Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Spammer Fined $360 Million

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook has been awarded $360,500,000 in damages against spammer Philip Porembski, who phished the login details of at least 116,000 Facebook users and sent more than 7.2 million spam messages to victims' online friends. Facebook claimed it received more than 8,000 complaints from users as a result of the spam campaign, and more than 4,500 users had deactivated their accounts."

32 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. wrong plaintiff by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And how much of that are Facebook passing along to the actual victims?

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:wrong plaintiff by Talderas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Facebook is getting paid $80,111.11 for each deactivated account. I estimate that $0 will be passed along to those that deactivated their account.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    2. Re:wrong plaintiff by gorzek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They won't pass along any of it because they're not likely to get an appreciable portion of that sum from the defendant. Do you really think the average spammer has $360M stashed away somewhere?

    3. Re:wrong plaintiff by joocemann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And how much of that are Facebook passing along to the actual victims?

      Don't you get a free online photo storage/sharing messaging service that includes a chat messenger and highly functional plugin-like apps/games?

      Security is not absolute, and surely they do not take the attacks lightly, but I'm not sure how/why someone should GET money when they've paid nothing into the system (aside from personal information that they willingly released for use/resell).

    4. Re:wrong plaintiff by Hatta · · Score: 2

      How much of that do you think Facebook will actually collect? They'll be lucky to get $360 out of the guy, let alone $360 million.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:wrong plaintiff by spazdor · · Score: 2

      because

      So, are you proposing that if the damages were hypothetically paid, the victims would get more than $0?

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    6. Re:wrong plaintiff by gorzek · · Score: 2

      Well, no, probably not. Just that Facebook's unlikely to see much (if any) of the money in the first place, so it's a bit of a moot issue.

    7. Re:wrong plaintiff by Stregano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am pretty sure your user information has already been sold by Facebook and I am also pretty sure you will get as much of that 3k that you got for FB selling your information.

      --
      The world is how you make it
    8. Re:wrong plaintiff by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      Wrong plaintiff? Wrong defendant!

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    9. Re:wrong plaintiff by Solandri · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sure he has some buddies in Nigeria who can loan him the money.

    10. Re:wrong plaintiff by bberens · · Score: 2

      The real victims are the advertisers who cannot exploit your personal information for profit.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    11. Re:wrong plaintiff by ifrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      highly functional plugin-like apps/games

      Wow, sounds like Facebook has really changed a lot since I last checked.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    12. Re:wrong plaintiff by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 2

      Don't you get a free online photo storage/sharing messaging service that includes a chat messenger and highly functional plugin-like apps/games?

      No. I pay for it by having to see ads and having any personal information I use on said service sold to third parties. And not only is it not free but I would hardly call it "highly functional" either.

    13. Re:wrong plaintiff by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't have to look at the ads? Where's the option to turn them off, then? I can't seem to find the setting... Yeah, yeah, I know, adblock.

      It isn't about why facebook owes anybody any money. Facebook wasn't the victim. Facebook was not compromised. It shouldn't have received the settlement in the first place.

    14. Re:wrong plaintiff by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2

      I agree, these amounts are meant more for deterrents for future cases then reality today. In actual fact, the dude is going to declare bankruptcy and have a clean slate.

    15. Re:wrong plaintiff by philw · · Score: 2

      Since when can you declare bankruptcy on a court judgment?

  2. Awarded damages for what? by lordandmaker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Having an easy-to-use phishing platform?

  3. Fined? Huh? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

    There was no "fine". This is a civil judgement. Were it a fine, it might have some teeth behind it, but the spammer can essentially laugh off a civil monetary award. Remember, he's a criminal, so it's not like obeying the law is something that he does. All this does is prevent him from inheriting anything from his parents.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  4. Stupid Court System by tobiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    $360million is a meaningless number which accomplishes nothing. $8,000 would actually have an impact. I'm with the Republicans on this one, tort reform is long overdue.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    1. Re:Stupid Court System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      $360million is a meaningless number which accomplishes nothing. $8,000 would actually have an impact. I'm with the Republicans on this one, tort reform is long overdue.

      Yep, an $8000 fine for 7.2 million spam messages *would* have an impact. It would demonstrate that there's no punishment for doing it, and ENCOURAGE IT.

      Funny how the same fucks who are always whinging about "tort reform" are typically screaming about how we need to be "tough on crime" with uber-long sentences. Apparently, doing crime only counts if you're unfortunate enough to not be rich.

    2. Re:Stupid Court System by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > 360million is a meaningless number which accomplishes nothing.

      It bankrupts the spammer.

      > $8,000 would actually have an impact.

      That might not bankrupt him.

