New York Spam Ring Lawsuits 263
Iphtashu Fitz writes "Microsoft and the Attorney General of New York have announced multiple lawsuits against what they term as a spam ring operating throughout New York and responsible for sending billions of illegal junk e-mail. According to articles at ABCNews.com, CNet News.com and elsewhere the state of New York has filed 6 lawsuits against alleged notoriuous spammer Scotty Richter and accomplices. Richter is well known among the anti-spam community, holding the dubious distinction of being ranked number 3 on the Spamhaus Registry of Known Spam Offenders. Microsoft has seperately filed 5 other lawsuits."
Are they (Score:2, Interesting)
You've got.... (Score:5, Funny)
Goodbye!
In need of SPAM (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In need of SPAM (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In need of SPAM (Score:3, Funny)
Just forge the headers and the return email address when you send out the message.
Just remember to put the opt out link at the bottom of your message.
Re:In need of SPAM (Score:2)
Oh, I suspect he's running a spam filter on his email address, probably an industrial strength one. <wry grin> I'd add a comment about not sinking to his level, but I'm not sure there's room on his level for more people than him. ;>
Re:In need of SPAM (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:3, Funny)
And if "Yes," what can we do to donate guns or ammunition?
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:5, Informative)
According to the article in the New York Times (p. C1, continued on C3) the suits are against three companies. The actual spammer named is a Paul Boes, who was employed as a marketer by the other two companies, Synergy6 and OptInRealBig. OpInRealBig is owned by Scott Richter, the guy named by Spamhaus as the world's number 3 spammer. So, yes, assuming that this is the way it works, they are going after the people who direct the spammers.
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:5, Informative)
It's like trying to smash hundreds of ants with your fingers. You can catch a few, but the rest are scattering all of the place, and none of them individually amount to anything important.
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously now - I've wiped out an entire anthill of ants that was living in the ground by the foundation of the house whose basement apartment I was renting. The key to wiping out hundreds of ants is a) persistence, and b) persistence. How many seconds are there in 10 minutes? 600. Guess how many ants I can kill in 10 minutes? As many as come out the door of the anthill. Neat thing about ants, you kill a few and the pheremone scents released during battle and death attract all the rest to "defend the colony". Sure there are some out foraging and deep in the colony that won't be there, but come back tomorrow and do it again, and do it for 4 days in the row - and poof, you've wiped out an entire anthill without using any chemicals or traps, with your bare little finger. Come back once a week all summer and kill the stragglers who are struggling to feed the un-seen queen, and eventually the queen starves to death - poof, colony gone.
Persistence and the willingness to do the job, that's all it takes.
Hey, if the RIAA thinks that they can sue all 60,000,00 of us file sharers, surely we can hunt down and exterminate a few hundred small time spammers!!
It was just the other week where a spammer was quoted as saying that profits were down and cost of business had quadrupled due to the efforts of spam-filtering and anti-spammers. We just need to finish the job off properly, as opposed to easing up and getting used to the status quo.
Years prior to this no-one outside of the tech community had a high awareness of spam. Now *everyone* agrees it's a vast menace. Now is the time to strike.
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:2)
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:2, Funny)
> The key to wiping out hundreds of ants is a) persistence, and b) persistence. How many seconds are there in 10 minutes? 600. Guess how many ants I can kill in 10 minutes? [
PROPOSAL FOR ALTERATION OF SLASHDOT PLAN FOR GLOBAL DOMINANCE:
When Phase Three of the Plan goes into effect - electr
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:2)
This is even more true when you don't need an actual product to ship -- scams are low-overhead operations. P.T. Barnum would've loved these guys.
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:2)
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, my knowledge of contract law is limited, but it's this same kind of mentality that also allows Nike to contract the manufacture of its shoes to some contractor in Asia, who does not have any sweatshops, but then it subcontracts out to other contractors who may not be as "ethical". Nike has plausible deniability. So does the Spam "customer". We could "boycott" the advertisers, but look at the Nike boycotts. Just how effective are they? Or the Walmart boycotters.. Walmart just posted record numbers.. see what I'm getting at?
