Poor guy :/

 

That's a lot of money.

 

Spam isn't THAT bad.... D:

 

Honestly, I don't think he deserved that sentence. I mean, sure, he sends four million e-mails to Facebook users, but is a minor, minor nuisance really punishable by ruining the current and future luxuries his entire family line can afford?

 

 

 

As said before in the topic if you read it, his family cannot and wont inherit his debts unless they were a part of his company sending those spam e-mails when he dies. The debts will also not magically transfer to any of his living relatives or children while he is still alive regardless of being incarcerated or jobless.

 

 

 

Thank you for the correction. :thumbup:

 

Regardless, the fine ruins his life.

[bleep] Owned.

Boycotting multinational companies, accepting Jesus as your personal saviour has no direct financial rewards for you. Spamming a community largely used by underaged people with porn links, viagra ads and illegal drug selling sites is only directed towards earning the spammer's company as much money as possible without thinking of the consequences.

 

 

 

Likewise, on the streets, you can preach to people about Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad or anybody you want to. You can hand out fliers to boycott certain politicians or organizations.

 

 

 

The moment you start advertising commercial illegal services especially when directed towards minors, you lose your freedom. Viagra, marijuana and adult links are advertised for the sole reason of making personal, monetary profit. A significant part of the user base of these websites are not even of age to authorize a credit card transaction.

 

The primary issue here -- at least from the perspective of the public -- is not that he is phishing, or that he is flooding the server, or even that he is advertising illegal commodities. This is, primarily, a response to spam.

 

 

 

As I said, consequences should be expected, but not because of spamming.

Viagra is not porn.

 

 

 

Freedom of speech entitles us the freedom to advertise our beliefs, businesses, etc. I can spam my list of contacts with chain-mails encouraging everyone to boycott a certain company, to accept Jesus, to visit my website, or even *gasp* to smoke marijuana. Last time I checked, I have the right to do this without legal consequences. This, although it is a nuisance, does not significantly infringe on the freedom of others.

 

 

 

Phishing and flooding, on the other hand, may infringe on other people's freedoms, and these actions should be responded with appropriate legal action. But to suggest that spam alone should warrant legal punishment is, in my view, a serious restriction of freedom of speech.

 

 

 

I know that companies have to provide an opt-out on their e-mails/letters so that you can tell them to not e-mail you again. For individuals, I imagine that laws regarding harrassment would apply or something similar.

Viagra is not porn.

 

 

 

Freedom of speech entitles us the freedom to advertise our beliefs, businesses, etc. I can spam my list of contacts with chain-mails encouraging everyone to boycott a certain company, to accept Jesus, to visit my website, or even *gasp* to smoke marijuana. Last time I checked, I have the right to do this without legal consequences. This, although it is a nuisance, does not significantly infringe on the freedom of others.

 

 

 

Phishing and flooding, on the other hand, may infringe on other people's freedoms, and these actions should be responded with appropriate legal action. But to suggest that spam alone should warrant legal punishment is, in my view, a serious restriction of freedom of speech.

 

It slows the site, which can ultimately turn away newcomers, making Facebook lose possible visitors. By your means as well, I could say that other privately owned companies infringe the first amendment because they don't allow curse words. It's the same concept. We don't want to hear your foul mouth, as well as see your Viagra ads. Would you honestly stay on Facebook if four out of five messages and comments were from people you didn't know advertising?

Viagra is not porn.

 

 

 

Freedom of speech entitles us the freedom to advertise our beliefs, businesses, etc. I can spam my list of contacts with chain-mails encouraging everyone to boycott a certain company, to accept Jesus, to visit my website, or even *gasp* to smoke marijuana. Last time I checked, I have the right to do this without legal consequences. This, although it is a nuisance, does not significantly infringe on the freedom of others.

 

 

 

Phishing and flooding, on the other hand, may infringe on other people's freedoms, and these actions should be responded with appropriate legal action. But to suggest that spam alone should warrant legal punishment is, in my view, a serious restriction of freedom of speech.

 

It slows the site, which can ultimately turn away newcomers, making Facebook lose possible visitors. By your means as well, I could say that Jagex infringes the first amendment because they don't allow curse words. It's the same concept. We don't want to hear your foul mouth, as well as your Viagra ads. Would you honestly stay on Facebook if four out of five messages and comments were from people you didn't know advertising?

 

Likewise, I don't want to get up in the morning, have the mail come at 9, and have two out of three letters trying to sell me credit (like I would at the moment anyway!), especially since most of them get my details from the electoral register, but hey, that's life. I really can't see any difference here. The whole point of Facebook is not so people can post mindless chitty-chatter about their insignificant day, it's to open up pathways to new contacts that would not otherwise be so obvious in 'real life', and these include business partners.

 

 

 

I don't see why people can't set up a business 'shop' on Facebook, spam the hell out of whoever they want, but users can opt-out of receiving these emails or refuse to have any contact with anyone trying to make business. Christ knows MySpace made a name out of doing it with music.

 

 

 

This punishment is completely unfair, pointless (since as both me and BlueLancer are arguing, he's no way of paying it anyway) and aimed at sensationalism in the media. It won't stop the spammers. They'll just think of better ways of doing it, as always happens.

Wow, sad.....

Holy cabbage that's a huge fine! :shock: No amount of spamming is worth a fine that big, surely!

 

I guess this is a huge warning to spammers like him, but it's still not worth destroying someone's life.

 

 

 

Seriously, $873 M?!? :o *faints*

His family probably won't pay for it. Once he dies they'll probably take it to court.

His family probably won't pay for it. Once he dies they'll probably take it to court.

 

 

 

His. Family. Wont. Have. To. Pay. A. Cent. Or dispute anything. If they weren't a part of his company.

 

 

 

Sorry but people don't read topics through :P

 

 

 

It won't stop the spammers. They'll just think of better ways of doing it, as always happens.

 

 

 

I think it's almost funny the judge thinks the huge sum will deter other spammers though. Laws aren't prohibiting or affecting murderers in the most conservative societies of middle-East, why would they have any effect on *spammers* in western countries?

 

 

 

Some people don't even care about getting caught. They will conduct illegal business for as long as they can. Once in a while they can pull it off and get rich. The great majority of the time they will go to jail or in the case of 'modern' businesses like spamming, get made an example of.

 

 

 

I really doubt masses of professional spammers from chinese computer sweatshops, corrupt russian ISP's, american boiler room operations will suddenly cease their operations after this verdict. Likely, they don't even know or care about this case.