Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam United States Your Rights Online

Massachusetts Atty. General Forces Spammer to Pay 179

Posted by timothy from the small-change dept.
Cildar writes "The Attorney General of Massachusetts has forced a Florida spammer to pay a $25,000 fine and enter into a cease and desist order. The original suit contained both state consumer protection theories as well as allegations of CAN-SPAM violations. Here is the Attorney General's press release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massachusetts Atty. General Forces Spammer to Pay More

Massachusetts Atty. General Forces Spammer to Pay

Comments Filter:

  • Cost of doing business (Score:5, Informative)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:43PM (#10489751)
    I don't think these court "settlements" slow this guy down at all. He was also successfully sued and ordered to pay $104,104 this past April. You can read about that case here. [habeas.com] I am wondering if it is the case that he makes so much money sending spam that these fines and settlements are no more than the cost of doing business.

  • I'd Prefer Stoning (Score:5, Funny)

    by DiscoNick ( 743960 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:44PM (#10489754) Homepage
    Its a small start, but public stoning would be a more rewarding payback for those of us who stayed many late hours updating our spam filters.
    • My primary email address is 16 characters, made from a couple German words strung together. I've got another one, which is my name @gmail.com, set up to redirect to my primary. If I ever start getting spam from that, I can discontinue use, and set up a new address, keeping the forwarding address secret. I have received zero pieces of spam in either to date. What's your excuse for getting spam?

      • Re:I'd Prefer Stoning (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Atrax ( 249401 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:36PM (#10490007) Homepage Journal
        > What's your excuse for getting spam?

        The point isn't that WE aren't doing enough to protect ourselves from spam, but that we shouldn't HAVE to jump through hoops to avoid this shit.

      • Re:I'd Prefer Stoning (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 10, 2004 @11:51PM (#10490261)
        What's your excuse for getting spam?

        Some people use the internet for more than just playtime, Threehead. Some of us have to maintain legitimate whois contact info for all the domains we're responsible for, and can't just go changing our email addresses every time another fuckload of spam rolls in.
        • geez.

          this is quite simple.

          sign up with a hosting provider that allows you to make mass whois changes.

          change your email address every month.

          (i.e. dec2004@slashdot.org )

          Steven V>

      • Re:I'd Prefer Stoning (Score:4, Insightful)

        by misleb ( 129952 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @12:19AM (#10490388)
        Gee, aren't you special. Not everyone wants to change their email address every time they get on some list.. and it will happen. I know plenty of people who've bragged about not getting spam and then, WHAM!, it all comes flooding in one day. I'm sorry, but you haven't found a solution to the spam problem. You're just lucky and probably more careful than one should have to be.

        Also, you might find you have a problem when sender verification starts becoming standard practice. Soon, servers will not accept mail from user myname@gmail.com coming from server mail.myisp.com. We already implement this sort of thing for hotmail.com and yahoo.com sourced email. If the sender claims to be a hotmail user, the SMTP server better be a hotmail server.

        -matthew
      • the fact that I shouldn't have to go to all that trouble because my email is on the net.
      • What's your excuse for getting spam?

        How about the eight years of business cards I've handed out with the same address? Or the long-lost college pals who get in touch via the email address I still have after thirteen years? Or perhaps it's just a stubborn refusal to yield a medium I've spent twenty years using to a handful of greedy sociopaths.

        Let's turn it around: What's your excuse for giving in to them?
      • If you registered a domain name, you would start getting spam. If you posted your address on your website, you would start getting spam. If you had actually told what your email address is in your post, you would start getting spam.

        Hiding may be a good solution for you. I know that it is for some people. Hiding is *not* a good solution for everyone.

      • I've had this address for about 8 years now and am not changing it due to some spamming scumbags.

        How is this for an "excuse"? I do use various "+token" strings, but the basic address still works as it did in 8 years ago...

