Facebook Awarded $711 Million In Anti-Spam Case 179
An anonymous reader writes "Facebook is on a never-before-seen legal rampage against high profile internet spammers. Today Facebook was awarded yet another nine-figure settlement, this time for over $700 million. Facebook also has a criminal contempt case on Wallace, which means a high likelihood of prison, a big win for the internet and a milestone in cyber law. 'The record demonstrates that Wallace willfully violated the statutes in question with blatant disregard for the rights of Facebook and the thousands of Facebook users whose accounts were compromised by his conduct,' Jeremy Fogel wrote in his judgment order, which permanently prohibits Wallace from accessing the Facebook Web site or creating a Facebook account, among other restrictions."
A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (Score:5, Insightful)
2004-10-08 FTC files suit against Wallace to stop infecting computers with spyware that promised to remove the problem for $30.
2006-03-22 FTC files suit against Wallace--Wallace and co-defendants fined for over $5 million.
2008-01-26 MySpace awarded $230 million from Wallace in LA.
2009-10-29 (Yesterday) Facebook awarded $711 million from Wallace.
If you say seven hundred million and jail time is too much, I say it isn't enough. A warning didn't stop him, five million didn't stop him, two hundred million didn't stop him and I'm sure seven hundred million won't stop him. Throw the book at him and lock him up--this is definition CAN-SPAM Act. And he's a heavy repeat offender, it's not like this guy was blindsided with a surprise ruling. Spam is too kind of a label for this guy, I would hit him for extortion and identity theft on massive scales in addition to CAN-SPAM.
How he continued to operate with a two hundred million dollar loss a year and a half ago is beyond me. Is he just declaring bankruptcy (like he did back June '09 [insidefacebook.com]), rolling over and doing it again? Or avoiding states where there's a warrant for his arrest or what?
Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh. Nice. But the problem is as old as humanity itself: forbidding is one thing, preventing is quite another. I agree, jailtime is the only way to go for a recidivist like that. And he's just abusing international law and such: just because you go bust in one country doesn't mean you can't have $500m tucked away in another. Until treaties are formed which address these problems - and thankfully, tax havens have come under heavy fire of late - this type of crap is just going to continue.
What I don't get is why a joker like that - who is obviously intelligent - doesn't just find a legal way to get rich. It can't be that hard.
Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (Score:5, Insightful)
It can't be that hard.
Yes, well, it can be that hard. There are lots of intelligent people who aren't and can't be rich, although they want to be.
More than intelligence is required.
And apparently, for this guy, he's skilled in getting rich using uncouth methods. It's what he's familiar with, it's what comes easy for him (I suppose)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
easily go get a job on Wall Street. Then he could make millions just as unethically, but legally.
It still isn't that easy because of competition. On Wall Street, there are thousands of ruthless, smart people who would do anything to be super rich. Don't be fooled by what you see in the media. Most people on Wall Street are not super rich just like most actors in Hollywood are not super stars. The vast majority are working really hard to give themselves a chance to hit it big. Being super smart and super unethical doesn't make you special on Wall Street. By being a spammer, he didn't have competit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I don't get is why a joker like that - who is obviously intelligent - doesn't just find a legal way to get rich. It can't be that hard.
Maybe he doesn't want to.
Most people who are really good at doing something got to be that good because they enjoy doing it.
If he enjoyed doing something that is both profitable and legal, then he'd probably be just as rich with no legal problems. But he doesn't. He enjoys doing exactly what he is doing.
That is not funny at all. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If there's a warrant for his arrest why don't they nab him and extradite him?
Surely the US Marshals can't be THAT clueless...
Re: (Score:2)
These people are a blight on society. They deliberately ignore or abuse the rules of society for their own personal gain, deliberately harm millions of people for their own personal gain, deliberately commit mass fraud, etc. They are hardened sociopaths---not significantly different from mass murderers, child molesters, etc. except in the way and extent to which they choose to harm others. They have no morality, no ethics, and no fear of punishment. Therefore, it is not realistically feasible to rehabil
Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (Score:5, Interesting)
You notice that there's a billion dollars in risk here?
Sounds to me like there is considerable incentive to be an epic scale douchebag of the internet. You'd think he'd be a gajillionaire, right?
