in a civil court and the spammer has show complete contempt for that court not only be freely admitting his guilt but also by mocking the fine by saying he will declare bankrupt and keep all the criminal proceeds from that crime.

      This then forces US law to intervene and seek criminal prosecution for interfering with a computer network, via obtaining user name and passwords under false pretences and using that to fraudulently misrepresent the products he was advertising as being recommended by friends of the victims and also interfering with those 'friends' computer network.

      You have the right to remain silent, remember those words when you want to get rich quick by breaking the law and don't make a ass out of yourself by publicly bragging about and defending your criminal activities.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the real question is how the hell does $100 per message times 4.4 million messages equal $1 billion. $600 million in "punitive damages?"

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    7. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Declaring bankruptcy doesn't do a single thing to shield you when there are criminal charges involved.

    8. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Informative

      4 years if I recall the terms of the agreement, and the first installment is already being doled out to people along the coast who were affected by the spill.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    9. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by spyder-implee · · Score: 2, Informative

      I fail to see a problem. If he can pay it, good. If he can't, at least it sets a good precedent for when a business does get busted spamming.

      --
      Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    10. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by lavagolemking · · Score: 3, Informative

      249,428,104,576, or 249.4 billion messages will surpass the world GDP.

      $61,060,000,000,000 GDP of world ÷ $244.80 per message. = 249,428,104,576 messages. Should a spammer send this many junk messages, and get caught, then by legal precedent he will owe the equivalent of the world GDP. I wonder if that's more than the number of AOL disks that have been mailed...

    11. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't, it's $440m for the messages and the remainder is punitive damages.

    12. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since the guy's canadian and lives in canada.. And this is a US court ruling..

      He went with the "I don't live in that country and they can fuck off" defence...

    13. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by lemmis_86 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, what about e.g. medicinal corporations that trash medicines/drugs that are shipped from India to Africa, just because they infringe on some patent, forcing Africa to buy expensive white-man drugs? Isn't that a crime against humanity? Shouldn't they be fined about 96 beelyun dollars?

    14. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by masmullin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually to make matters more confusing, he is a Quebecker, they have different civil laws than the rest of Canada... however the Quebec civil courts upheld the US ruling.

    15. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      After he's used it not only has he lost his deposit I don't want it back.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    16. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by beav007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a total of $1,068,928,721.46 USD, which is about $83.45 CAD.

      Completely different.

    17. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by Sulphur · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, the real question is how the hell does $100 per message times 4.4 million messages equal $1 billion. $600 million in "punitive damages?"

      Plus $400 million in Court Costs for all the copies they had to make.

    18. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What about the 1.25 billion Intel paid to AMD? I don't recall that getting reduced on appeal. AMD even posted a profit due to the settlement.

      http://www.intelsinsides.com/page/com_6.html

    19. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RTFA: "According to Facebook, Guerbuez fooled its users into providing him with their usernames and passwords. One method was the use of fake websites that posed as legitimate destinations."

      "After Guerbuez gained access to user's personal profiles, he used computer programs to send out millions of messages promoting a variety of products, including marijuana and penis-enlargement products, Facebook said."

      How much damage is that to you?

      Whatever the damages are, to me the punitive fines of USD100 per user seem fair to me. So he should still be looking at USD400+ million in fines.

      I don't think you want to encourage "economies of scale" when it comes to crimes.

      So if you figure out a clever but illegal way to paste ads on 4 million people's front-doors, you should only be fined the same amount as someone who does it on one door?

      Yes those people "could always remove the crap on their front door", but if you keep letting people get away with it, you end up with crap permanently on your door.

      You do city-scale damage, you get city-scale fines. Sounds fair to me. Don't like it, think before you do it.

      It's like those littering fines. Yes it doesn't cost that much to remove one coke can from the ground, or a discarded wrapper.

      I don't see why someone should get a smaller fine per offense than a "normal person" just because they chose to make money in a way which involves littering on a massive scale.