    • Judging by some of the things they're trying to sell me, I think they might already be stoned... =P Power to the A.G. for at least trying to enforce CAN-SPAM, I look forward to seeing if this holds up in court.
      • " Judging by some of the things they're trying to sell me, I think they might already be stoned... =P"

        The most important rule in buisness IMHO, "Never overestimate the intelligence of the average consumer." Also brings to mind the old P.T Barnum quote "There's a sucker born every minute."
        The fact that most people really do belive anything they hear, especially if they hear it will get them laid, is the foundation from which the modern economy is built upon.
    • Actually with SpamAssassin 3 and the latest bayesian, within days I stopped almost all of my spam. Even as spam gets 'smarter', my bayes filter will too. I have Amavis + Postfix doing the other routine filtering. Life is good now.
    • You will win my vote if your ever up for congress.

    • Re:I'd Prefer Stoning (Score:5, Funny)

      by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 ) <deliverance.level4@org> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:15PM (#10489907) Journal
      one pebble per spam otta do it.
    • Naahhh, he should just be tied to a tree, upside down and fed ex-lax for a week. Then he would be covered in what he sends out.
    • But he didn't even say JehovAAAHH!
    • I may not be without sin but can I throw the first stone ???
    • I have no problems with execution of spammers by violent mob unless it happens on a day where I can't get out of the office.

  • Good to see. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kintarowins ( 820651 )
    Its good to see that the can spam act is actually taking some action, along with the governments. However I bet if the spammer had to pay just 50 cents for every email they sent, they would be fined in the millions.

    • Re:Good to see. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:51PM (#10489803)
      I'm sorry, but the CANSPAM act actually helps spammers. It over-rides much stronger laws at the state level, and the provision of "including an opt-out" and have a "legitimate description" and using a "valid email" address are trivial to circumvent.

      Either purchase what is called a "pink contract" from your ISP, which allows you to spam, or simply use a series of throw-away sender accounts. Each is legitimate, but each is used to harvest the "opt-out" addresses and use them for the next spam for a slightly different product or for a distinct username with the same product. This kind of abuse is trivial, and already widely in practice.

      What needs to be forbidden is the sending of unsolicited bulk communications: not "spam" as in "advertising", because that's too hard to decipher in court and gets into First Amendment issues. But outlaw unsolicited bulk communications of *any* sort: advertising, religious spew, political campaigning, etc. People can sign up to get email from you, but as soon as you start sending it unsolicited, face criminal penalties.

      This kind of law has been in place for many years, successfully, for junk fax. The CANSPAM act is aimed at the wrong target: it's aimed at fraud, not at spam.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Is it a school provided email account?

          Determining if something is solicited is quite easy. Besides you write in the law that approval must be obtained after the law goes into effect.
        • Good queston. You already have a relationship with the school, as a student. Therefore email from them is not "unsolicited". Testing for unsolicited email is trivial. The people who receive it have to press the lawsuit. When dozens, or thousands of them, from across the country testify that they didn't ask for this, the company can either show where they got the email addresses from and what the relationship is, or face charges. This is exactly what the junk fax law calls for, and it's been successfully en

  • Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:49PM (#10489789)
    Why should we be happy when the spammers get spammed? Ponder this.

    Lex Talionis, the principle of an eye for an eye, is a morally bankrupt code of law we've been moving away from for the past few thousand years, thankfully. It can't deal with the complexities of the modern legal order, and it ignores all proper justifications for systems of punishment: rehabilitation, prophylaxis, etc. It makes an assertion of rigid judgment in an attempt to avoid judgment itself. We can't live in a world without judgment.

    Ask yourself this: should we rape the rapist? If not, why not? (Ignore for a moment that we essentially do rape rapists by committing them to so-called "maximum security" prisons where they get systematically brutalized and raped by guards and other inmates.) It's not a morally tenable position to lower ourselves to the level of brutes just so we can vindicate some idea of retribution.

    Therefore, ask yourself why we should be happy when the spammer gets spammed? No one should have to endure the pain and annoyance of spam: it's the scurge of the online world. Not even the spammer, who may be in his business because of factors outside his control like debt or bills for an illness in the family, etc. We should be outraged when anyone is spammed, and we should put the full force of the state and the law against the perpetrator no matter who the victim! Picking and choosing among which victims to protect is something the legal order of former barbaric times did. I'd be disgusted if our government returned to those days.

    Spam == bad. Victimization == bad. Why do people conflate the two? What kind of giddy moral superiority to you get from seeing anyone hurt?