It sucks. Maybe resistance is futile after all.
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? (Score:5, Interesting)
mod parent up! (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
That's usually Interstate Commerce - Feds' job (Score:3, Informative)
hang em high (Score:3, Funny)
ok, well, maybe the death penalty is a tad too harsh, but i think a good old fashioned tarring and feathering is called for.
Re:hang em high (Score:5, Funny)
wouldn't want that to come out in a trial, now would we...
Re:hang em high (Score:4, Funny)
AAaaah!! (Score:5, Funny)
Between this, the world going dark [slashdot.org] and those smart helicopters [slashdot.org], this has turned out to be a very, very frightening day. I'm definitely switching to the 2-ply tinfoil for my hat.
Re:AAaaah!! (Score:3, Funny)
Let the games begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
The War on Spam will be what drives spammers for once and for all into the arms of organized international crime.
Not a good idea.
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:2)
"This message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department".
(grummble....proofread...bah....)
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:2)
well, good. but the current state of spam laws is heading that way! we are attemtping to outlaw the act itself (spam, booze) not the crimes that result from the act (bandwidth theft, drunk driving).
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
the act itself (spam, booze) not the crimes that result from the act (bandwidth theft, drunk driving).
Sorry, this comparison doesn't make sense. Spam == bandwidth theft. Spam itself is the crime.
JP
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Prohibition doesn't work when it conflicts with what the majority want. The majority wanted alcohol during the 1920's, and were willing to violate the law to get it.
That's got no bearing on spam, which the majority doesn't want, just like the majority doesn't want murder, rape, carjacking, fraud, embezzlement, or any other number of illegal activities.
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:2)
Prohibition included a major conflict of the people. After all, the people had been convinced of the merits of prohibition, and either through their state legislature's, or through direct voting, the majority of voters did indeed approve the 18th amendment. It is unlikely that they were all teetotalers however (I would say that Prohibition wa
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost correct, but while I think you understand the fundimental truth here, you are misapplying it.
The fundimental truth is "Where there is demand, there will be supply." All laws can do is change the supply vs. price curve - society sets the demand vs. price curve.
The problem is that it is NOT we-who-receive-the-spam who demand spam - it is the scummy bastards who wish to hawk their wares (or warez) or simply to rip us off who demand spam.
In that regard, banning spam will only raise the price vs. supply curve - the demand vs. price curve will be unchanged.
However, the difference between spam and booze is that the demand vs. price curve for booze remains fairly constant until the price gets very large, while the demand vs. price curve for spam rolls off VERY rapidly as soon as the cost of spamming rises (at least, I *HOPE* that to be the case!)
And upon this rests the success of any anti-spam legislation: does it raise the price vs supply curve enough to shift the intersection with the demand vs price curve to a point of enough lower volume to make a difference?
This is also why "Just Hit Delete" is such TERRIBLE advice - JHD does NOT alter the demand vs. price curve. Giving holy hell to any remotely respectable businessman who uses spam can shift that curve. That is why I keep nailing Sears any time I get a spam from one of their affiliates advertising siding.
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
The demand for spam rolls off to near-zero (not quite zero, because some people just like to be assholes for the sake of it) when law enforcement and/or tech improvements push the cost of spamming above the cost of le
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why did Congress need to pass a Constitutional ammendment to make alcohol illegal, but not need to do the same to make marijuana illegal??
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:2)
Currently, the federal government uses its not-inconsequential financial clout to keep those states in line that would de-criminalize any 'bad' drug. Look to California, Oregon, or DC to see what happens
Only when the reward is worth it (Score:4, Insightful)
Once the cost/risk of criminal penalty accrues to spam suppliers, will there be many customers who will pay the consequent much higher rates for spam? I doubt it. Spam has been highly profitable up until now because the costs to those who provide it are very low. That won't be true any more.
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:5, Informative)
In addition, large parts of the spamming business is ALREADY in the hands of organized crime, especially in countries like Russia where the mafia has moved onto every profitable business to get their cut.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers. The more painful and slower, the better.