      --
    20. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Great news, I got your fine reduced from $1 billion to $10 million"

      ..." and my bill will be just 5 % of this difference."

    21. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, 'cause that $1B total fine to a bald, goateed, tatooed, BROKE spammer in Canada is really going to send that extra message: "all you bald, goateed, tatooed, broke spammers in Canada, don't spam or we will fine you almost a tenth of a percent of your country's GDP, payable immediately!"

      That'll learn 'em.

    22. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Errr BP has paid nearly a $1bn (ONE BILLION DOLLARS) in claims alone before this fund was set up.

      But that's no where near as exciting as talking out of your arse against "teh evil corporation". Just as well you posted AC because you are just that!

    23. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by rah1420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please tell me how his physical appearance has anything to do with what he's being assessed as a fine.

      And you might amend that description to "bald, goateed, tattooed, BROKE, unrepentant and defiant." Seems to me that if you brag about your crime, threaten BK so that nobody can 'come after you' etc. etc. that perhaps the judge setting the award might take that into consideration when pronouncing sentence, dontcha think?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    24. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry, but "Quebecois" is the French spelling. "Quebecker" is the English one. There are still a few anglophones left in Quebec.

      Making it the third most used language after Arabic and French

    25. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if that's more than the number of AOL disks that have been mailed...

      No less by about 50.

      forget grey goo, I have this nightmare end of world scenario where all of the Earth's matter is converted into AOL disks

    26. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by frostfreek · · Score: 3, Funny

      The extra money goes to the Harmonized Sales Tax.

    27. Re:I don't feel sorry, but... by mmontour · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since the guy's canadian and lives in canada.. And this is a US court ruling..
      He went with the "I don't live in that country and they can fuck off" defence...

      Ask Mark Emery how well that defense works.

  3. who knew? by Wingman+5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who knew that Billion was spelled differently in Canada, maybe it is like color and colour.

    1. Re:who knew? by md65536 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought you spelt it "bouillon"?

      Ah oui, but jusque en Kebecke. Here en le Montreal we often say "Ehpardonez moi, allez vous un bouillon dolare? Non? Moi aussi."

    2. Re:who knew? by aiht · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Ehpardonez moi, allez vous un bouillon dolare? Non? Moi aussi."

      "Pardon me, have you soup dollars? No? Me Australian."
      Have I got that right?

    3. Re:who knew? by all204 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope. You can't get legal fines discharged, nor secured loans, like student loans. I've looked into it in the past, bankruptcy in Canada isn't the holy grail people think it is. At least thats whats been explained to me in the past.

    4. Re:who knew? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Pardon me, are you going to a billion dollars? No? Me also."

      I think you accidentally the whole thing.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  4. Good. by blhack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is something that I've tried and tried and tried to explain to some of my friends that work in marketing. When you are sending spam, you are literally using somebody *else's* property in a way that they don't want you to use it in order to give them messages.

    This should be looked at no differently than causing unused speakers in my house to play radio advertisements when I want them turned off.

    You send spam, and it's taking up a limited resource (disk, bandwidth, power, man hours, etc.) to your end and against the will of the recipient. I really hope that there are more cases like this.

    --
    NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    1. Re:Good. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is something that I've tried and tried and tried to explain to some of my friends that work in marketing.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
      --Upton Sinclair

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Good. by Garwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's even worse than that in this case. According to the article, he was compromising other people's accounts using fake websites, and then using those accounts to send his spam so that it would appear to be from their friends. So, it's not just spam in this case - it's fraud and identity theft.

      If it were up to me, he would also be going to jail.

      --
      Robert B. Marks
      Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
  5. He's not very worried by Warll · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry that only works out to about twelve Canadian dollars.

    1. Re:He's not very worried by fyoder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hah, jokes on me. Repeated meme blindness.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
  6. If He Files Bankruptcy ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If he files bankruptcy, and Facebook doesn't get their billion dollars, can Facebook claim the billion as a 'loss' (a la 'bad debt', 'uncollectable account', etc) and get a tax break out of it?