    • Baloney (Score:4, Insightful)

      by XanC ( 644172 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:07PM (#10489878)
      For the vast majority of human history, the penalty for pretty much anything was death. No questions asked. That's the default. If you can't live by the rules, you're out of the tribe... the hard way.

      "An eye for an eye" is an advanced, progressive, touchy-feely principle made popular by Hammurabi about 6000 years ago.

      • Re:Baloney (Score:3, Informative)

        by RodgerDodger ( 575834 )
        Actually, exile was more likely than death. Tribes didn't get around to killing people for offenses until they started to run out of places to exile them to.
        • To the extent that the chances of survival are much greater inside a group than outside alone, exile was pretty much a sentence of death.
          • Yeah, and so was a 20-year jail term for a long period of time, too... however, it's not the same as a death sentence, either in fact or in ethics.

    • Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:19PM (#10489933)
      You are clearly trolling since nobody said anything about the spammer getting spammed or lex talionis.


      I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to your out of context post, but the reason that we consider raping the rapist to be morally bankrupt is that rape is an awful violation of somebody's human rights, even if that person has themselves committed that crime. Spam, while an annoyance and a pain in the ass, is not a violation of human rights, just a negative externality (and one I certainly despise). So the point is that when a thief gets something stolen from him or a spammer gets spammed, it's not comparable to a rapist being raped. As to the effectiveness as a means of prophylaxis or rehabilitation, I'm not sure that ANY means of punishment have been shown to be effective in those ways.

    • It's not a morally tenable position to lower ourselves to the level of brutes just so we can vindicate some idea of retribution.

      And this, perhaps, is the primal argument of pragmatism against idealism when it comes to criminal "rehabilitation". Retribution has some preventative effect on the commision of crime.

      Some people get very idealistic about this, but the point of the system is to stop crimes from happening so that the majority of people can live comfortable, relatively safe lives. As to whether pu

      • We should use the yardstick of reason - what actually works, and what do the majority of the people find acceptable?

        This only works with a properly informed populace. When powerful forces do their best to prevent people from having accurate information about (for example) the effects and dangers of drug use, and the mechanisms for appropriately dealing with drug abuse, just looking at "what works" and what people find acceptible is, to be bluntly scientific, suboptimal. When most people believe (due t

      • "we'll have stupidity such as the three strikes law. This is law based on a baseball term! Talk about stupidity ruling the unwashed masses!"

        By your own standards, the three strikes law is not stupid. The three strikes law is not intended to be punitive or rehabilitative; it is purely preventative. The issue is that the majority of crimes are committed by repeat criminals. The three strikes rule takes someone who is recidivist (i.e. has a history of committing crimes after being released from jail) and
    • Because we're built to feel pleasure in vengeance:
      http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004 /09/14/10949 27518356.html?oneclick=true
    • Why should we be happy when the spammers get spammed?
      For the same reason we sentence young 'taggers' to a few hours of cleaning up grafitti: we make the perpetrator aware of the damage he is causing, in hopes that he will see the error of his ways.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • How about.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rathehun ( 818491 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:50PM (#10489800) Homepage
    ...the penalty for distributing spyware be using a computer, only with Internet Explorer, NO access to Ad-Aware/Spybot/etc and forced to keep the "Cute Kitty" screensaver that somebody reffered to in the SETI story?

    I think he can then do his thing. Well, maybe he can use Gator to remember his passwords.

    Waste these assholes...

  • Why settle? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by powerpuffgirls ( 758362 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:51PM (#10489801)
    Why did he settle instead of going all the way?

    Spammers spam because they think they have the freedom to spam, and the only way to stop this is to take away their freedom, ie some jail time.

    Failing that, I thought the fine is a bit small, but sooner or later, people will find the "threshold" fine to impose, which basically make the whole spamming business unprofitable.

    • Why did he settle instead of going all the way?

      Spammers spam because they think they have the freedom to spam, and the only way to stop this is to take away their freedom, ie some jail time.

      Are you sure about that? I'd say they're all aware of the legality of their actions, but the money made from those who do respond is enough to make them not care.

  • public results (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cybergrunt69 ( 730228 ) <cybergrunt69.yahoo@com> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:52PM (#10489805) Journal
    Now if only they would seize all his computers and find all of the tools he used to send all this spam.