Except...
"As of October 2003, he is working as a DJ in Las Vegas, making weekly appearances at OPM nightclub (name changed to 'Poetry Nightclub' October 5, 2007) in Caesars Palace Forum Shops on the Las Vegas Strip. Wallace performs under the name DJ MasterWeb.[8]"
"Wallace filed for bankruptcy in June, 2009. On 2009-10-29, a Northern California District Court Judge awarded Facebook $711M in damages.[12]. Although unlikely to collect due to his bankruptcy, the presiding judge in the case also recommended Criminal Contempt charges against Wallace, who may face jail time as a result." -wiki
So uh, it's not like he's ridonculously wealthy as a result of being a sleezebag? What gives???
Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace (Score:4, Insightful)
1) They'd have to actually find him first (odds are good that all but the first cases were done with him in absentia).
2) Good luck collecting.
3) this may sound a bit trollish, but a thought occurred to me: as of right now, Spamford Wallace likely owes enough money to buy a brand new ballistic missile submarine. No one will ever see so much as a dime from him. So... why did they even bother? It's similar to the RIAA and Jammie Thomas - there comes a point where it becomes less of a statement and more of a parody. Trust me, I have zero sympathy for the son of a bitch, but do we have to make a mockery of our own legal system just to make a point?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, we need a criminal conviction, not a "debtor's prison". In some states you cannot discharge by bankruptcy a civil outcome that proceeds from a criminal conviction. I.e., we need to go after folks like this criminally. His actions are clearly criminal. What Facebook should have done was sued the DA.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Make him work it off in a sweatshop for the rest of his days.
"Mr. Wallace, you are hereby sentenced to spend the remainder of your natural life logged in to a mail client pressing the delete key."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd just make him spend one day in jail for each piece of spam he sent out.
Facebook for Grand Nagus. Re:A Time Line (Score:3, Funny)
Facebook should be appointed Grand Nagus for coming up with such a lucrative idea.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Spammer makes profit from facebook users. Facebook (+lawyers) make profit from spammer. Is this a new business model? Why isn't this a class-action lawsuit?
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those judgements has he actually paid?
Methinks that since the judgements are just at a civil level he isn't exactly in a position to be FORCED to pay up.
As for bankruptcy, his conduct was willful and malicious...which means any *sane* judge should refuse to discharge such debts.
Re: (Score:2)
If our legal system pursued spammer with the same vigor as copyright violators, we would've rid them some time ago.
Erm, since that same vigor hasn't stopped copyright violators, what makes you think it'd succeed in stopping spam?
Stupid Name (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone else find it ironic that the "Can-Spam Act" is meant to stop people from spamming, specifically from the false and misleading type?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone else find it ironic that the "Can-Spam Act" is meant to stop people from spamming, specifically from the false and misleading type?
I believe the intent was to have the first word in CAN-SPAM be a verb, with the meaning of "can" being, "to throw in the trash."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's such a weak law (and probably intentionally so) that it means that you can spam with impunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone else find it ironic that the "Can-Spam Act" is meant to stop people from spamming
Yes, it's ironic, in this context it's meant as "to put it in a can", you know, like the meat Spam.
And this guy is going to go spend time in a metal box, so it seems fitting.
Re:Stupid Name (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, it's ironic, in this context it's meant as "to put it in a can", you know, like the meat Spam.
You mean, the thing you do to spam before you deliver it to millions of people all over the world?
Idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean hey, if the money ever actually does come in, it's perfectly viable given how often people spam Facebook users.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first idea when I heard the numbers! I somehow doubt it'll work out, but it's an interesting thought.
Re: (Score:2)
wonder if they'll consider this judgement as an asset on their books...
Good ol' Spamford (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweet merciful crap, is Spamford Wallace [wikipedia.org] still around? We were stabbing voodoo dolls with his picture on them more than ten years ago. His C.V. reads like list of things that are wrong with the Internet. If there were ever someone that the world would be a better place without, it's this guy.
Wrong "Method and Process" for stopping spammers (Score:2)
We were stabbing voodoo dolls with his picture on them more than ten years ago.
Obviously, stabbing the voodoo dolls had no effect.
