Microsoft Sues 117 Phishers 170
An anonymous reader writes "Earlier this week Microsoft filed 117 John Doe cases today to learn the identity of scam artists who have been targeting its Hotmail and MSN customers in phishing scams, according to a Washington Post story. This is the same tactic the music and motion picture industries have used to mixed success against file-swappers, except in this case the ISPs themselves are some of the biggest targets of phishing scams. The story says the tactic has already worked once for Microsoft; in a case last year where ISP subpoenas led to a kid in Iowa who was caught phishing MSN users from his grandpa's dial-up account. The 21-year-old was ordered to pay Microsoft $3 million, but I doubt his job at Blockbuster is going to make a dent in that debt."
There is a big difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This isn't an april fools joke guys. (Score:2, Insightful)
Clue, April Fools is supposed to entertain, mislead and laugh.
Not bore to death and steal attention from real news.
Re:This isn't an april fools joke guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that more and more of the "unwashed masses" are using online services like Paypal and eBay, phishing scams are all over the place. It's getting a little ridiculous. These phishers need to be sent to Federal "pmita" Prison sooner rather than later.
Phishers of that type (those stealing money and credit card numbers) lack integrity and they lack honor, and they need to be put away.
Pathetic Wording! (Score:5, Insightful)
Does slashdot editors consider music sharing in the same light as phishing/spamming and the magic love pill? The teenager seems to be mentioned on the same lines of the other youngsters who were targetted by the RIAA.
In related news, which company makes the most focused effort to bringing the spam-pigs to justice? Check Here [zdnet.com]
I can see only one reason for all this. Its Microsoft!
Re:Phishing != File trading (Score:5, Insightful)
i always hate this line of reasoning. the fact is, whether or not filesharing helps the actual copyright holder is irrelevant. you don't have the right to re-distribution, plain and simple. let the copyright holder decide for him/herself if they want to allow sharing. otherwise, it's just poor attempt at justifying copyright infringement.
i have the right to determine who enters my house. even if there are outsiders that can help me out, ultimately i make the decision whether or not they enter my house.
Re:I acutally thank Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand that Hotmail has to deal with a lot of this kind of spam.
The suits act as a deterent and sends a message that Microsoft is trying to hunt these people down and stop their operations.
Here's a link [msn.com] to the MSNBC story.
Re:This isn't an april fools joke guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that's what they call "spin".
No it's quite relivant (Score:5, Insightful)
The way the MPAA/RIAA/etc talk about file sharing, they act like it's on the severity level of grand theft or so. They act as though massive amounts of actual harm are being caused. Thus they argue for stiff penalities, currently lawsuits in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and they want a law making it criminal carrying prison time.
In actuality, file sharing is like speeding. There is no direct harm. There is no loss of money, since they never had the money in the first place. There is a potential loss of money, since you now have something you potentially might have paid for, but then a bad review, friend's suggestion, or alternate product can cause the same thing. Also, even the potential loss is small.
Now phishing is a moderatly severe crime. It causes serious economic damage to the victim (phishers generally take them for all they can) as well as damage to their credit, which is difficult to repair, and the necessity to essentially recreate one's identity. The harm is very real, not at all potential.
Thus it's quite relivant to point out the difference. One is a much more severe crime. I fully support agressive tactics and stiff punishments to shut down and convict phishers, just as I do for armed robbers, car thieves and so on. I do not support agressive tactics and stiff punishments to shot down file sharers, any more than I do speeders, those that litter, underage drinkers and so on.
Why is a 21-year old man described as a "kid"? (Score:5, Insightful)
new revenue model... (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Ignore your customers complaints about fixing it...
3)
4) Profit
Re:Cleaning up one tiny bit of their mess (Score:2, Insightful)
It's an EMAIL problem plain and simple. It's social engineering at it's lowest tech level. Email, phone, chat, all perfectly "secure" are still all perfectly capable of being used to "phish".
Do you even know what the hell the article is about?
Wrong again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright exists only to help the general public by encouraging production of new works. Giving "the right to redistribution" to the artist exclusively is a mere legal convenience. We shouldn't let our ethics be distorted by copyright holders' use of inaccurate terms like "theft" and "piracy".
Copy right. Get it?
You, and others, forget that your "right" to make copies (fair use) is given to you with the same stroke of the pen that gave you the responsibility to respect the owner of that copyright.
I'm not an **AA agent trolling here, I'm trying to make a valid point. The law gave you certain rights, but it also gave the producer of the work certain rights. Words like "theft" and "piracy" are over used, and I disagree with the legal tactics of the **AA (as I do the BSA's tactics and others who overstep their bounds, Orrin Hatch listening?).
However, as a music, movie, software or literary producer you've got the right to decide how and where your work gets used (within limits). You sign a deal with Sony or Time Warner, not for recording time and promotion, but so they can mass distribute your music and make those decisions for you. Otherwise you'd have to do that yourself - and you already had the music thing down.
The reason you go for GPL or FDL licenses is because you want to ensure people respect your wishes that modifications are made openly and so forth...
It really burns me to see the same people making issues of GPL/copyleft violations while attacking other people's right to copyright. Copyleft is still copyright, no matter which way you look at it.
Make copies for your friends, but don't hide behind that next time, thinking mass distribution is your right. It's this type of thinking, the application of the idea that "information wants to be free" to entertainment, that makes more restrictive laws necessary and possible. Stop! Because people crying about "freedom" the most are the ones costing us the most. I'm sure RMS thinks Microsoft is wrong for charging what they do for software - but I doubt he advocates breaking the law to demonstrate that idea.
Re:Phishing != File trading (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not entirely true. If you are the copyright holder, then you're free to share it with whoever you want to. If you have permission from the copyright holder, then the same applies. If you bought (eg) a CD and do not have permission, then you are not free to share the work (and you don't own it either, you own a copy of it).
Finally though, and probably my biggest issue with what you said, is that I simply do not believe that absolutely everyone who is sharing copyrighted works in violation of that copyright already (legitimately) owns a copy of it. Are you seriously saying that every single person offering stuff for download ripped it themselves? I think you'll find that a very sizable proportion simply downloaded it from someone else (in fact, I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case in the majority of cases)
Apart from that, I agree with you - copyright infringement prevents people from attempting to profit from their labour. Phishing scams defraud people of profit that they have already earned (where profit = anything you have as a result of effort expended - wages, stuff you've bought, etc)