Spammer Gets $11 Billion Fine

Spad writes "It's not a typo, The Inquirer (amongst others) is reporting that an Iowa-based ISP has been awarded $11.2 billion in a case against spammer James McCalla, who was found guilty of sending over 280 million illegal spam emails. Under state law, the ISP was entitled to $10 per illegal e-mail sent. According to the Quad-City Times, McCalla has also been banned from using a computer for 3 years. From the article: "CIS acknowledged that it is unlikely to see any of the judgment money but said that it was time that spammers learnt that their actions would result in an economic death penalty"."

Bankrupcy?

[srock2588]

Are you allowed to declare bankrupcy if you owe money via criminal court order?

This dude just got F'd in the A.

Re:I would rather that...

[grungebox]

...their actions would result in an economic death penalty.

How about a real one?

So you equate a sentence for spamming with a sentence used on serial murderers and the like? What even happened to that whole "let the punishment fit the crime" doctrine? I think the financial penalty along with any possible jail time is plenty.

Access denied

[thaerin]

McCalla has also been banned from using a computer for 3 years.
br? No porn for you!

Erm, what?

[LordPhantom]

Ok. Let me preface this by saying I'm all for getting rid of spam and spammers.
That said, 11 BILLION dollars? That's more than the GDP some nations.... it's not only improbable that they'll collect, but what is the real point of asessing such a sum? They might have assigned a billion gazillion trillion quillion dollars for all that amount matters. My concern is "how will that help deal with the rest of them", so my cheering for this judgement is a bit tempered by the insanity of the judgement. Indebting an individual or even small group of individuals with 11 billion dollars is just as bad against spammers as the idiotic size of the RIAA lawsuits from a few years ago - last thing we need is sympathy for spammers because the hammer of justice fell too hard....

Re:I would rather that...

[nharmon]

Someone once calculated that the amount of time it takes you to download a spam message, identify it as spam, delete it, multiplied by the number of spam messages, equals a time equivilent to many of lifetimes.

So, collectively, his spamming robbed humanity of lifetimes worth of time that could have been spent doing something else.

But I do agree with you. Death sentences for spammers is just silly.

Re:Banned From Using a Computer

[engagebot]

"infringing on his persuit of life, liberty, yadda yadda"?

Hmm. So what is prison then? A bologna sandwich?
I thought that was the point: if you commit a crime, you're not entitled to all the liberties of a regular person. convicted felons can't own a firearm or vote. Does that go against the constitution?

Re:Erm, what?

[ScentCone]

That said, 11 BILLION dollars? That's more than the GDP some nations.... it's not only improbable that they'll collect, but what is the real point of asessing such a sum?

Are we really so jaded (yes, we probably are) that 280 million pieces of spam doesn't sound serious? He was also poisoning the well by using CIS's domain on bogus return addresses. The point is, he embarked on a deliberate, plainly evil, sustained, and long-term campaign of fraud aimed at millions of people and without regard to the damage done to at least one important business. His penalty, for seeking to abuse other people's money, is that from now on, he doesn't get to keep any that he makes. His only hope is to be a good bartender or day laborer and to work for cash - and to never buy anything expensive that can be seized. He has been sentenced to a daily reckoning with with reality - something he spent considerable effort trying to distort, to his advantage. Not only is he saddled with this for the rest of his life, but other individuals and entities that do the same are aware that this is a potential risk. Even overseas groups are going to find the need to be a little circumspect about travel to and financial dealings with the US and her legally reciprocal allies. This type of consequence for this type of fraud is just in its infancy, I hope.

Re:By economic death penalty they must mean...

[Jerry Rivers]

"We have people who will devote months of their lives to sit on juries and render verdict even though everybody knows from the start that what the jury says is irrelevant because everything gets rewritten on appeal anyway."

So what are you saying here? That the jury system should be eliminated? That there should no appeals of verdicts, ever? You say the system is "broke" but you offer no constructive alternative. You have no faith in the justice system yet imply that an authoritarian-style system of summary conviction is somehow better.