I would suggest that the Court anoint its forearm with Tabasco, and fist Mr. Wallace.
. . . and I do mean him, and not the voodoo doll. Then, he might get the message.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you aren't willing to carry out the sentence yourself, with your parents watching, you don't really believe in it.
Re: (Score:2)
SO.. (Score:4, Funny)
Nice (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Whoever modded this as troll is unfair... I think it was kinda witty and should have at least got a Funny or two.
It is kinda funny to see an individual taken to the cleaners by a corporation and the /. crowd being pleased about it.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
SANFORD Wallace? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like an admission to being Wallace, to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you suspect me to be this so-called 'Spam King' yet you reveal your e-mail address to me. That's very brave of you...
BUT FOOLISH! (hits Send.)
Re: (Score:2)
Time for the death penalty (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Time for the death penalty (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I and someone else didn't opt in to Microsoft wasting our time. More importantly, me helping someone else doesn't save me any time overall. Perhaps that someone else bears some of the blame, but I don't think all the blame can be shifted on people who quite clearly are incapable (either intellectually or through gross lack of inf
Re: (Score:2)
I and someone else didn't opt in to Microsoft wasting our time. More importantly, me helping someone else doesn't save me any time overall. Perhaps that someone else bears some of the blame, but I don't think all the blame can be shifted on people who quite clearly are incapable (either intellectually or through gross lack of information available) of having truly opted in to all that was entailed.
Oh, were you forced at gun point to install MS software? If not, and you still did, you opted in.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, were you forced at gun point to use e-mail? If not, and you still did, you opted in to spam.
Oh, were you forced at gun point to eat that peanut butter? If not, and you still did, you opted in to contracting Salmonella.
Oh, were you forced at gun point to cross that street? If not, and you still did, you opted in to being ran over by a car.
Gosh, that's a silly argument.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm, this is an interesting concept. However, to carry it to its natural extreme.... what then would we do with Microsoft?
What would we do with Slashdot?
Re:Time for the death penalty (Score:5, Funny)
And an appropriate execution method might be death by ten thousand paper cuts. Or just leave him naked in mosquito country at the start of the season. I mean, it's not like any one cut or bite is that serious....
Re:Time for the death penalty (Score:5, Funny)
Force him to eat nothing but spam until he dies of malnutrition.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that won't work. The people of the Hawai'ian Islands have proven over the years you can subsist on only spam for many decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just have a small pebble thrown at him, (and it can be thrown lightly), for every spam he sent...
Re: (Score:2)
Just have a small pebble thrown at him, (and it can be thrown lightly), for every spam he sent...
Um... I'd rather not.
Choose instead: grain of sand, placed as close to his feet as possible.
Best performed in an open yard, to make space for the new sand dune...
Re: (Score:2)
>> There's a certain point where we need to consider the death penalty for this sort of thing. Sure, we normally only use the death penalty for heinous crimes, but from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society. If Wallace is taken out and shot he'll lose about 365*50*24= 438,000 life hours.
so... watch out for your 15 minutes of fame lest people consider you wasting their time?
Are you for real? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a certain point where we need to consider the death penalty for this sort of thing.
Are you trying to actually accomplish something or are you just trying to make yourself feel better?
from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society
OK, we'll go for the latter (much) more so than the former.
There are multiple reasons that any sensible person can quickly come up with as to why this would be a useless guesture:
And thats just getting started...
You'd might as well use a voodoo doll, it would be just as effective and far less expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
There are too many spammers to kill them all (or even make a dent in the spam volume by trying)
We offer up bounties on pests like nutria and gophers and there's far more of them than there are spammers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well just wait until the Gopher Rights bill gets passed, it's coming..
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that list that it's more expensive to kill someone than to give them life in prison. From a utilitarian perspective, unless the person has a high risk of somehow escaping or continuing their crimes from inside prison, the death penalty really makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
A round of .30-06 is probably a dollar at the most, and even cheaper if you use surplus ammo.
