Back to the articleFacebook are suing...? #
Posted Tuesday 3rd March 2009 13:52 GMT
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?
Facebook sues 'Spamford' Wallace over spam scam
Facebook #
Posted Tuesday 3rd March 2009 14:12 GMT
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.
Stupid 'merkins! #
Posted Tuesday 3rd March 2009 14:14 GMT
How are we supposed to take a country seriously when they even give their acts 'catchy' acronyms!!
"gang allegedly hacked into accounts using phishing" #
Posted Tuesday 3rd March 2009 15:02 GMT
phishing != hacking !!!111oneoenone
@AnonCoward 03.03.09 14:06 GMT #
Posted Tuesday 3rd March 2009 15:42 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.
@Facebook AC #
Posted Tuesday 3rd March 2009 16:03 GMT
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? #
Posted Tuesday 3rd March 2009 16:08 GMT
Have MySpace managed to get the $230m from Spamford? Anybody know?
The real quesion: #
Posted Tuesday 3rd March 2009 20:19 GMT
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?
Yep #
Posted Tuesday 3rd March 2009 20:19 GMT
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? #
Posted Wednesday 4th March 2009 11:17 GMT
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 #
Posted Wednesday 4th March 2009 12:06 GMT
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?
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly IT security newsletter - click here
Popular Whitepapers
- Expert Roundtable: The Register Agile Data Center Summit
On-Demand Audio - Dell PowerEdge R710 solution with VMware ESX vs. Dell PowerEdge 2850 solution
Initial investment payback analysis summary report - New storage architectures make SSDs more cost-effective
High-performance, cost-efficient storage infrastructures - Automating the Acquisition Process with Enterprise Level CRM
Sales Force Automation buyer’s guide - Checklist: Midmarket ERP Solutions
Control your rising business costs - Enterprise PBX buyer's guide
Access to expert research on all aspects of the IP PBX market
