Microsoft Wins Record Amount from Hotmail Spammer 79
mytrip writes to tell us News.com is reporting that Microsoft has won a record $87,177 against spammer Paul Fox who used a hotmail account to direct users to his pornographic download site. From the article: "But while Microsoft has clearly won, the case highlights a failure in the British legal system to tackle spam. Despite efforts by the Information Commissioner's Office to gain power from the Department of Trade & Industry to deal with spam, Information Commissioner Richard Thomas remains hamstrung."
hamstrung! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did the same. (Score:2)
Taking out spammers is not about getting money. It is partly about making points, partly about getting information on other spammers, and to encourage others to go after spammers.
Re:I did the same ... and I was his attorney (Score:2)
Yes, we did get a goldmine of information out of the spammer against which we got the stipulated judgment. I knew there was money in spam, but to see one spammer taking in $90,000 - $110,000 every day was an eye opener.
If any of you hate spam, you should thank Mr. Sorehands ... he is a one-man litigational nightmare to spammers and the kooks who use them to market their crappy products.
(Yes B, I will call you back ...)
One spammer that will know Bubba (Score:2)
I wonder, if he can get discounts for his cellmate on viagra.
a double-edged sword (Score:2)
Sounds like Information Commissioner Richard Thomas is into the kinky stuff. That's why there's no action on this topic.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
"Because Thomas' office can only deal with spam originating in the United Kingdom.."
They should wave the white flag. I don't see any incentive to pursue prosecutions with this restriction and those penalties.
Richard Thomas (Score:2)
For what it's worth, our Information Commissioner is one of all-too-few good guys holding public office in the UK. He and his department have very consistently acted in the public interest, even when it meant directly opposing government policy over things like ID cards, or telling the government that freedom of information requests could not be dodged on technicalities (as with some MPs' expenses just this week). They also provide genuinely helpful guidance, e.g., on their web site there's a simple interac
OK, now I'm Freaking out (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I bet that really hurt... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really step it up and go at him perhaps they'll take away his tinker toys.
"Two years from now, spam will be solved," - Bill (Score:2)
Re:"Two years from now, spam will be solved," - Bi (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Flogging the bastard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Keelhauling
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not nearly enough. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If I ever get prosecuted under that law I'll be taking my longbow to York and shooting anybody Scottish I see after it gets dark.
That's still legal, y'see..
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC you have to be a native-born man of York to do that.
Re: (Score:1)
If you choose to read on, be warned I will unveil in the next paragraph a potential global solution to the spam problem, so you may wish to do something similar to all the politicians I have lobbied and put your fingers in your ears and say 'la la la' (or perhaps just cover your eyes for this one)!
Spam is about making money, remove the ability to make money and the spam goes awa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Another Sham Victory (Score:3, Interesting)
Best case scenario:
1. the guy/organization/whatever claims bankruptcy and it's pennies on the dollar for MS.
2. Microsoft charges you more for their spam security software.
Lately with MS and most mega-corps, it's about maintaining a very high level of fear of non-compliance.
I'm glad I get paid to work on their product because it requires so much babysitting. Thank dog I don't run it at home anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No offence, but if you're thinking of purchasing spam security software from Microsoft, you've got more pressing issues you should be worrying about.
Re: (Score:2)
Spam aside, it's not just Windows - Microsoft have created an entire culture of "You have one desktop PC and you don't need to think about anyhing more than that". There is still plenty of software today which:
How's the weather in Hell? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know this goes against what many on
Go Microsoft! The **PAA could learn much from you.
Re: (Score:2)
Good For Them (Score:4, Interesting)
The first step is to eliminate most of the pseudo-anonymity of email... Not necessarily so much as to create the authentication system that Yahoo, or MS seem to be pushing for, even the lighter SPF system would be a good start. Of course the big guys need to work together, most internet email goes to MSN/Hotmail, AOL, and Yahoo, with larger ISPs like Earthlink, Qwest, etc. taking up a huge portion of the rest... If even half of the above required either A: SPF, or B: the sending MTA *IS* authenticated, or the MTA in the MX listing for the header's "from" this would do it... Now the responsible parties for email would be at least more trackable, since the spam zombies would be ineffective, or at least less effective (Responsible ISP mail admins flagging accounts with >10 emails an hour for review).