    1. Re:If He Files Bankruptcy ... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dunno about Canada, but a bit of sniffing around turned up this: US Federal law says that they can only take up to 25% of your paycheck, or exempts up to 30x the federal minimum wage per week, whichever is bigger (though according to that site, child support, alimony and such can be taken in bigger amounts). They could come after a goodly chunk of what you own, though again, with a healthy dose of exemptions.

      Basically, I figure that they'd leave you with enough stuff to live simply, and not much else.

      OTOH, not so sure ab't wanting to get locked up in PMTIA prison just to avoid paying it or to make some sort of point... it would be hella easier on one's anus to just move to Mexico or Central/South America, no?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  7. Priorities.. by Renraku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funny..a company was just fined a few million for (illegal) human experimentation of their bone anchoring glue which resulted in several deaths, but a spammer that didn't cause any physical harm or death is fined a billion dollars. Let's get some file sharers fined for more than the GDP of several small nations combined too, for good measure.

    I hate spammers, but you're telling me that a few million spam messages are worth more than several LIVES and ILLEGAL MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION ON HUMANS?

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Priorities.. by Teancum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many lives were impacted by the medical testing and how many lives were impacted by the spamming? I think $100 per person sounds pretty reasonable, and the spammer made a conscious decision to send the messages out to the other million or so people that received the spam. It was his fault, the spammer, that so many messages went out.

      At the very least, this ought to make major companies shy away from potential spamming as I'm sure the shareholders would notice a billion dollars leaving the company.

      What I wonder here is if or how somebody can bankrupt their way out of a legal obligation like this?

    2. Re:Priorities.. by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Funny..a company was just fined a few million for (illegal) human experimentation of their bone anchoring glue which resulted in several deaths, but a spammer that didn't cause any physical harm or death is fined a billion dollars. Let's get some file sharers fined for more than the GDP of several small nations combined too, for good measure.

      I hate spammers, but you're telling me that a few million spam messages are worth more than several LIVES and ILLEGAL MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION ON HUMANS?

      Absolutely! They found a practical use for lawyers! A discovery of that magnitude is worth a Nobel or two.

      He said 'experimentation on humans'.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:Priorities.. by md65536 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Funny..a company was just fined a few million for (illegal) human experimentation of their bone anchoring glue which resulted in several deaths ...

      Oh come on... it's ONLY their bone anchoring glue. I mean, do we even need that? They could have died from anything. Loose bone syndrome. Wandering pelvis. Smoking. Boneitis. All of these are natural causes.

  8. It's a good news/bad news sort of thing by jhp64 · · Score: 2, Funny

    From TFA: "He’s also barred from opening a Facebook account."

    --
    This is the way Bi-Coloured Python-Rock-Snakes always talk.
  9. That's too much by chebucto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A 1 billion dollar fine is absurd. First, there's no way he can ever pay it. Second, it is way out of proportion to the harm caused. Third, it undermines respect for the courts by making them look out to lunch, foolish and/or vindictive.

    Think about what a billion dollars represents: the lifetime's earnings of a hundreds of well-paid people, or a thousand low-wage people, or the GDP of a small city. Spam sucks, but the damage this guy caused doesn't measure up.

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    1. Re:That's too much by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nobody expects him to pay. Even a fine of 1 million dollars (1/1000 of the amount) would be essentially impossible to pay - that's many people's lifetime earnings before expenses.