I'm quite certain you could find volunteers to do the work, ones who will provide their own firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea...if you want to say that anyone you arrest on certain charges is instantly shot without any trial....then sure, you could round up all the Bad Guys and take them all out for about $100. Hell you could probably just post a list somewhere and say 'there will be no charge for murdering the following individuals' and let people take care of it themselves. Then it'd practically be free. But that's not the way society works. In the real world, we have trials. We give people a chance to attempt to disprove th
Re: (Score:2)
And in the real world, it's been proven many, many times that it is far cheaper to keep someone in prison
I think the state of Texas claims otherwise.
Oh, wait, we're talking about the real world. Nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd might as well use a voodoo doll, it would be just as effective and far less expensive
Been tried. Apparently it doesn't work: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1425321&cid=29926417 [slashdot.org]
Thanks for proving my point. Spammers have been killed in the past, and that didn't work either.
Re: (Score:2)
Spammers have been killed in the past, and that didn't work either.
Sort of depends on how you define "work", doesn't it? Did one spammer dying stop the global spam problem? No. But that one guy's spam output has fallen quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Spammers have been killed in the past, and that didn't work either.
Sort of depends on how you define "work", doesn't it? Did one spammer dying stop the global spam problem? No. But that one guy's spam output has fallen quite a bit.
Which made no noticeable change in the global spam problem whatsoever. Hence it did not work if the goal was to make a difference in regards to the greater spamming problem; and why someone would ever feel killing is justified either way is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be serious for a moment, why has this jackass not been completely prohibited from using the internet? Judges have already told him that he can no longer use Myspace or Facebook - why not just bite the bullet and tell him that he cannot use the internet at all?
Considering his track record in junk faxes as well, I'd probably suggest disallowing him use of any communication service whatsoever. If he still wants to "spam," he can do it in person where his "potential customer" can easily respond... preferab
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say he should be the one to power computers. Make him be the one on the bicycle powering the prison computers. He he stops or goes too slow, let the other prisoners deal with him. I wonder how long he could keep on peddling.
Re:Time for the death penalty (Score:4, Interesting)
Bleeding heart conservatives...
Look, when I die, it's likely to be a horrible ordeal. Have you ever seen anyone in the last stages of Alsheimer's or cancer? You're going to die in a car wreck or other accident, of some terrible disease. Very few are as lucky as my late ex-mother in law, who just stopped in mid sentence like a robot whose battery was yanked out.
We're all under a sentence of death, and most of us are sentenced to death by torture. And we have no idea when it will happen. You might live to be 110, or you may keel over ten minutes from now.
The man condemned by other men to die, on the other hand, know exactly when they're going to die. They have a chance to make their peace with any creator they happen to believe in. Then they are painlessly and without muss or fuss humanely put to sleep like a beloved pet.
I'd rather they die naturally, in prison, when their time comes, letting them think about the horror they have wreaked on people.
You capital punishment advocates are far too kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we normally only use the death penalty for heinous crimes, but from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society. If Wallace is taken out and shot he'll lose about 365*50*24= 438,000 life hours. On the other hand, even a year or two of Wallace's normal behavior causes the rest of society to lose far more time. We should consider a death penalty
Chairman Mao, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
You may collect your prize of a bloody mary with a shot of mole sauce at your convince.
Re: (Score:2)
How could putting someone to death (that is assuming that the person is put to death within a year) cost less then keeping them in jail for the rest of their lives?
One year jail time+method of execution has to cost less the care and feeding of said person for the rest of their lives.
If you have the death penalty, use it. If the criminals know, that if they do something that society can and will kill them for it, we might have less crime. The biggest issue is the criminals know that they have years (if not d
Re: (Score:2)
How could putting someone to death (that is assuming that the person is put to death within a year) cost less then keeping them in jail for the rest of their lives?
Automatic appeals. Court time.
An anti-death penalty site [deathpenaltyinfo.org] which relies in large part on this study [ccfaj.org].
Cost to incarcerate one person, one year [ct.gov] is about $50k, currently.
A $1 million trial thus costs about the same as 20 years of imprisonment. If the cost differential between a death penalty trial and a life incarceration trial exceeds about $3 million, the incarceration becomes more cost effective pretty much 100% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
steel buildings fall at the speed of gravity
Does gravity not act on steel buildings in other countries?