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
It does work if the vast majority of the population believes in it and doesn't have a need to go against it. This is the reason why the prohibition of alcohol did not work, since basically it was a vocal minority imposing their law on a majority that didn't agree. Also in general cases alcohol does not get on anyone's nerves. The same can't be said of spam. We can tolerate small amounts, but beyond a certain point its enough to create a mob to want to do something about it. You can choose not to drink alcohol, you can chooses not to smoke, you can choose not to go where people smoke, but you can hardly choose not to receive spam, when there is nothing you can do about it.
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody wants spam!
That is not to say the politicians are going about this the right way, but get a better analogy next time.
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:2)
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:2)
Nobody wants spam!
It's not about who wants to GET spam, though. It's about who wants to be allowed to SEND spam.
And obviously, SOME people don't mind getting spam... the response rate needed to sustain a spam operation may be miniscule, but it's still greater than zero. If zero people respond, if companies that resort to spamming see that it's costing them more money
Why criminalizing Spam is wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
First, I agree of course that no-one wants spam in the same way as people want drugs.
But. The war on drugs fails not only because people want drugs. Few people want international trafficking in women, nor trade in arms, nor trade in near-extinct animals... Yet none of these prohibited businesses do badly at all. In fact, they do very well.
The principle questions I've asked myself are (a) is it possible to stop spam through law enforcement, and (b) if not, what will the consequence be?
The answer to (a) is clearly "no" for several reasons. Spammers have developed techniques that allow them to work almost untraceably. Forget open relays, that is very 20th Century. Today's spammers use pirated PCs, of which there are probably millions in undetected active use.
The answer to (b) is somewhat more worrying. When spammers operate semi-legitimately, however evil and bestial they may be, they will take some concern to avoid breaking other laws. You will not find snuff videos advertised in spam, nor illegal drugs, nor prostitutes,... Penis extenders and Viagra are annoying, but legal AFAIK.
When spammers are already breaking laws that can land them in jail, why will they stop with a few more felonies. Has the pirated PC be detected and shut down? OK, destroy all data on it, to avoid detection. Sorry, Joe Shmoe. Is there someone blocking your spams through black lists and other means? Perhaps a few bombs in the mail, or even a knock on the door some foggy morning.
The solution to spam lies not in new laws and new criminal offenses. It lies in the protocols and gateways that allow malware to propagate. It lies in that abominable monoculture that leaves tens of millions of people vulnerable. It lies in the definition of new email protocols that are cynical enough for the 21st century.
I believe time will show the legal approach to be woefully misplaced. Jail all the American spammers and watch the problem just keep on getting worse.
Gentlemen, I respectfully rest my case and will now return to my work.
Re:Why criminalizing Spam is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
The alternative to patronizing the international trafficking in women is to develop some personality and looks that will persuade women to boff you voluntarily. (If it's being dominant that you get off on, then you need to find women who willingly cater to th
Re:Let the games begin! (Score:3, Informative)
Right now states are taking out the dozen or so really big spammers. With time, it's possible that spamming will be changing scales, from a bunch of big spammers with a few little ones, to all little ones, which will prove much harder to find and prosecute.
The economic equivalent to this is catching large drug shi
And more games... (Score:2)
According to some points of view, the drug business and the anti-drug forces are locked into a symbiosis. The huge amounts of money being produced by drugs, and being spent on combating drugs, mean that neither side actually has any interest in legalizing the trade.
Think about this for a second: none of the powerful men actively fighting the drugs trade want to see this trade abolished, for if it were to vanish, so would their position and power.
Now, why is the drugs trade
Re:And more games... (Score:2)
But I remember a very good discussion on Slashdot about 6 months back in which I argued that law enforcement WRT child pornography was creating more problems than it solved.
The Federal "You Can Spam" Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Because after years of inaction against blatant fraud and trillions of spams, we're finally seeing Attorneys General from several States actually nailing some of these pigfuckers to the wall before the Statewide antispam laws all get overturned by the DMA's spam legalization initiative two weeks from now.
(My apologies to any of you who actually do fuck pigs for insulting you with a comparison to to Snotty Richter.)
