Spammers Ordered To Pay $236 Million
from the good-luck-collecting dept
While the chances that they'll ever actually pay are quite remote, some people will surely be happy to hear that some spammers were ordered to pay $236 million in damages for spamming an ISP that flooded it, disrupting customer bandwidth, forcing the ISP to upgrade its servers while also costing it customers. The amount actually works out to $10 per spam message, which seems a bit on the high side. Of course, this is hardly the first huge fine against spammers, and we've yet to see one actually result in payment -- but we have seen spammers on the losing side of these cases come back later to spam some more. While there may be some emotional pleasure in seeing a spammer hit with such a big fine, it's an open question as to whether or not it actually acts as any kind of deterrent.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Deterrent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deterrent?
Wow very Dante, I like it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deterrent?
NRA member
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deterrent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some context
See someday, America is going to wake up and realized they put up a $700B bounty on the heads of the people who caused this mess, which is substantially more than the current value on Bin Laden's Head.
Bailout? Nah.
Rescue? Nah.
Bounty? Sounds good to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some context
NRA Proud Member
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some context
But Worldcom and Tyco didn't get special treatment, neither should they.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Penalty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd rather...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At $10 a message...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tanks of gas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tanks of gas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We will just send in Dog the Bounty Hunter to bring him in and we can all watch it on TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]