Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 14:10 GMT
"which also resulted in an injunction against him that effectively prevents him from accessing Facebook for any reason ever again."
how the hell are they going to enforce it ?
I bet hes back on facebook right now lol
Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 14:10 GMT
And then sue the smouldering ruin until he effectively can't afford to own money ever again.
Any way if this creep got access to user accounts through "fraudulent use of a computer" surely they can lock him up for that, I doubt many Canadians would object to his extradition.
Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 14:10 GMT
I'm more than a bit hacked off with spammers pushing dubious super willy aids, mucky films, etc. Some of the subject lines are not just explicit, but crudely so - and it must be mortifying for people who have a "family" email address, to have this garbage appear where children can be exposed to it.
I'm no prude - I'm 58 & grew up (as much as I ever did) in the 60's so I've probably BTDTGTTS and am fairly unshockable.
I just don't like 5-12 yr olds being exposed to this dross.
Fine these ungodly spamming wretches huge amounts, bankrupt them and totally dispossess them - and if the authorities find they have even one undeclared cent - 50 years in the slammer.
Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 14:10 GMT
Theres your business model right there... But unlikely to cough up ever though!
Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 14:48 GMT
If you had a 5-12 year old, would you let them on the internet unsupervised? Should they have a facebook at that age?
Although I agree with the sentiment.
Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 17:06 GMT
............between spam and arsebook pages?
Honestly - I would have thought that a bit of spam might brighten up the lives of LOIPs (Life Over Internet Protocol)
Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 17:06 GMT
0-4 year olds are ok with it though?
But seriously, spammers are scum, he should have to spend 10 hours a day sorting spam from real mail somewhere. See how he shitting well likes it.
Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 17:06 GMT
Pay-up ...bitch!!
Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 17:06 GMT
will be accepted by surgical removal of mid fold section of lower limbs using precision tool as depicted here :-
https://www.rrarms.com/catalog.php?prod=A38E
Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 23:13 GMT
The Internet, the web in particular, wasn't intended for use by children.
I think it's time to reverse the way we do these things. Instead of assuming all websites are suitable for kids and then flagging a small subset of smut outlets, assume no website is suitable for children and enumerate the small set that are intended for tots.
And put the onus on parents to ensure their kids don't have access outside the kiddies' playroom. Easy enough to do with software, easier than the present ineffective method of trying to block indecent sites.
Posted Tuesday 25th November 2008 23:13 GMT
And, as we all know, US courts juridiction covers the whole universe, known and unknown. The guy clearly desserves to rot in hell, together with scammers, MCSEs and Flash -and Silverlight- developpers, but 1) the fine is ridiculous (that's a flaw in the US judiciary, the same that allows prison sentences of several thousand years) and 2) why the feck was the case trialed in the US?
Your economy being a total wreck and your society being medieval should not be an excuse for behaving as arrogant twats.
Posted Wednesday 26th November 2008 11:08 GMT
Government bloody adverts, drink driving this, no smoking that, spam spam spam.
They are the only things, that force me to switch the channel, stop Government Spam.
Posted Wednesday 26th November 2008 13:34 GMT
Once some guy tried to add me on facef**k and his profile pic was a pic of a wang....lmao.
If ur gonna spam - don't be subtle!
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly IT security newsletter - click here
Back to the article