Re:The Federal "You Can Spam" Law (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer scheduled a news conference Thursday morning to announce the lawsuits.
Is it common for companies to join with states to sue somebody? We often chuckle that microsoft wants to rule the world... but this is a little too much cooperation with the law if you ask me. I use XP but this is what I imagine happened:
Bill: "Hey, this @sshole is sending out a lot of spam and people are bitching it's Microsoft's fault"
AG: "We agree. They are bitching because we can't stop it either. Hell, we don't even know how to trace spam to obtain evidence."
Bill: "I'll give you the geekpower if you arrest the bastards. We'll all sue and regain our losses."
*They try to high-5 each other and miss*
Very strange bedfellows...
Davak
I just want to know what netblocks the spamers own (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I just want to know what netblocks the spamers (Score:5, Funny)
Oh MY GOD! You just solved the problem of SPAM!!!! Next stop Disneyland!
Re:I just want to know what netblocks the spamers (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
not saying at all that this is not a good initiative in absolute terms.
But I guess that, if ever it improves to reduce the overall amount of mail, Microsoft will use it as another hoax for testifying the usefulness of their brand-new security-policy.
Regards,
jdif
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Funny)
Because we need to get a good tan?
Spammer's choice of OS (Score:2)
Re:Spammer's choice of OS (Score:2)
Re:Spammer's choice of OS (Score:2)
Boo-ya! (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, the first time I saw their site I was amazed at how long and how much work they must have put into it. Now its can all be readily be used as evidence against the spamhauses!
Spam Ring (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Spam Ring (Score:2)
OT - Re:Spam Ring (Score:2)
I'd like to tip my hat to the slathering hordes who managed NOT to make a RoTK joke for at least 20-25 comments.
Anyway, today I likened seeing a former quasi-boss' transformation during the course of his divorce to watching the Smeagol-to-Gollum transformation (spoilers? I hope not...), so something's definitely catching.
Excerpts from OptinBig.com (Score:5, Informative)
Some interesting quotes from their website:
"TRUST: In most industries, especially in the Opt-in E-mail business, trust is the most vital, but surprisingly overlooked aspect of business. OptInBig and its employees not only understand this concept, but embrace and practice it on a daily basis."
"FYI: There are approximately 100 million unique e-mail addresses in North America-OptinBig has access to nearly half."
"OptInBig: Possesses over 45 million online consumers in its database;
Has lists available with a reach from 500,000 to up to 16 million online consumers;
Produces over 20 million page views per month on our clients' websites; and,
Delivers an average of 350,000 individual website orders per month.
For a free consultation and to learn which list is best for your current or future business needs, please call (303) 464-8164 to set up an appointment.
And most interesting: From their Acceptable Use Policy:
. SYSTEM AND NETWORK SECURITY AND INTEGRITY
Falsification of Origin. Forging of any TCP-IP packet header, e-mail header or any part of a message header. This prohibition does not include the use of aliases or anonymous remailers.
4. E-MAIL You may not distribute, publish, or send any of the following types of e-mail:
Unsolicited promotions, advertising or solicitations (commonly referred to as "spam"), including, without limitation, commercial advertising and informational announcements, except to those who have explicitly requested such e-mails.
Commercial promotions, advertising, solicitations, or informational announcements that contain false or misleading information in any form.
Harassing e-mail, whether through language, frequency, or size of messages.
E-mails containing forged or falsified information in the header (including sender name and routing information), or any other forged or falsified information.
In addition, you may not use Optin's mail server or another Web site's mail server to relay mail without the express permission of the account holder or the Web site. Posting the same or similar message to one or more newsgroups (excessive cross-posting or multiple-posting) also is explicitly prohibited.
INDIRECT OR ATTEMPTED VIOLATIONS OF THE AUP, AND ACTUAL OR ATTEMPTED VIOLATIONS BY A THIRD PARTY ON YOUR BEHALF, WILL BE CONSIDERED VIOLATIONS OF THE AUP BY YOU.
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't we either throw them in jail or form a nice lynch mob and feed them to the aligators?