      This is clearly a no-more-fucking-around sort of fine. Whatever they fined him at, he wouldn't be paying it, so might as well use the actual amount to send a message.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:That's too much by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be honest I don't really care whether they can pay or not if the damages are proportional to the harm caused. Even if you're dead broke you can cause great grief to other people, same with people that serve a dozen consecutive life sentences. It's worth making the point even if there's nothing to be gained from it. But though I find spammers to be the scum of the earth, I got to admit there are worse people. It doesn't help taking the damage figures in US courts seriously either, it's like taken out of an Austin Powers movie...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  10. Re:um by Libertarian001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Possibly they're not "upholding" the US court ruling, but rather, they're not finding contrary to what a foreign court has found. Splitting hairs? Maybe. The one SCOTUS case that I heard oral arguments for (yes, in person) was a jurisdictional issue. A US merchant had already been found against by the Chinese Admiralty, he didn't like it, counter-sued in the US and it made it's way up to SCOTUS. I think it was Ginsberg that came right out and asked why they should create an international incident by "over-ruling" a foreign court. Sharp lady.

  11. Re:um by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can a Canadian court "uphold" a ruling from a US district court? Why do Canadian courts even care unless this guy is going to be extradited?

    Because this is a fine rather than a jail sentence, no extradition is necessary. By upholding the ruling, the Canadian court is agreeing to collect the money on behalf of the American court.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  12. Where's my money? by DeadlyFoez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they "fined" him $100 for each message, then with the 20+ messages that I got because of him means that the US government should be giving ME that money. I'm the one who got spammed, why is the government getting money for what he did wrong to me? That does not make sense.

  13. Re:um by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Funny

    Am I the only one who always finds it oddly disturbing that the acronym for Supreme Court of the United States looks an awful lot like "scrotum?"

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  14. Re:How does this work? by debrain · · Score: 3, Informative

    Have a look at the concept called "comity".

  15. Re:um by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's pretty fucking simple this guys... Don't mess it up.

    A US court ruling has no power to get anything from the guy as long as he and all his possessions are outside of the US. Before anything happens in Canada a Canadian court needs to look at the case and see if it agrees on the ruling.

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  16. Re: [subject removed] by zblack_eagle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Somehow parent seems strangely relevant

  17. Re:Now thats justice for you, American style!! by lavardo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, that fine didn't include all their spamming, lame ads & sharing of personal information.

  18. Re:Heh by lavardo · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure a security software company could hire him with no problem.

  19. Let's see... by lavagolemking · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder how much the fine would have been if each spam message contained a song "owned" by one of the MAFIAA. You could generate a fine larger than the entire money supply of the whole world put together. This feels almost like a challenge now.

    4,366,386 messages x $200,000 = $873,277,200,000 or $873.3 billion. Actually, it's only a couple hundred times more than what he owes now, which is more than the total amount of money the U.S. government gave the banks in the TARP program, but still just under 1/3 of the U.S. national debt as of October 2009. Are there any economists out there who can tell us if this amount of money is printed (Canada or U.S.)? Would it be theoretically possible for him to walk into the court, and pay in cash?

    1. Re:Let's see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean the US deficit, not the debt. The debt is $13.6 trillion, the 2009 deficit was $1.42 trillion.

  20. I've always favoured fair spam sentencing by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I will agree with spammers that an individual spam is not a major imposition. However, it does cost people something. E-mail isn't free, you have to maintain bandwidth to receive it (a double digit percentage of our university's usage is e-mail in various forms) and it does take time for people to delete it. Not a lot, but some. So, let's be fair, we'll say a 0.1 cent fine and 0.1 second of jail or probation time for each message. Oh what's that? You sent 1 trillion spam messages? Sorry, guess you are fucked then. Should have considered the scale of your operation.

    I like it because it would really hammer home that the problem with spam is the scale, and that punishments would scale with that. So suppose you spam your company's mailing list a few times and rather than ask you to knock it off, your boss presses charges. Ok well you sent 10 messages to 1,000 people so 10,000 messages. You are on the hook for $10 in fines and about 16 minutes of probation. A mild slap on the wrist, basically, unlikely they'd even prosecute. However you are a major pharmaceutical spammer that has sent out 3 billion messages? That'll be $3 million please and we'll see you in about 9 and a half years.

    I realize that the way the laws are structured now such a thing couldn't actually happen, I just like the idea. An individual unwanted e-mail message is not a big deal, that is true, it is the scale and thus the scale should determine the punishment.

