Spam King Wallace Indicted For Facebook Spam

itwbennett writes "Notorious spam king Sanford Wallace is facing federal fraud charges for allegedly breaking into the Facebook accounts of 500,000 victims in 2008 and 2009 and using the stolen credentials to post 27 million spam messages. The charges are outlined in an indictment, filed July 6 but made public Thursday after Wallace turned himself in to federal authorities. If convicted, Wallace could get more than 16 years in prison."

Comments

Still?

[plover]

I thought Spamford had turned over a new leaf? Giving interviews, promising no more spam.

Good heavens. A spammer lied to us.

Already punished...

[Coisiche]

Accessing half a million facebook accounts must have subjected him to more torment than I could bear.

apparently still profitable

[rbrausse]

Wallace, the guy with a $5M fine in 2006... something's rotten with the legislation/judicature if he is able to ignore the penalties

This isn't spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's his business model:

Wallace, 43, allegedly used a phishing attack to steal usernames and passwords from victims and then used the stolen credentials to post spam to victims walls, the U.S. Department of Justice said. Wallace allegedly made money from the scam by driving Web traffic to affiliate marketing companies, who pay their members by the number of clicks they can deliver to websites.

So, he basically posed as other people, and those people's friends click on those links put there by Wallace thinking their friends put them there, and then Wallace gets paid.

The other thing is the people "advertising" were doing business with Wallace. They didn't check him out with a simple google search? Or did they know and not give a shit because they're that desperate for traffic?

Re:This isn't spam

[Anonymous Coward]

This: not give a shit because they're that desperate for traffic

I have done work for a multi-level marketing company and I can tell you they were desperate enough for traffic that they paid a couple of other companies to send traffic to them.

Re:Read that as:

[oodaloop]

I read your title as an imperative to read it in a certain way, vice the past tense of read. I must say I was disappointed when I read your post.

And this is why it's still true that...

[Arrogant-Bastard]

...there is no such thing as an ex-spammer. Nobody, NOBODY, can produce a living example of one (either individual or corporate). Oh, they sometimes take a hiatus; they sometimes disappear and come back under another name; they sometimes switch tactics, strategy or modality; and they often claim that really, this time for sure, they've stopped...bu they never do.

And this in turn why blacklist entries associated with these individuals and corporations should be permanent. It's kind and noble of people to try to forgive them, to give them yet another another another chance; but it's extremely naive and stupid.

I think he may be in for an ass kicking

[kaptink]

I think he may be in for an ass kicking -

"Wallace has also been sued by Facebook, which won a $711 million civil judgement against him. As part of that judgement, he was banned from Facebook, and the criminal indictment accuses Wallace of contempt of court for allegedly logging onto the social network during an April 2009 Virgin Airlines flight from Las Vegas to New York. Wallace also allegedly set up a Facebook profile in January of this year under the user name David Sinful-Saturdays Fredericks."

Either way he should be banned forever from the interwebs for all our sakes. If ever there was a case to throw the book at someone, this would be it.

Re:I think he may be in for an ass kicking

[Rich0]

Big fines pretty-much destroy the ability for somebody to live a normal life (raise kids, pay for their college, etc). However, they have little impact on the ability of somebody to be a scumbag since there a man with no dependents can easily hide assets, not own anything like a house that is easy to sieze, use exceptions in laws to allow people to pay for living expenses, and so on.

If I got hit with a $711 million fine it would ruin my life. But, if I decided to become a scumbag and just abandon my family and live a life of crime, it probably wouldn't do much but force my wife slog it out with whoever I own money to in divorce court - I'd already be resigned to not getting a penny so it would just be pure entertainment for me.

In fact, these kinds of punishments actually give people perverse incentives to become criminals, just like the tendency of companies to not hire ex-cons.

Re:Sentance seems high

[Joce640k]

I bet if you met him in person you'd be setting up a direct debit after ten minutes listening to his exploits...

The Rules of Spam

[Eggplant62]

From Bruce Pennypacker's Rules of Spam Post on his personal blog:

Rule 0: Spam is theft

Rule 1: Spammers lie.

Rule 2: When in doubt about spammers lying, see rule 1.

Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.

Rule #4: The natural course of a spamming business is to go bankrupt.

Time and again, these simple rules have proven themselves. Too many fallen spam kings, too many spam kings sitting in jail or just plain bankrupt.

Re:And the net result ...

[halcyon1234]

And no, murdering them won't help, either.... Until we actually go after the root economic problem behind spam, we won't see a real change in the matter. Spam is an economic problem, and requires an economic solution.

The root economic problem is that there's a demand for spammed products, and thus money flowing to people who supply those demands.

So we should compromise between murder and economics. We should take his customer list, and mail everyone on it a free sample packets of cyanide labeled "ur free V!AGR@ sampel!"

Re:And the net result ...

[bberens]

Part of the process of throwing spammers in jail involves tracking down and stopping the bot nets they use for spamming purposes. Killing the bot nets has definitely proven to reduce spam. Often practically overnight.

Re:And the net result ...

[Infiniti2000]

And no, [executing] them won't help, either.

I'm willing to give it a go.