Re: (Score:2)
Think about the dumbest person you know. The person THAT person thinks is really stupid is the kind of person who clicks on these things. There's nothing you can do. They're out of your reach. Out of 6.5 billion people, it doesn't take a very high percentage to be a millionaire.
Re: (Score:2)
Spam is a business and as such we need to hit it were it hurts. If we stop the flow of money to spammers we effectively stop the spammers
It seems there is an echo here...
I've been saying that about spammers for some time [slashdot.org]. That, however, doesn't change the fact that you will still have people yearning for blood over the matter - even though it would be a useless guesture.
How is Facebook going to distribute... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Will you take a check? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> How is Facebook going to distribute... ... the money to the users who suffered damage?
coupons with no monetary value... and no non-monetary value.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't do that. They've finally found a business model! Suing people that bother their users.
Re: (Score:2)
If Facebook users want compensation then they can file a class-action suit, Facebook itself doesn't really have a responsibility to file a class-action suit for it's users, Facebook is able to go after him with bigger guns in criminal court.
Where do I add this new app? (Score:5, Funny)
"Facebook's application for a default judgment against Wallace for violating the Can-Spam Act"
Cool new app!
I crack myself up.
This sounds like a fantastic business model... (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Start Web 2.0 web site utilizing every buzzword you can find
2) Desparately woo users until you get large enough to matter
3) Sit down a year or more later to desperately figure out a revenue model
4) Provide Spammers a way to proliferate
5) Sue them!
6) PROFIT$$$$$$$
Not only that, but this also avoids the usual problem in Slashdot business plans in that there is no question marks in either steps 3 or 4.
Anyone got a good idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, there's definitely a ????? step in there. If he's facing a criminal contempt charge, he might go to jail. Then he ain't payin' nobody.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't Wallace's business model, it's Facebook's (notice steps 4 and 5). Facebook isn't going to jail, they get to put $700 million on their books.
Facebook business model unveiled! (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If I get one more invite to the "Watch Grass Grow" app, I'll just poke out an eye. Seriously - if it's not fun in real life, what makes people think it's fun because "it's on Facebook"
And yeah - I did a sanity check. Thankfully, no such app actually exists on Facebook...yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, Rule 34 has you covered.
Ooh, you mean you didn't want there to be grass growing porn? Shouldn't have thought about it.
Oh, or the Verruca Gnome.
Don't hold your breath... (Score:3, Informative)
What's in a name? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, ruthlessswindlers.com is already taken:
MarkMonitor is the Global Leader in Enterprise Brand Protection.
Domain Management
MarkMonitor Brand Protection???????
AntiFraud Solutions
Corporate Consulting Services
Visit MarkMonitor at www.markmonitor.com
Contact us at 1 800 745 9229
In Europe, at +44 (0) 20 7840 1300
The Data in MarkMonitor.com's WHOIS database is provided by MarkMonitor.com
for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record
Facebook is now the government? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the summary:
I thought criminal cases were always "The State v. ___" or another government agency. I have a hard time believing that Facebook has a criminal case against the guy.
Is there a lawyer in the house (or at least someone who plays lawyer on Slashdot)?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Try not to read too much into the summary. If there is a criminal contempt case, it likely involved Facebook complaining to the court that Wallace isn't complying with the order, and the court handling the matter as a criminal one, probably due to well, gross contempt of it.
That's just a bit of speculation though, haven't read the matter enough to certify my explanation.
A few notes about Wallace (Score:2, Interesting)
Wallace is the guy that invented mass email spam. If his ISP had shut him down on day 1, the world might be a different place today. Spam exists because ISPs tolerate it.
It is almost unheard of for a plaintiff to collect money from a spammer. They're either broke, or they've successfully hidden their money. The $711M judgment is purely symbolic. Facebook knows full well that they'll never collect a dime.
I agree that jail time is the only solution. Wallace is the recidivist's recidivist.
Re: (Score:2)
this web 2.0 thing... (Score:2)
So... (Score:2)
Re:Free Viagra! (Score:4, Informative)
The CAN-SPAM act ruined it by superceding prior federal law that made sending junk faxes/e-mail subject to a per-message penalty to be paid to the recipient, prior to the act.
Before then.. individuals did sometimes did sue spammers, I believe it was ~$500/message..