  21. Re:um by M4DP4RROT · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's pretty fucking simple this guys... Don't mess it up.

    A US court ruling has no power to get anything from the guy as long as he and all his possessions are outside of the US. Before anything happens in Canada a Canadian court needs to look at the case and see if it agrees on the ruling.

    From the summary:

    A ruling by by a US District Court judge in San Jose, California has now been upheld by the Quebec Superior Court

  22. Re:um by dakameleon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Two uneven halves make it up, they're generally wrinkly and balding, and tend to hang around not doing anything much useful most of the time.

    Not too far off the mark?

    --
    Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  23. Don't cut this guy any breaks by multiben · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To just update you folks who don't like to read and feel like we should cut this guy a break, he didn't just send annoying spam messages - he conned passwords out of users and then fraudulently accessed their accounts. If it was just the spam that would be one thing, but this is much more serious than that. As far as article summaries go this one is pretty crappy because it misses the whole point of the story.

    1. Re:Don't cut this guy any breaks by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "he conned passwords out of users and then fraudulently accessed their accounts"

      When are these idiots who were stupid enough to get 'conned' going to see that money, then? Sounds like they were the ones who were 'damaged'.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  24. Re: [subject removed] by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Funny

    You know this is what bugs the hell out of me, it ain't the spam, its the stupidity. So as a public service to future spammers let the old Hairyfeet get up on his stump and pass some common sense...

    ATTENTION SPAMMERS...You aren't doing this for your health, right? you actually want to make money doing this one can assume, correct? Then TARGET YOUR FRICKING AUDIENCE!!! dumbasses! This is a fricking geeksite, do you think ANYBODY here gives a shit about sports? what an idiot! Watch and learn moron, THIS is how you sell to geeks..*..Cheap iPad knockoffs!!! Cool funky flashdrives!!! Cheap game emulator running MP3 players!!!

    See how easy that was? I bet there is a fricking stampede at that site right now, and their servers are glowing red hot from the giant nerd herd hitting the goodies. It is ALL about targeting your audience. Want to make money with food? Set up a donut shop next to the weight watchers. Want to make money off geeks? Then toys with lots of buttons, flash memory, dodgy hard drives, fake CPUs, all these things are like candy to babies.

    *...I'm not actually getting any money for those links, just showing what one would use to target this audience, well and I like cheap toys too ;-)

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  25. Ridiculous by digitallife · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The joke here is that the courts have virtually guaranteed that this guy will go back to spamming by giving him such a large monetary punishment. I mean consider from his perspective: he can no longer make any money legally (other than a very basic income that the courts will allow him to keep), so he's forced to go under the table (or live a paltry life). Considering that his skills and contacts all revolve around spamming... Guess what his next illicit job is going to be? Spamming!

    On top of that, claiming that a single spam causes $100 worth of damages is ridiculous, verging on incompetent. A spam causes maybe a cent worth of damages, rounding to the nearest penny, even including wasting peoples time and whatnot. Double that for punitive and the total becomes a much more sensible $100,000.

  26. Did you bother to read the article? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What damages? What damage was done by this guy?

    Apart from stealing a load of bandwidth and wasting about a couple of years of productivity (deleting four million spams adds up), he set up a load of fake websites to steal Facebook user's passwords (which is how he sent the spam).

    Is that your definition of 'harmless fun'? Seems other people don't agree with you...

    --
    No sig today...
  27. So, the vitims get? by kuei12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $100 each? Or, is it like the american legal system where the victims just get a warm feeling in their hearts just knowing they made lawyers richer?

  28. The spammers's stupidest argument by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Quote the spammer, “If there’s anything that does hit my e-mail box that I didn’t ask to receive, I’ll simply press the delete button."

    Any spammer which uses this line of argument should be locked in a prison cell with a 1200 baud terminal logged in to an email account. He only gets fed if he responds to the "Your food is ready" email within 15 minutes.

    The email address he is given for this purpose is posted on every spammer list on Earth.