Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Farelf

Forum spam

18 posts in this topic

Spamford Wallace banished from MySpace In ruling against Wallace, Collins agreed that the electronic messages sent over MySpace fell within the definition of an "electronic mail message" in the CAN-spam Act. Attorneys for Wallace attempted to wriggle out of the law's reach by arguing the act didn't apply because MySpace addresses had no domain name and remained within the MySpace system rather than being routed over the internet at large.

"Even under defendant's more restrictive interpretation, however, messages sent through MySpace.com fall within the definition of 'electronic mail message' sent to an 'electronic mail address,'" Collins wrote.

Which would appear to have application for forums generally. Of course the ordinary netizen seems unable to bring action under the Act but that is not really a limiting factor in the case of forums.

The other thing to note is the sheer audacity and boundless energy of this sack of flatulence. Lord knows how much he could have achieved had he applied himself to legitimate enterprise ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other thing to note is the sheer audacity and boundless energy of this sack of flatulence. Lord knows how much he could have achieved had he applied himself to legitimate enterprise ...

When he isn't tring to subvert MySpace, Spamford is a rap club DJ in Vegas. Visit http://www.o-pmlv.com/flash_redirect.html (warning: annoying Flash website), click the "talent" button, and look for the fat white guy with headphones around his neck.

-- rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... and look for the fat white guy with headphones around his neck.
A four-eyed sack of flatulence then. Thanks Rick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in case anyone has any desire to communicate with Spamford, here's the email address that's published on the nightclub's site:

masterweb[at]o-pm.com

Hope they're using good spam-filtering techinques, because some people will probably publish that address in mailto links on as many pages as they can...without the obfuscation/protection that this forum provides the slimeball. :lol:

DT

Edited by DavidT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update from The Register: Spamford Wallace's MySpace riches come under attack

Analysis Anybody who says crime doesn't pay obviously hasn't talked to Sanford Wallace. In just six months' time, the prolific purveyor of spam and spyware engineered a scam on MySpace that netted at least $555,850, according to court documents filed this week.

The brazen scheme used a combination of malware and social engineering to push MySpace users onto porn- and gambling-related websites under Wallace's control. It began in late 2006, just months after Wallace and business associate Walter Rines settled charges related to spyware by agreeing to pay the Federal Trade Commission just $50,000 combined.

Now the FTC is trying to grow a pair. In a motion underscoring the difficulty of stopping spyware purveyors like Wallace, attorneys from the agency asked the federal judge overseeing the settlement to find the men in contempt for violating the terms of the settlement agreement. The commission seeks an order requiring the men to surrender their profits in the MySpace scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MySpace wins suit against 'spam king'

To say Wallace, who could not be reached for comment, failed to mount a vigorous defense would be an understatement.

According to records filed on April 15 with U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, Wallace was ordered numerous times to turn over documents requested by MySpace and provide a deposition. A MySpace representative did not respond to an interview request.

Each time, MySpace waited and each time Wallace failed to comply. Early on, Wallace informed MySpace he was having a hard time finding legal counsel. Soon after, he said he couldn't comply because he was unaware of his court dates; he wasn't accepting mail or signing for packages and that's why he missed receiving notifications.

The court did not accept his reasons as a valid excuse, but continued to give him chances to comply. Nothing worked. After Wallace continuously failed to appear or respond to filing deadlines, the court issued a default judgment against Wallace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MySpace wins suit against 'spam king'

To say Wallace, who could not be reached for comment, failed to mount a vigorous defense would be an understatement.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. I fear that MySpace is going to have a lot of trouble collecting, though. Maybe they can seize his turntables.

-- rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Maybe they can seize his turntables.
Well, to seize something beginning with "t" anyway, in the manoeuvre known as the "squirrel grip", would be my recommendation. I am quite sure this, applied with sufficient art (e.g. pulsation being more effective than steady pressure in my experience), would be more effective in eliminating recidivism than any system of fines could possibly be. Feel free to add this recommendation to any submission you may care to make to your legislature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feel free to add this recommendation to any submission you may care to make to your legislature.
Well, we have this little thing hereabouts, the 8th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. And the squirrel grip, I fear, may be one or the other (or both, depending upon the manner of administration). No doubt the Mikado, in his object all-sublime, would see matters differently.

-- rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Well, we have this little thing hereabouts, the 8th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. ...
:lol: Aye, and there's the rub. Retributive justice has foundation under all major moral codes (cf. Judeo-Christian-Islamic citations abound) and noting from above reference "Alternatives to retributive measures include psychiatric imprisonment, restorative justice and transformative justice," and who's to say any such are not more cruel, not to say more prone to abuse with their all-too-ready assumption of liberality? Certainly those other options range from "less" to "not-at-all" symmetrical - hence they're less healing to the victims of crime who are the forgotten people in the justice system I would say. As to unusual - well it wouldn't be if the courts were doing their job.

