Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FBI Raids Home of Spam King Alan Ralsky

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sun Oct 16, 2005 02:26 PM
from the click-here-to-enlarge-your-prison-cell dept.
wstearns writes "The Detroit News is reporting that the FBI has raided Alan Ralsky's home. In the raid, the FBI took computers and financial records, effectively shutting him down. Mr. Ralsky has been frequently covered here."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Spammer Alan Ralsky Indicted 206 comments
Several users have written to tell us that notorious spammer Alan Ralsky has been indicted along with ten others on 41 counts of spam-related illegal activity. Ralsky has had trouble with the law in the past, and the current litany of charges includes mail and wire fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and violation of federal spamming laws. From the Detroit Free Press: "The 41-count indictment said Ralsky ... and others used unsolicited e-mail to pump up the price of largely worthless stock in Chinese companies and sold the stock reaping huge profits and leaving Internet subscribers who purchased it holding the bag. The operation also used illegal methods to maximize the amount of spam that could be sent while evading spam-blocking devices and tricked recipients into opening and acting on advertisements, prosecutors said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by dzafez (897002) on Sunday October 16 2005, @02:28PM (#13804845) Homepage
    Will I be notified, if they find out I'm a victim??

    Hell the guy from nigeria didn't write me for a while, I'll send him an E-Mail. I'm still waiting for a large transaction :-)
    • by jurt1235 (834677) on Sunday October 16 2005, @03:02PM (#13805044) Homepage
      This is the proposed message:

      DeAR u.ser

      Precvio3sly you have b33n victim of unsol.citated e-mail, so called s.pam selling u v1agra and p.enis enlarg.ements products, us.iNG aNNoying layouts ant teipos to confu..se your s.p.a.m..filters.
      The FBI now offers you the ReA.L links to the places where you can buy your V.1agrA and P.eniSEnlar.gement produCTs for the real pr1ce without the middle S.P.am man.

      Please go to v1agrahfDUgfapitdrGPSRGf.fbi.gov for the fastest S$hop
      • by Shakrai (717556) on Sunday October 16 2005, @04:28PM (#13805470) Journal

        they just took away his stuff, how lame! he committed a crime and should be punished.

        Ya know, as big of a sleezeball as we might think he is, the FBI doesn't (nor should it) have the authority to punish him for whatever crimes you think he might have committed.

        That role is reserved for juries and judges.

        • by www.sorehands.com (142825) on Sunday October 16 2005, @05:36PM (#13805785) Homepage
          I had a tour of the FBI's cyber crime office in Boston -- they got some neat toys.


          They didn't just take away his stuff. They took away his stuff, to then copy it onto network storage. Then copy the drives onto otpical media. Then copy it onto hard drives. All while leaving the originals unmodified. Then they will analyze the data to gather evidence.

          It would be real sweet to know the domains that they used so that every spam victim can file suit against Ralsky and Bradley. We can take out spammers with distributed lawsuits. A spammer can survive 1,2 or maybe 10 lawsuits, but can they survive 100? I, with help, took out Avtech [barbieslapp.com].

          I tracked down a big time ink spammer [barbieslapp.com], going under the name of payless inks, top quality inks, inks on sale. I posted the strings to search for on my spam page [barbieslapp.com] so that any spam victim can file suit. If you file suit, contact me and I'd be happy to serve the summons and complaint.

  • by thesnarky1 (846799) on Sunday October 16 2005, @02:29PM (#13804850) Homepage
    I am heir to the FBI throne which was recently desposed. FOr only $2000 down, you can secure your right to this massive wealth as well.
  • by Datagod (613152) on Sunday October 16 2005, @02:30PM (#13804856)
    Did they get his Spam Crown and Scepter?
  • Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rock217 (802738) <slashdot@roc k s h o u s e . c om> on Sunday October 16 2005, @02:31PM (#13804858) Homepage Journal
    NOW who will fill my inbox?!
  • by Seq (653613) <slashdot&chrisirwin,ca> on Sunday October 16 2005, @02:31PM (#13804863)
    I had thought my Inbox was rather empty today...
  • ...unless they shot him.
  • I mean, I'm sure he opted out of FBI raids on questionable business practices....
  • by azav (469988) on Sunday October 16 2005, @02:38PM (#13804910) Homepage Journal
    I just phoned the Detroit office of the FBI who raided Ralsky's home at (313) 965-2323 and told the responding agent that I was so unbelievably happy that their office raided Alan Ralsky.

    The agent was amazed and replied "uh thank you. We don't get calls like this very often."

    OMG. Wow.

    This is an excellent opportunity to show your support that we STRONGLY support their action and efforts!

    If they know their is huge public support for this, that may help them to shut down more of these spammers!

    This is AWESOME!

    Just call and say thanks and this will keep things moving in the right direction.

    w00t!
    • by hackstraw (262471) * on Sunday October 16 2005, @03:20PM (#13805141) Homepage
      Just call and say thanks and this will keep things moving in the right direction.

