Facebook has launched a lawsuit against infamous junk mail merchant Sanford "Spamford" Wallace. Wallace, along with co-defendants Las Vegas night club manager Adam Arzoomanian and Scott Shaw, face charges of violating the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Mediapost adds the the suit covers allegations that Wallace and his business …
Facebook are suing...?
Isn't it the users who were spammed? As Facebook evidently knows who they are, will they be receiving their cut of any damages awarded?
So at last they've found a way to 'monetise' Facebook!!
It was so blindingly simple - use the vast masses of subscription-free users as bait, and sue the cr*p out of anyone who tries to spam them.
How are we supposed to take a country seriously when they even give their acts 'catchy' acronyms!!
"gang allegedly hacked into accounts using phishing"
phishing != hacking !!!111oneoenone
@AnonCoward 03.03.09 14:06 GMT
Speaking as a Stupid 'Merkin™, I can only heartily agree with your observation on laws in which legislators appear to have spent more time coming up with a cool acronym (CAN-SPAM, USA PATRIOT) than on the actual legislation itself.
Another kind of law that sets my bullshit alarm to clangin' is laws named after people (Adam's Law, Kendra's Law, Amber's Law), usually some over-the-top howling crap ostensibly intended to curb the kidnapping and exploitation of young children.
Hey, anything that involves opening a big can 'o whoopass on spammers is good in my book, if Facebook is willing to stump up the time and legal fees.
Granted, I'd much rather be looking at Spamford Wallace through the sights of a Barrett .50 than waving a legal brief at him, as the lawyers don't seem to have as much effect.
But are they collecting?
Have MySpace managed to get the $230m from Spamford? Anybody know?
The real quesion:
Why isn't Wallace inside a jail cell by now?
Or are these laws sans teeth, requiring that those victimized file civil suits while the FBI and other cops sit there and file their nails?
Giving a law a "cool" acronym is pretty much a dead giveaway that the law itself is crap. The only surer sign is naming it after a dead kid.
Yes, But Does it Pay?
The National Enquirer, USA's Sun equivalent, always found it more profitable to print dirt on celebrities, pay the fine, and pocket the difference.
Spamford's been around for a long, long time. He has a history of getting sued and losing. Perhaps in the end he's still making a profit.
Lock him up already
Lock him up, clip his connection, confiscate his computers. People have been sent to prison for far less. Why is this guy still making headlines?
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...