With great perspicacity you mention the Mikado:

"A more humane Mikado never

Did in Japan exist,

To nobody second,

I'm certainly reckoned

A true philanthropist.

It is my very humane endeavour

To make, to some extent,

Each evil liver

A running river

Of harmless merriment.

My object all sublime

I shall achieve in time —

To let the punishment fit the crime —

The punishment fit the crime;

And make each prisoner pent

Unwillingly represent

A source of innocent merriment!

Of innocent merriment!"

Ah well, that's just plain WRONG, isn't it? Imagine a society which would enjoy punishing its malefactors! Sheer barbarity! And yet ... (just kidding)

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(U.S. District Judge Audrey B.) Collins awarded the amounts sought by MySpace: $157.4 million jointly against Rines and Wallace and an additional $63.4 million against Rines under CAN-spam - plus $1.5 million more against the pair under California's anti-phishing law and $4.7 million in attorneys fees. MySpace said it was entitled to another $3 million from Rines and Wallace under a different section of CAN-spam.
(Excite) MySpace wins $230 million anti-spam judgment

Snotty Scotty next ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the link. Wow, $230 million! Between this and the Comcast/E360 case, one hopes that judges here are finally wising up. This would be bad news for the high-profile spammers like Wallace, Richter, et. al., but of course not much for the offshore penis-drugs-watches guys to worry about (yet).

-- rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous judgments evidently mean naught - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/03/fa...amford_wallace/

Impossible for the layman to understand why this man retains the freedom to ignore all attempts to stop his flaunting of the law.

But it certainly backs up the general corollary to Steve T's recent post ...Consumers Are Unwilling to Sacrifice Convenience for Security - "we" deserve the Wallaces of this world AND how many livelihoods would be destroyed if it weren't for such creatures to spread the wealth of the greater economy? Lawyers, law-makers, law administrators ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, once again ..... Judge kicks notorious spammer off Facebook

March 3, 2009 (IDG News Service) A federal judge in San Jose has ordered convicted spammer Sanford Wallace to stay away from Facebook.

Facebook Inc. sued Wallace and two other men last week in an effort to cut down on spam and phishing schemes on its social networking site. On Monday, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order barring Wallace and two other alleged spammers, Adam Arzoomanian and Scott Shaw, from accessing Facebook's network.

In court filings, Facebook argues that these men gained access to legitimate Facebook accounts and then used them to spam the profile pages of the account holders' friends.

.....

Wallace is one of the country's most notorious spammers, with a career that dates back to the 1990s. Last May, a federal judge found him and a partner guilty under the CAN-spam act and ordered them to pay $230 million for phishing and spamming MySpace users with links to gambling, ringtone and pornography Web sites.

......

Late last year, the judge in the Wallace case awarded Facebook a record $873 million in damages after Facebook accused other spammers of using stolen log-ins to pump out more than 4 million spam messages. Facebook says that it doesn't expect the spammers in that case to pay up, but the company hopes that the ruling may serve as a deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yet again, still, on and on .... 'spam king' Wallace indicted for Facebook spam

Wallace, 43, was indicted in July by a San Jose, Calif., grand jury on three counts of intentional damage to a protected computer and two counts of criminal contempt, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of California. Wallace allegedly compromised approximately 500,000 Facebook accounts during three separate attacks on the social-networking giant between November 2008 and March 2009.

....

Wallace, who was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel in 2009 not to access Facebook, was also charged with violating that order by accessing the social network on an airline flight from Las Vegas to New York in April 2009 and by maintaining an account under the name David Sinful-Saturdays Fredericks for a few weeks earlier this year.

....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and yet again, still, on and on

<snip>

...So did this guy just lose a gamble (that investigators were too stupid too figure out it was he) or might he be being framed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...So did this guy just lose a gamble (that investigators were too stupid too figure out it was he) or might he be being framed?
He's a risk-taker, maybe he justified it to himself by checking just how closely they might be monitoring him. Or he really was desperate for a hook-up (easy to believe). "What are the authorities gunna do to me? Hang me?"

Actually, I'm impressed they caught it. Of course we don't know if there might have been other accounts they didn't detect.

And it would probably contravene some UN convention (and the US constitution) to give him his "just deserts" - as I've opined before. What further vile feculencies must we endure in the name of the public polity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0