After all, who's gonna care?
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Fitting Punishment ? (Score:4, Funny)
* One-Way Ticket to Nigeria, to meet Rev. Motobu, grand-daughter of the former president, after convincing Motobu that the spammer is the son of a millionaire who loves him deeply.
* Starring role in a series of adult films set at a petting zoo. A porcupine and alligator petting zoo.
Stefan
Going a bit too far... (Score:2)
Wouldn't this be overly cruel to Motobu. I wonder though, what kind of person really marries a spammer (don't some have husbands/wives, children) - and if they know his/her primary business activity?
* Starring role in a series of adult films set at a petting zoo. A porcupine and alligator petting zoo.
Please be kind, we don
Spam fighting community (Score:5, Interesting)
If we all to 30 minutes per day to fight spam, I think we would be far better off.
I don't know if there are communities of SPAMN fighters but it is obvious that if a small percentage of the population did this, the spam cost effectiveness would disappear.
Some companies out there are frightful with their attitude. For instance, yesterday I got a mortgage offer which forwarded me to a web site which I entered mostly truthful information except the name was different. The offer came with an "exclusive" security system. Double whammy ...
I was called back within minutes by a company in Austin TX and when I asked them about their SPAM policy I got a really rude response. I suspect if they get a few more of these phone calls they'll stop doing this. I also found that a large US bank has web pages that refer to this company. Calling the bank and getting a cogent response about spam was engligtening. No one there can help. I suspect a few phone calls from customers could also help this situation.
Unfortunately, the spammers are pretty astute at making life hell on-line so I think this is only going to work through large numbers of small community groups.
So a question for the slashdot community. Are there any of you interested in organizing ?
Re:Spam fighting community (Score:2)
Maybe the mail admins here would be, but as an individual end user, it's far easier and more efficient for me to try and ignore spam than to aggressively fight it back to its sources.
Filter what I can, manually get rid of whatever I can't... it requires maybe 1 minute of active work on my part per day. I certainly am not at a loss for other things to do with the other 29 minutes.
Re:Spam fighting community (Score:5, Insightful)
I gave some thought to these kinds of systems and I decided that they are far more dangerous than good. Soon you will find the spammers using them to damage the competition.
The best way is to get in touch with merchants. I'm even willing to risk a few dollars to place orders for Viagra to try to find who these people are and talk to someone. At this time, the credit card companies are unwittingly aiding and abetting. Guess what happens when you have people like me ordering products on-line and then calling customer the credit card customer support to cancel the payment and then asking them for the contact details of the merchants. It won't be long before the CC companies close these merchant accounts. There is still a danger using these techniques that they could be abused by spammers but I think that with people in the loop, the course corrections could happen more quickly.
The vigilante approach will also make it so that law enforcement gets their butt into gear. Do you know how frieghtening a community group like this would be to the politicians ? Guess how quickly the marketing associations will pull their head in. Unfortunatly, it does take some effort on our part, but we can choose how.
Damned Microsoft!! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm very confused...
Spam Ring (Score:2)
Eliot Spitzer for President (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously. Between spammers and stock market flim-flammers, Spitzer is the only politician I see that is punishing real criminals.
News Flash: Most Wanted Deck of Cards (Score:4, Funny)
Being #3, Scotty Richter's face has been put on the Queen of Spades.
It has been suggested that Darl McBride's likeness be used for the deck's joker.
myke
This is good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is good (Score:4, Interesting)
I would even go further. Even if lawsuits aren't successful in preventing nearly free sending of bulk mails because there are still offshore servers in some countries, where there is no significant risk of being caught, fined or jailed, lawsuits are still helpful. In that case, they improve the efficiency of source-based filters, which work quite well already and are adopted by an increasing number of mainstream e-mail providers. There is a tendency that those mail sources from which legitimate mail is expected are more risky for spammers (provided there are good laws).