The second is to allow suits like this to have more teeth... Bankrupt the scum, ceize their assets.. Procecute under whatever applicable laws (most likely fraud).
Re: (Score:1)
The solution is to let the government convict spammers for serious damages. However, the most a spammer can presently be fined for in the UK is 5,000 GBP (about $9,350 US). This should, in theory, be
Record? (Score:1)
As a quick aside, would someone please tag this "typo"? That "ut" and the beginning took about .3 seconds to process as "But;" .3 seconds I'll never get back. kthx. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that this story isn't about a criminal case. MSFT filed a civil suit to seek relief directly from the courts in monetary terms.
Nor can he protect from Big Brother / Govt secrecy (Score:2, Interesting)
Why on earth is it being left to the Information Commissioner to pursue spammers? Does he not have enough on his plate with the British Govt...
a) ... about to reverse
the legal right to privacy [guardian.co.uk] trying create the
world's most intrusive database on citizens [bristol-no2id.org.uk]. ... using taxpayers' resources to frustrate
hundreds of thousands of valid requests under the Freedom of Information Act [timesonline.co.uk]?
b)
Re: (Score:2)
You just have to read (-1, Overrated) as (-1, I Don't Agree) these days.
I don't have exact counts, but as a fair estimate, 75% of my down-mods are (-1, Overrated) on posts also moderated up, often with multiple (+1, Insightful) mods.
Don't take it personally. I, for one, found some new and interesting material thanks to your links, and I'm grateful that you took the time to share them.
Uhhh... is that serious? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yum (Score:2)
Anti-Spammer nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it really that hard to just hit delete? Is it a reasonable assumption that spam will be less profitable (and, sooner or later, unprofitable), if people stop opening spam email and purchasing the products advertised?
These i
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps there needs to be a "Do Not Email" list similar to the "Do Not Call" list. The DNC list has held up in court and caused telemarketing companies to be levied rather large fines.
Spam that you cannot possibly unsubscribe from and/or you did not explicitly sign up for is harassment, plain and simple; which, if I recal
Re: (Score:1)
The 'Do Not Call' services available are almost universally worthless, and with phreak-spamming and SMS-spamming gaining popularity, they become even worse than not signing up. A 'Do Not Email' list is inher
Re: (Score:1)
Not to sound too 'ButThinkOfTheChildren' but you realize this guy was sending porno ads to minors? I very much doubt most people are okay with that.
Furthermore, this kind of spam has a number of other dangers:
Re: (Score:2)
When you receive so many spams that you can barely distinguish the legitimate mail, yes it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly more complete summary (Score:1)
Microsoft was able to get the (relatively) high amount because, according to the terms of use [passport.net] for Hotmail (see section 3, which also mentions the
Re: (Score:2)
they face a maximum fine of 5,000 pounds
There is no case-law as yet to clarify whether that is £5000 per spam-run sent, or £5000 per spam receivied. If sending a million spam emails can be counted as a million offenses under the law, a significant fine can be given (though the judge is probably not going to land them with the full 5 billion squid).
I owe you money (Score:2)
So if you have recieved spam from me, please send me your name, your address, your social security number, your bank account number, your mother's maiden name, the first pet you owned, the first car you owned, the name of your high school, your credit card number, expiry date and the card verification number.
Please
Must change the economy of spam (Score:2)
Just on the recieve side. We should be able to write some bots with some amount of AI to respond to spam. Suddenly the spammer is getting 990 bogus replies and may be 10 legitimate replies to his 100 million spam emails. We should be able to swamp ou
Its the thought that counts. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Another Hotmail record.... (Score:1)
My current empirical estimate is 1,000,000,000 per day.
A Dose Of Their Own Medicine..... (Score:1)
I know it's risky, but I think retaliatory hacking and cyberwarfare is justified, provided you can present adequate documentation and research verifying the targets actions, against spammers. It's che
Not to sidetrack this ... (Score:1)
It reminds me vaguely of companies slapping down DMCA suits on anyone who mentions their product or company in a negative light.
Eventually, companies and law enforcement will have the tools and the law on their side (everyone hates spam, right?)
I'm sure we can all come up with a number of scenarios which
Piss Money (Score:1)
Unfortunately ... (Score:2)