    Most likely, he's used the benefit of spyware to send this bs out. It would be really nice to make those results public, so it would shed a better light as to why we should protect against that crap...
    • Now if only they would seize all his computers and find all of the tools he used to send all this spam.

      And insert them into one of his convenient orifices...

  • Looks like the crux is the opt-out link (Score:5, Interesting)

    by soapbox ( 695743 ) * on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:53PM (#10489815) Homepage
    Not providing an opt-out link is not allowed under CAN-SPAM, and if the link doesn't work, then they can be fined. Great. BUT when other spammers have the opt-out link generate an attack on your machine [slashdot.org], is the opting-out link something the lawmakers want to champion as real enforcement of the law--ostensibly making us better off?

  • What we need is a PROA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DiveX ( 322721 ) <slashdotnewcontact@oasisofficepark.com> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:02PM (#10489863) Homepage
    Intil consumers have a private right of action as one exists in the telemarketing laws (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 47 USC 227) then the CAN-SPAM or anything else will be toothless. The TCPA gives consumers the right to sue in small claims court for violations of the law and subsequent federal regulations. I have another hearing soon sgainst a local mortgage company that made a single, prerecorded call to my residential line. I have demanded a total of $5000 in damages (statutory damages of $500 per violation [with 6 violations] and trebled due to defendants willful or knowingly violation of the law) since that is my local court limit as well as will be demanding an injunction. This is just one person's action. If just a few more people knew their rights and enforced them, the mortgage could be taken out of business for even a single illegal telemarketing campaign or until they declare bankruptcy. Serves them right I feel, IMHO.

  • Reilly rocks. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:27PM (#10489962)

    No, not O'reilly. Tom Reilly, the MA Attorney General.

    He's been on a virtual warpath against corporations. He didn't back off like all the other states did in the case against Microsoft. He took on the Catholic Church, and sent them running for cover. He's been a non-stop machine against corporate greed and corruption, and it's about damn time. We need a lot more state AG's like him.

    I have a feeling he has aspirations for being federal attorney general. Long as he keeps up his current record of corporate ball-busting, I'm all for it. Yet another reason to vote for Kerry, I see it- Bush is quite happy with Ashcroft, and I doubt Ashcroft would last very long under Kerry. Somehow, I don't see Ridge lasting long either.

    Pretty sad when you loose an election to a dead person and get slotted right into a high ranking, federal executive position you're not even remotely qualified for.

    • Re:Reilly rocks. (Score:4, Informative)

      by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:48PM (#10490051) Homepage
      "Pretty sad when you loose an election to a dead person and get slotted right into a high ranking, federal executive position you're not even remotely qualified for."

      I've seen this many times before, here on /. too, and it makes me sick. It's not like he was an incumbent that was so bad he lost to a dead guy (which would be one thing). He was the challenger. He lost to a very popular man who died VERY shortly before the election. They couldn't change the ballot. Some (many?) people saw voting for him as a way to honor his memory.

      Now I'm not going to pretend to know whether Mel Carnahand, a.k.a. "the dead guy", was good or not. I won't pretend to know whether his wife (who got the seat he won) is any good. I don't live in Missouri so it doesn't effect me personally. But if you are going to pick on someone you don't like for political reasons... GROW UP and do it in a more mature way (like with real, relevant facts). "He must be dum and abizmul at his job 'cause he lost to a dead guy! Ha ha ha". Grow up. Have a little respect.

      And it wouldn't matter if Ashcroft was a good AG (I'm not saying he is or isn't). Chances are he would be replaced with the change of administration anyway.

      • Re:Reilly rocks. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Fnkmaster ( 89084 )
        That's all nice, but nobody around here wants to hear it. I don't care if you support Bush's foreign policy or not, John Ashcroft is far and away the worst human being in the Bush administration and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near my country's federal government. I don't give a shit about the election he lost in Missouri, I care about the devastation this guy wants to wreak on my nation and our freedoms. If you were even half a true conservative (not one of the sickening fascist authoritarian new Repu
        • I am a true conservative. I am such an old-school Republican that I cannot in good conscience vote for Bush this year. (I can't vote for Kerry, either: voting for the lesser evil is still evil.) I think John Ashcroft is the most dangerous attorney general we've had since Bobby Kennedy (the man who plotted the murder of foreign leaders, e.g., Castro).