Microsoft on the side of the angles? (Score:2, Interesting)
Where was the C&C warning on this??? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
of course not :)
suing spammers, though, is probably the best course of action open to ms, though. they have has some notorious security flaws that have allowed spammers to set up open relays on ms boxes. their popular email reader has in the past also had some dramatic bugs that have contributed to virus transmission traffic (in the public eye, all nuisance email can get lumped together whether it's "i love you" or "buy viagra").
for ms to make a serious contribution to fighting spam they would either a) have to plug current and potential holes that help propogate "bad" email (malmail?) b) do something else.
while there is the new "security committment" thang going on in redmond and it is probably a good start, doing something in the "something else" category (ie suing spammers) is a lot faster and easier.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,60747,00.ht ml [wired.com] ...his group controls 450,000 "Trojaned" systems, most of them home computers running Windows with high-speed connections. The hacked systems contain special software developed by the Polish group that routes traffic between Internet users and customers' websites through thousands of the hijacked computers. The numerous intermediary systems confound tools such as traceroute, effectively laundering the true location of the website. To utilize the service, customers simply configure their sites to use any of several domain-name system servers controlled by the Polish group, Tubul said.
450,000 of hijacked windows boxes are being used as spam relays and webservers and this only by one group...
MS is like the guy who left his carkeys on the bar while taking a leak and now suing whomever stole their car. While exploiting the weakness may be illegal it's also the stupidity of microsoft (not writing secure software even though win95 already necessitated it) that causes the thieves to have such an easy time.
Re:So... (Score:2)
The parent was referring to the likes of So.Big which infected Windows boxes to setup SMTP zombies for the Spammers to use. I'm unaware of any *n*x vulnerability which has been exploited to create a network and spamboxes.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:2, Funny)
Of course not. (Score:2)
Re:Guantanamo Bay... (Score:2)
Re:Guantanamo Bay... - firing squad (Score:3, Informative)
Like how it wasn't until the 1970s that black people could become God on their own planet when they die. Yes, when die a Mormon and you lived a good life, you become God of your own world. Although, I think that still applies only to men.
If someone reading this is Mormon and you
Re:Guantanamo Bay... - firing squad (Score:2)
Lutherans, now that's pretty boring.
Re:Guantanamo Bay... (Score:2)
In the first months of rabid paranoya after 9/11 used to work.
Just a nice little anonymous rat on the doj antiterrorism web site that this individual is commiting fraud in order to subsidize terrorism. And the spammer quickly disappears into the night and fog.
Unfortunately it does not work any more
Re:Nothing but a PR move (Score:2)
More than a PR move (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft isn't suing them as Microsoft, provider of operating systems and applications. They are suing because of the effect of spam on MSN (which is specifically mentioned in the cnet article) and Hotmail. Both recieve huge amounts of spam to user accounts, and cost MS a ton of money to fight, and tick off their users.
Is MS doing this because they are warm fuzzy people who want to save the world from spam? No. They are doing it because spam costs them a ton of money as a company, cutting into their profits, and they want to stop that. Sometimes, what is good for a company is also good for the people who purchase it's products (and in this case even for people who don't)
Re: notoriuous? (Score:2, Funny)
> What is this 'notoriuous'?
Since there are several of them, it should have been 'notoriuoii'.
Re:would it not be easier (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:would it not be easier (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:would it not be easier (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a bit like blaming the rape victim for being assaulted. Let us remember that first and foremost, the spammer is at fault here. For what it's worth, you SHOULD be able to put a totally insecure machine on the Internet and not worry about someone abusing it just like
Re:microsoft on the good team? (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't charging anyone will anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we really want corporations going around charging people of committing illegal acts?
They aren't charging anyone with anything. They are suing them. They don't have to prove that they did anything illegal, just that they did something that caused damages to them.
As far as the RIAA lawsuits vs. these, there is a huge difference. People dislike the RIAA suits because they are claiming huge amounts of damages that are inacurate, and because they are done under a law that eliminates many of the legal protections of most lawsuits. Most people see spam as having huge costs to individuals and businesses, so there is a difference.
As far as not basing a society on litigation, litigation, not laws, was the common way of resolving many issues until recently. I prefer litigation to laws, because when companies do things wrong, they can answer to the government, but it's harder to get the government to answer to anything.