Microsoft to Fight Crime With Spammer's Millions 310
daria42 writes "It looks as if the $7 million Microsoft won from spam king Scott Richter won't go into a Swiss bank account and never be seen again after all. The company plans to dedicate a cool $5 mil to helping law enforcement agencies address computer-related crimes. Another $1 million will go to New York State to "expand computer-related skills training for youths and adults", with the rest being flagged to pay Microsoft's legal costs."
Not So Cool! (Score:1, Interesting)
"Punitive damages" and "loser pays" (Score:2, Interesting)
But I am interested and baffled by the concept of "punitive damages" and how they are paid to the litigating party rather than to the general tax revenue base. If a company or person is to be punished for doing something wrong, shouldn't the government be the one to mete out that punishment? Why should a private citizen or company be allowed to reap the windfall of punitive damages? I think the justice system turns the court into a lottery by allowing such huge awards to be paid to offended parties.
In a sense, Microsoft is doing what I think ought to be done with punitive damages. That is, 1) to pay the winner's court expenses, and 2) to have the government receive the punishment money. Not that I don't think that Microsoft isn't doing this out of self-serving long term planning, but I do agree with the action (perhaps not their guiding principle).
I would like to see more spammers put out of business. However, as long as there are people willing to buy their products, spammers will be out there trying to bilk them.
Spitzer blew it first time (Score:1, Interesting)
This is to cover for the embarrassing $50,000 that Eliot Spitzer (NYAG) settled for with Richter the first time around. I couldn't believe it when I read it the first time, that the AG was settling with Richter, one of the worst spammers in the world, for $50,000. That really showed that Spitzer was outmaneuvered by Richter or Richter was so good at covering his tracks the first time around, especially since MS was involved with the first investigation also.
Knowing a bit about NY politics/showboating since I'm from there, it seems that Spitzer must've insisted on doing things his way the first time around and ended up with the ridiculous $50,000 settlement. With MS taking the lead this time (MS is issuing the press releases on this one this time, Spitzer issued the press releases with the last settlement), it certainly appears MS did a much better job investigating and nailing Richter than Spitzer could ever dream of.
That million for New York is still going to be touted by Spitzer as a joint effort, and he'll be taking the credit for providing that money to schools (because of his investigation) during the gubernatorial election which everyone knows he's running for. $50,000 for arguably the king of spam. Pocket change to him. Richter must've wet himself laughing when his lawyer told him how much the settlement was for the first time around. Looks like 2nd time's the charm in this case.
Re:computer related crimes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong. Child pornographers deserve their own special ring of Hell. But it seems that to law enforcement, computer crime == kiddie porn. Period. No other crime occurs on a computer. Ever. Just child porn. Nothing else. End of line.
There are other crimes occuring involved the magic, glowing grey box.
NY Law enforcement (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Punitive damages" and "loser pays" (Score:3, Interesting)
Some guy breaks into a house and gets caught. He does some time, for which the tax payers pay his room and board, and then he gets out on probation. Who does this guy have to pay every month as part of his probation? Not the person whose house he broke into, but...the State.
In Texas, they now have a law that if you get a DWI, you have to pay 1000.00 (1st offense, it's 1000.00 a year for X amount of years for 2nd offenses) to the state of Texas, ON TOP of your fines to the city/county/court etc., you get caught in.
How exactly did that work out? Most probably, "We need money for some program, lets figure out a way to screw someone out of 1000.00 and see if we can get away with it."
I say, there is a big difference between protecting the public, and using them as a source of revenue. Especially when the public already pays taxes that is supposed to pay for this stuff. But it looks like they are getting it from all sides, and it never seems to be enough.
Usurper_ii