      > I'm with the Republicans on this one, tort reform is long overdue.

      Aside from the fact that "tort reform" is an insurance industry con, this has nothing to do with it. The suit was brought under a Federal statute which fixes the damages. "Tort reform" is about product liability and malpractice torts.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Stupid Court System by tobiah · · Score: 2

      The guy doesn't have $8000, he probably is still living in his mom's basement. But it's low enough that he would still have to deal with it, and not so high that it's worth declaring bankruptcy. The pain of having to pay the fine while loudly claiming innocence would be a deterent. But $360M is high enough to interfere with his ability to go straight, and unreasonable enough for him to continue feeling like he did nothing wrong.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  5. Re:Fined? Huh? by joocemann · · Score: 2

    If you don't pay your civil debts you can be jailed. This is the likely end of the situation.

  6. Jail the jerk by Simonetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Put this bozo in prison for a LONG time. Gitmo his ass. He deserves it. We (the tech community) must clean up the spammers, hustlers, and criminals on the internet. If we don't (and no one else will or can do it) then no one will take us seriously and OUR vision of what the internet is supposed to be will be overruled by lawyers, global corporations, and their goon squads.

        It is unlikely that this asshole actually has $360,000 to pay the fine. And he committed a serious wide-ranging crime of fraud. So, yes, put this jerk in jail for a long time. Or at least as long as the feds would put a college student in hard jail for selling a little bag of bud to another college student. Which is a long time.

  7. Glad he lost, but... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 2

    $360 million dollars is a laughable joke. It might as well have been $360 trillion. This guy will never pay even 1% of that amount, and I'm amazed that anyone in the justice department thought Facebook was damaged for $360million because they lost 4,500 users. If so, doing the math, Facebook should pay me around $80,000 just to keep my account activated. Ok, well they can keep 5%, a decent profit margin.

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  8. No debtors prison in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you don't pay your civil debts you can be jailed. This is the likely end of the situation.

    In America you only go to jail if you REFUSE to pay a civil judgment and get a contempt of court citation.

    If you CANNOT pay there's no prison.

    Otherwise OJ Simpson would've been in debtor's prison shortly after the Ronald Goldman civil verdict appeals were exhausted.

    It's not unheard of for people to make themselves "legally broke" to escape seizure and "legally very low income" to escape garnishment the rest of their lives (or until that state's limit on collecting judgments expires) after a civil judgment, much to the chagrin of whoever got the judgment against them.

    1. Re:No debtors prison in America by adamstew · · Score: 2

      The GP got it a little wrong, actually.

      The people you know of probably got jailed for ignoring a court order to show up to a debtors exam. Once you get a judgement against you and the creditor is unable to collect on the judgement, the creditor can ask the court to force you to answer questions about your assets (cash, real estate, cars, boats, RVs, investments, etc.). This is so that the creditor can find stuff to seize to satisfy the debt. This is a court order requiring you to show up and answer these questions. If you don't show up or refuse to answer the questions, then the court issues a bench warrant for contempt and will jail you until you answer the questions.

      A court can't put you in jail for refusing to pay, regardless of ability. But they can put you in jail for contempt if you ignore court orders that are related to debtors exams and such...but that's not going to jail for refusing to pay. Once you've been jailed you'll be hauled off to court for the debtors exam and then released.

      Another thing that might have happened with the people you know of could be that they bounced a few checks. Writing checks that you know won't be paid is a crime in and of itself. But there are two issues: the civil issue of the money you owe to the person you wrote the check to and then there is the criminal issue of writing a rubber check. Most often the person you wrote the rubber check to will say "Pay us in full for your check and our fees and we'll drop the charges."

      As GP said, if you could be jailed for owing money to someone, OJ would be in jail a long time ago. One of the issues with putting someone in jail for refusing to pay a debt is how would you ever earn money at that point to pay said debt?

  9. What the hell? by genfail · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Where are the criminal charges? Last time I checked phishing was illegal.

  10. More importantly... by msauve · · Score: 2

    How many of them blew up?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  11. Statutory damages: I hate spammers but... by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hate spammers, but I almost as strongly hate the fact that statutory damages can me several orders of magnitude higher than actual damages. (viz Jammie Thomas...)

  12. Re:Facebook accounts go high these days by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "So each Facebook account is worth 80,000 dollars? Well who wants to buy mine?"

    I can offer you a pirated Britney song, it's abut the same value.

  13. Re:Well... by Mr.Intel · · Score: 4, Funny

    It depends on how it's denominated. $1 bills weigh about 1 gram, which is about 0.0022 pounds. $360 million in $1 bills therefore is about 792,000 pounds.

    --
    ASCII tastes bad dude.
    Binary it is then.