I understand your cynicism but please try and avoid promoting injustice in the name of expediency.

Would love to see proportionate justice

[ianscot]

Funny how punitive damages are so extreme when it's an individual shyster whose game got called, but become cause celebres when a massive corporation like Mickey-D's is on the defending end.

Last I heard MacDonalds was initially assessed damages equivalent to a couple of days' coffee sales (or profits?) in a case where they were singularly arrogant (and idiotic) in their own defense. The pop media turned that into a case for tort reform, and it eventually got settled for less money -- but people still whinge about how unjust it was that the old lady with the skin grafts on her crotch got too much cash from the multinational company.

The individual who tries to

I'm no fan of SPAM, but this is out of hand. In general extreme punishments to make an example of people disgust me. Justice has to be proportionate.

Re:The problem is Visa/MC/PayPal

[scovetta]

Probably not the easiest thing to do:
1. Although most spammers are trying to sell "products", there are plenty (Nigeria, Phishing, etc) that don't.
2. It's extremely easy to accept credit cards (takes about 2 days to use PayPal-- I'm sure it's similar for other companies)-- Placing the burden of spammer-checking on the credit card gateways (or parent companies) would significantly increase the cost to businesses of accepting credit cards.
3. It's be rather easy for me to spam YOUR product in an attempt to (a) blackmail you, or (b) get credit card companies to drop you (in the case of a competitor).
3a. It would be equally easy for you to spam and then claim that it's actually me doing it.
4. What about companies that accept PayPal (or similar)?

Personally, I think we're on the right track. Tougher laws, better technology. I don't think we need more to add more bloat to the process of selling products.

Re:Would love to see more of this

[jr0dy]

I actually think rulings like this is going to make the problem worse. It's like the war on drugs - when they make something like this illegal and prosecute people, which both knocks competitors out of the market and heightens the risk level for those that continue to do it, it drives up the value for those willing to assume the risk. This, in turn, creates more of an incentive for new people to enter into the market if the possibility for profits is higher. Furthermore, spammers remain extremely hard to prosecute given that most of their spam originates overseas and many use pirated accounts to mask their identity and remove their liability - something I'm sure we'll see a rise in now. However, had we just allowed private companies to perfect spam filters we'd be far better off now - it wouldn't have attracted new spammers into the market, at least. I know it's a bit difficult to think of legislation/prosecution as innefectual in matters such as this, but when you really evaluate the issue using economic reasoning we would've all been far better off had the government just stayed out of the issue altogether.

Re:Banned From Using a Computer

[gstoddart]

Also, given how essential computer use is nowadays, this almost infringes on barring the pursuit of life, liberty yadda yadda. Yes he committed a crime, but it is almost to the point where essential tasks cannot be performed, but on a pc. And in three years, who knows.

Really ... who cares? He's demonstrated that his primary of using a computer is fraudulent and illegal.

If you commit vehicular manslaughter, and after you get out of jail they say you can't drive a car, what do I care that you can't get a job as a pizza delivery guy? (After all, everything practically requires an auto, and would be infringing on life, liberty, yadda ...)

If you're only capable of using something in an anti-social way, you don't get to play.

Re:Shouldn't the ISP pay the fine

[9Nails]

The ISP isn't guilty of anything. It's the old handgun thing... The ISP only provides the weapons, if you're the fool who uses those to do harm, then you take the punishment. I would also think that the ISP covered their legal butts with an acceptable use policy.

Re:Banned From Using a Computer

[jaaronc]

you yada, yada, yada'd over the most important part of the 5th ammendment. "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...". He had his day in court.

Re:Bankrupcy?

[zedmelon]

...the government should be at the very bottom of the pile, instead it places itself at the top, even when the pile ceases to exist...
I see you've recently paid a bit more taxes than you've cared to pay (this does not render you unique).

...he owes the IRS, they try to steal (yes, steal) his wages for the rest of his life...
I see you've no issue with being forgiven debts you're legally obligated to pay (also not unique, but closer).