          So, since I pass your political litmus test, let me inform you of some things you apparently missed in elementary school:

          Beating people up is wrong.

          Mr
          • First:
            Beating people up--and that includes snide, offhand, inaccurate and ad-hominem remarks--is wrong.
            (Emphasis mine.) Then:
            I don't know how you got modded +2 Insightful. I really don't. I'd like to think that all of us here have at least the basic moral development of a kindergartener.
            I've got this pot and this kettle here next to me -- perhaps you could tell me what color they are.
            • It's hardly ad-hominem. My objection to his conduct is quite well-considered, quite rationally stated, with a minimum of hystrionics or slander. Nor was my comment offhand or inaccurate.

              It is not ad-hominem to exercise sincere and honest judgement, even if that judgement is something with which other people disagree.
          • I'll continue to defend John Ashcroft against unfair, unwarranted and asinine "criticisms".

            That statement is not relevant here. Ashcroft insisted on preventing the Democrats from substituting another name. Therefore, sneering at him for "losing to a dead guy" is a fair, warranted, and clever criticism, and he brought it upon his own head.

          • I'm curious (and this isn't a snide comment) -- who do you plan to vote for this year? Sounds like you don't plan for either of the major two candidates. Will you not vote at all, or will you choose a third-party candidate? If you do, which and why?
        • not one of the sickening fascist authoritarian new Republicans
          Random FYI: you're referring to "neocons" (neo-conservatives), who no longer believe in small government, but rather in fascist, centralized power held by the rich. :)

      • Re:Reilly rocks. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Well, the republicans actually pulled legal strings to keep Carnahand on the ballot after he died! Ashcroft happily supported keeping his dead opponent on the ballot, instead of actually running against a live human being. It was obviously sleezy, Ashcroft showed absolutely no respect for the guy's death, and demanded that the ballot remain unchanged.

        Missouri voters still chose not to elect Ashcroft, and there was even the idea floated of Carnahand's wife taking the position. Basically Missouri voters

        • She actually did take it. When Carnahan won the election, the governor appointed her to the office in his place. I think (but am not sure) that she ran for re-election when her term was up, but I don't know whether she won, believe it or not.

          To this day I still see "I'm still with Mel" bumper stickers on cars around here, and I thought it was kind of nice that he still won anyway. I saw it as a "He died, so we'll remember him by letting him posthumously do what he wanted to do" tribute.
    • I'm curious, has there been any talk of Reilly getting the John Kerry nod for AG? It would make some sense with them both being from Mass. Just curious if there's anything hard behind that rumor.

  • Running to the cameras (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:34PM (#10489994)
    is all the Mass action is.

    $25,000, from what has been reported as spammer income in other stories linked from here on slashdot is less than a day's profit. The Mass. AG did the same thing the NY AG did, grab headlines to promote himself for future office, and tuck away an action against a popular cause.

    If the intention was to stop the spamming, the fine would have been higher, the AG would have forced the spammer to give up the mortgage brokers who are paying the spammer affiliate commissions for the leads, and the AG would have revoked the licenses of the mortgage brokers.

    But the mortgage brokers have friends in high places, and well placed campaign donations.

    Follow the money. Pull the licenses of the mortgage brokers. Pull the licenses of any other individual or company who pays a spammer affiliate money, commissions, or any other types of payments based on results of spamming. Delist public companies that pay spammers and fax.com in cash and stock to blast fax and spambomb advertisements to promote and raise awareness of their penny and dollar stocks.

    $25,000? A mosquito bite. The spammers are laughing at the Mass AG right now.
    • $25,000, from what has been reported as spammer income in other stories linked from here on slashdot is less than a day's profit. The Mass. AG did the same thing the NY AG did, grab headlines to promote himself for future office, and tuck away an action against a popular cause.

      Then expect Iowa's AG to do the same thing within a couple of weeks. He's the greatest "me-too" attorney general in the country.