      Hold your horses. Why was he "raided"? What law did he break? Did you break the same law last week?

      I hate spammers with a passion, but I like my freedom a little more than they are irritating to me.
      • by schon (31600) on Sunday October 16 2005, @03:05PM (#13805066) Homepage
        I hardly get any spam at all. I use spamassassin on my server and junkmatcher on my client.

        If you hardly get any spam at all, then why do you need *TWO* spam filters?

        You *GET* lots of spam - just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
          • by vsprintf (579676) on Sunday October 16 2005, @03:59PM (#13805332)

            No, I don't get lots of spam. Most of it is denied at the SMTP protocol level and is never even written to disk. Most of the rest is filtered out based on content and /dev/null'd before it reaches the mailbox delivery step. The client side filter is then left to handle the very small quantity of mail that is difficult to discern with more general measures and makes it past the SMTP and MDA level and is of course then downloaded by the useragent for fine-tuning of the local filter.

            Okay, I've seen responses like this in the past, and I'll admit that I have little knowledge of how the whole thing works (because I'm not really interested as long as it works). However, whether those messages are being dumped into my throw-away hotmail account's junk folder or being transported *somewhere*, they are being written to disk somewhere. They are also using up bandwidth during transport, and that bandwidth is not being paid for by the spammers. I don't understand the logic of people who claim spam is not a problem just because they don't see any in their inbox. That seems a bit like claiming that the termites aren't really a problem because your house hasn't fallen down yet.

  • by humankind (704050) on Sunday October 16 2005, @02:50PM (#13804974) Journal
    This is a very good sign.

    The reason spammers operate is because it has been profitable for them due to their operating expenses (apathetic law enforcement, hazy jurisdiction, theft of third-party bandwidth and resources).

    As more of these people get raided and have to deal with serious legal and criminal issues, the "cost" of operating will go up substantially, and as a result, it will not be as profitable for them to operate.

    Let's hope the FBI follows through on this and puts this guy in jail. There's no doubt he committed a ton of crimes, including computer tampering, pornography, identity theft, etc. Spammers routinely break loads of laws in operating their business. Finally, we're seeing some agencies start to enforce these laws.
  • by Dynamoo (527749) * on Sunday October 16 2005, @02:59PM (#13805033) Homepage
    Ralksy isn't the worst of the bunch.. perhaps his BIGGEST mistake is actually having some sort of media profile. There are plenty of spammers out there who are even more despicable than him, but it seems that Ralsky is an easy target. Perhaps they should consider going after Robert Soloway [spamhaus.org] or Alec Defrawy [thedefrawyscams.com] next?
    • by Coneasfast (690509) on Sunday October 16 2005, @02:35PM (#13804891)
      Last time I checked, it was legal to e-mail someone you don't know.

      if you read the article (not slashdotted yet):

      The law also forbids spammers from using multiple e-mail addresses or domain names to camouflage their identities. Penalties include up to 20 years' imprisonment and an $11,000 fine per offense.

      Warrants show FBI agents sought evidence Ralsky and Bradley sent commercial e-mail using at least 14 domain names.
        • by Sloppy (14984) on Sunday October 16 2005, @03:54PM (#13805310) Homepage Journal
          Spam is awful, but 20 years in prison for it is just absurd.
          Oh, I agree. If I send a spam to someone, I should only have to spend a day in jail. Maybe even just an hour. Half an hour? Oh, whatever. And if I expect this reasonably light sentence for myself committing the mostly harmless (but nevertheless malicious and fraudulent) crime of spamming a fellow human being, then it's only fair for this guy to get a fair sentence likewise.

          So let's only imprison him for one hour..

          ..per victim.

            • by keraneuology (760918) on Sunday October 16 2005, @05:01PM (#13805623) Journal
              Most of the damage is not done to the user, but to the ISP, backbone providers and hosting providers. For the user it might be an annoyance, but for them it costs money.

              All higher costs incurred by the ISP are passed along to the consumer, ergo all of the damage is done to the user, though indirectly.

    • by L.Bob.Rife (844620) on Sunday October 16 2005, @04:36PM (#13805512)
      This guy is not harnless, he causes economic damage to the nation. Those are real-world consequences of having to divert resources that could be used to help businesses grow, into fighting spam. Setting up spam filters costs money, having workers delete dozens of junkmails daily costs money, downloading hundreds of gigs of junk costs money. Whether you like it or not, this guy causes real problems.
    • by bani (467531) on Sunday October 16 2005, @05:21PM (#13805709)
      No he isn't harmless. He hires virus authors to write programs to infect PCs so he can spam from them. He ddoses networks. He rips people off.

      He might not go round clubbing people and taking their money, but he's still a big time criminal, defrauding people of millions of dollars. He's causing economic harm on massive scales, and the people being hurt are more often than not the elderly.

      He's also an easy target since he publically boasts about what he does, the FBI would be considered neglectful if they didn't take him down.