The concept of paying the IRS seems to strike you too closely to home; did you own a $100M corporation that filed for bankruptcy after two years?

Free Advice:
Next time hire an accountant and a finance manager instead of your Vice President brother-in-law who tired of flipping burgers. They might curb getting $10,000 pool tables and ask your employees to fork over $.50 when they're too lazy to bring soda with them to work.

...US Govt look like idiots...
I see you've resided at 123 Desert Island, South Pacific since around 1948.

Why would any sane judge hand down an $11billion judgement against an individual who isn't Bill Gates and doesn't have the capacity to pay?
It might be a bit excessive, but I'm pleased each time I hear that someone's held accountable for this deviant and misleading method of "earning" cash. It's also not as excessive as you might think: If he has the capacity to send 280 million emails, he has more money than I.

It's only one more scratch on the tip of the iceberg, but each [slashdot.org] little [slashdot.org] bit [slashdot.org] helps. [slashdot.org] Those who are too stupid to use technology to earn an *honest* living are finally being shown that they will eventually find themselves scrubbing dishes, which is exactly what they deserve. Until it becomes legal to do worse, at least.

Perhaps the legal system should have metamoderation
I agree here, but this case doesn't exemplify why.

By the way, do you actually get a choice whether someone cancels a debt that you owe them or not?
Dunno, but to retain control over that choice, pay a debt before the matter requires litigation. And "spammer" ^H^H^H^H^H "Information Masseuse" is no longer a smart career path.

This case--like those similar that are becoming less rare--is a wake-up call to people who continue to dilute the I nternet's effiency and appeal with their own distracting greed. I find it surprising that you can show even a hint of what appears to be sympathy.

...then again, spamming is a $100M business that conceivably could be run from a desert island...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Bankrupcy?

[Kadin2048]

Actually you can bankrupt yourself out of most civil judgements, just not criminal ones. And there are significant exceptions to the civil ones that you can have vacated -- partiuclarly ones arising from DWI/DUI, back rent or condo fees, child support, etc. However outside of the exceptions, they can be vacated by a bankruptcy court, or paid off at a reduced rate when the debtor's assets are liquidated.

A while back I actually found the statute in the USC covering this, but I'm not a subscriber and don't have access to my back posts that far, and don't feel like looking it up again right now. There were some changes made to it just recently that make it tougher to do.

I also haven't RTFA, and I'm not clear on whether the damages arose as part of a civil suit, or as restitution for part of a criminal action. I don't think you can bankrupt yourself out of restitution payments under any circumstances. And as I said, the recent changes to bankruptcy law make it significantly more painful to do than it used to be.

This scumbag will definitely be hurting. Will he be shivering in a cardboard box down by the river, as I personally would find a satisfying conclusion? Probably not. But he'll lose any 'luxury items' he might have acquired, as well as his retirement and any property other than his primary residence.

Re:Very rough, hopeful translation

[ShibaInu]

Let's see, paid for ads on TV and in print pay for most of the cost of producing the product. Like it or not if you watch TV or read a magazine the ads are what allow you to do so.

Spam, on the other hand pays for nothing. It uses up bandwidth, admin time, CPU time, in other words it costs lots of money for us all.

Add it up

[tom2275]

Minor inconvenience x 280 million = One Big Freaking Inconvenince to Society.
No argument here, but they say its $10 per infraction, right? Well, being really good at math as all us geeks are, that comes to $2.8 billion. Where do they get $11 billion? So were talking $8.2 billion in punitive damages? ouch. Thats gonna leave a mark.

Re:Bankrupcy?

[budgenator]

Why would any sane judge hand down an $11billion judgement against an individual who isn't Bill Gates and doesn't have the capacity to pay?
Judges have to rule based on the ther arguements heard, the law, and legal presidents. When you've made the judge's email inbasket unusable for a decade your shit might be pretty weak, but that is not supposed to apply.
As for why the government is on the top of the pile I guess it's the "your first after me" principal