    • Follow the money. Pull the licenses of the mortgage brokers. Pull the licenses of any other individual or company who pays a spammer affiliate money, commissions, or any other types of payments based on results of spamming. Delist public companies that pay spammers and fax.com in cash and stock to blast fax and spambomb advertisements to promote and raise awareness of their penny and dollar stocks.

      You could do this yourself. Next time you bag a mortgage spam, visit the website. Fill it out with some f

    • ...If the intention was to stop the spamming, the fine would have been higher, the AG would have forced the spammer to give up the mortgage brokers who are paying the spammer affiliate commissions for the leads, and the AG would have revoked the licenses of the mortgage brokers. But the mortgage brokers have friends in high places, and well placed campaign donations...

      Somehow, I wonder if this wouldn't work for him as much as against him. Face it, there are lots of mortgage brokers out there. Pull some

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Better than a fine... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Johnny Fusion ( 658094 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <odnomnez>> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:45PM (#10490043) Homepage Journal
    Part of the Hackerdom's whipping boy's [wikipedia.org] sentance was not being able to user the Internet for many years.

    I think this would be very fitting punishment for a spammer.

  • Assisted by Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Craig Ringer ( 302899 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @12:02AM (#10490303) Homepage Journal
    The credit to Microsoft for assistance is interesting. They're clearly taking more than one approach to attempt make good on their "stamp out spam" promise.

    This particular tack is one that MS is uniquely positioned for, given their rather strong contacts in government (hmm) and impressive financial and personell strengths.

    Hell, I wish 'em luck. It'd be nice if they'd stop with the "gain control of eMail" angle, but this approach is useful. Even if it's not overly effective or efficient, it'll be one more thing that makes spamming less worthwhile, and that can only be good.

  • As I always do when a spam article comes along... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Ultimate Fartkno ( 756456 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @12:55AM (#10490544)
    ...please allow me to pimp two of my favorite anti-spam projects. First is the Unsolicited Commando [astrobastards.net] squadron. UC is a happy little Java app that sits on your desktop and spends its days merrily filling out forms on spamvertised sites with perfectly real-looking (and yet completely bogus) data. Run one on your machine and help drive another mortgage spammer out of business! The second place I'd like to point you to is a spam vampire site [hillscapital.com]. This is a webpage (IE only for now, but source is available and hopefully being ported to MozFireOperaSafariFox soon) that attacks spamvertised sites and reloads their graphics over and over and over and *over* again all day long. Basically it's the Slashdot effect put to good use. Burn up a spammer's bandwidth and... well, hopefully you'll have their children out on the street and doing vile things for money before long. Enjoy!!

  • You know the government is screwed ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by camooT ( 820852 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @01:23AM (#10490674)
    When the RIAA is doing a better job of enforcing the law. Chances are, if we ever see any spammer get seriously boned, it'll be because he forgot to disable file sharing on Kazaa.

    $25,000 to this guy is as remarkable as your first time was to you.

  • on the good side (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Exter-C ( 310390 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @02:20AM (#10490889) Homepage
    This is good news. Although we can only hope that this is a start of things to come. With the high level of SPAM coming from the US (based on spamhaus stats http://www.spamhaus.org/ ) If more fines are to come for US based spam operators hopefully other countries will follow suit. (as seen with recent Australian legal developments).

    The biggest issue here is this is only the tip of the ice berg. And a one off wont do enough to scare spammers. Its all about volume and consistancy.

  • A stupid settlement (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DrHyde ( 134602 )
    AG Reilly's settlement also prohibits DC Enterprises, Carson, and anyone acting on their behalf from violating the federal CAN-SPAM Act, the Massachusetts Mortgage Broker Statute or the Massachusetts Advertising Regulations.

    So let me see if I understand this ... the court settlement prohibits the spammer from doing stuff that he's prohibited from doing anyway. How useful.

  • What do you suppose the chances are that they will actually pay the $25000 and stop spamming, rather than relocate, change their identities, and continue with yet more effort to mask their true identity?

    Maybe Tom (the Massachusetts Attorney General) is going to need to recruit an army of unskilled work-from-home people hoping to get-rich-quick by taking their cut in collecting the unpaid moneyary fine imposed by the court?

Slashdot Top Deals

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- Cartoon caption

Close