Too Much Spam?
Here's the Man to Thank
Robert Spahr
Issue date: 11/4/09 Section: Gadget Inspector
It is probably safe to say that every single person with an email account has received spam messages in the past. These annoying, burdensome, sometimes dangerous emails are sent out through bulk mailing lists, often over networks by computers infected with viruses or worms. These infected computers are known as zombies. They go out and send spam emails to hundreds or thousands of other addresses without the computer's owner's knowledge or consent.
In the days before spam filters on email accounts, and before laws against spamming were created, my inbox would fill with dozens or even hundreds of junk emails that took forever to sort out. It used to be that an email account would only be good for so long before it was discovered and spammed to the point of uselessness.
Now, nearly all email services include a spam or junk email filter that pulls out messages that fit certain profiles consistent with anonymous bulk email messages that are almost always spam. These filters can significantly reduce the amount of spam that finds its way through to the user. Now, even once a spammer has discovered your email address, a good filter can keep the address usable.
The problem with spam is that it is terribly easy to perpetrate. Unlike junk snail mail, spam is sent more or less for free. The only legitimate expense a spammer would face in starting his operation is the time and money spent creating a mailing list (I assume of course that the computer and internet connections are already owned).
One man in particular has been responsible for almost all spam sent in the last dozen years or so. Sanford Wallace is known as the "Spam King," and he is quite a notorious spammer indeed. Wallace has been involved with the spamming industry since 1997, according to a fairly comprehensive Wikipedia page.
Wallace has lost several major lawsuits that have been filed against him. He was fined $4 million in 2006 by the FTC for violating spam laws. In 2008, Myspace won a civil suit against him to the tune of $230 million. October 29th of this year, Facebook won a judgment of $711 million for damages caused by Wallace's incessant abuses of the website. This is the second largest judgment ever in a spam case.
Though Facebook is unlikely to ever collect much of this award, it serves to reckon that this verdict may cause would-be spammers to reconsider a life of digital crime. The judge in the recent case issued a recommendation that Wallace be tried for criminal contempt of court, which if convicted would see him behind bars.
Do you think Wallace should be in jail? Should a digital crime be punished with analog jail time? If you have an opinion, please go to www.thebottomlineonline.org and comment on this article. I want to know what you think, next week I will let you all know what I think on the issue, and respond to your thoughts.
In the days before spam filters on email accounts, and before laws against spamming were created, my inbox would fill with dozens or even hundreds of junk emails that took forever to sort out. It used to be that an email account would only be good for so long before it was discovered and spammed to the point of uselessness.
Now, nearly all email services include a spam or junk email filter that pulls out messages that fit certain profiles consistent with anonymous bulk email messages that are almost always spam. These filters can significantly reduce the amount of spam that finds its way through to the user. Now, even once a spammer has discovered your email address, a good filter can keep the address usable.
The problem with spam is that it is terribly easy to perpetrate. Unlike junk snail mail, spam is sent more or less for free. The only legitimate expense a spammer would face in starting his operation is the time and money spent creating a mailing list (I assume of course that the computer and internet connections are already owned).
One man in particular has been responsible for almost all spam sent in the last dozen years or so. Sanford Wallace is known as the "Spam King," and he is quite a notorious spammer indeed. Wallace has been involved with the spamming industry since 1997, according to a fairly comprehensive Wikipedia page.
Wallace has lost several major lawsuits that have been filed against him. He was fined $4 million in 2006 by the FTC for violating spam laws. In 2008, Myspace won a civil suit against him to the tune of $230 million. October 29th of this year, Facebook won a judgment of $711 million for damages caused by Wallace's incessant abuses of the website. This is the second largest judgment ever in a spam case.
Though Facebook is unlikely to ever collect much of this award, it serves to reckon that this verdict may cause would-be spammers to reconsider a life of digital crime. The judge in the recent case issued a recommendation that Wallace be tried for criminal contempt of court, which if convicted would see him behind bars.
Do you think Wallace should be in jail? Should a digital crime be punished with analog jail time? If you have an opinion, please go to www.thebottomlineonline.org and comment on this article. I want to know what you think, next week I will let you all know what I think on the issue, and respond to your thoughts.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Linda Spahr
posted 11/07/09 @ 8:41 PM EST
There has to be a way to stop these guys. There's a service you can sign up for to stop junk mail, and another you can sign up to to prevent telephone solicitation. (Continued…)
Post a Comment