Two Spammers Murdered in New Jersey 205
Zerbey wrote in with a CNN report about the excution-style murder of two shady online stock promoters whose primary marketing device was ... spam. Zerbey wrote, hopefully with tongue in cheek, that they may have been slain "by a disgruntled recipient of UCE who decided that e-mailing abuse@ simply wasn't effective enough." Farfetched? Perhaps. A quote from the story: "Though investigators have not pinpointed a motive or suspects, Monmouth
County Prosecutor John Kaye said the attack likely was at least partly tied to the pair's penny stock Web operation, www.stockinvestor.com, or other ventures."
Maybe the rest.. (Score:1)
You get it, they are every where - invading you life...
Re:Really tho, (Score:1)
Not sure I agree. It's more that bad business does not imply spam. The other way arround it's hard to see something which involves stealing and deception (i.e. spam) as anything other than a bad practice.
Tell everyone! (Score:1)
Important news!
Spammers killed!
Please forward this message to everyone you know!
Re:Someone mark the article as flaimbait... (Score:1)
The two differ only in trivial details. The bottom line is that these two engaged in theft as a way of life, and finally made the mistake of robbing the wrong person. The Universe punishes stupidity by death, with no appeal.
/.
A cons. is just a liberal that has been spammed (Score:1)
Oh..? (Score:1)
Thank you for enlightening me of your complete and utter lack of intelligence. You'll be happy to know that henceforth all communiques coming from your little corner of stupidity will be ignored until the day you die. However, just to perhaps encourage brain cell growth in that shriveled little head of yours: My signature means that it's pointless to reply to my post with the intention of evoking some sort of response from my end unless your replying post is scored 1 or higher because, well, I have a hard threshold of 1. If you feel that is egotistical, you are of course welcome to your (rather moronic) opinions. I am, quite honestly, however, surprised no one has tagged you as flamebait, because quite obviously you're not a biped and I'm flaming you because you're an asshole.
One day people will phrase these questions (at least they should be queries, you presumptuous little bigot) politely, rather than mindlessly attacking anyone who isn't ``cool'' to them like some sort of barbarian with an ``inadequacy'' complex. Ha!
Serves them right! (Score:1)
Zero tolerance to spam... but seriously, if this indeed was the motive, then it's going a tad bit too far.
Can't say I'll be mourning, though.
Re:Pre-Law Justice (Score:1)
Re:Oh..? (Score:1)
Perhaps sometime you will find something to channel your clearly profound energies toward besides this useless forum.
Assuming I am not a boped is astrange assumption.
Also, youe own attitude shows so many of the qualites you decry in my post, it is amazing you, with your astounding mental capacity, have not yet detected a small note of hypocrisy.
Kinder, gentler SPAM? (Score:5)
A few years ago, U.S. Postal workers flipped out regularly and started shooting up their place of employment. We haven't seen these events in Post Offices for a while. What happened? What changed? Was it just a phase of the moon? A syzygy (sp? - planetary alignment)? Some temporary problem of extraterrestrial influence? Maybe stress?
Hmmm... we might be onto something here. Perhaps the conditions were too repetitious/opressive/stressful and people flipped out. Maybe as a result of those events, the work model changed a bit. Maybe the bosses are a little less authoritarian. Maybe postal workers are being a little nicer to each other.
If the above is true, it could be a result of fear that their fellow workers might be capable of hurting them, or it could just be a recognition that there was a problem to start with and a sincere desire to make a positive change.
The bottom line is that there were a series of these events and now we haven't heard of such events for a long time.
In April, we had the Columbine shooting. There are some questions yet as to who the shooters were (philosophically), and their motives and targets. As a former High School outcast/geek, I can understand if their motive was fear or anger at jocks, being picked on, or excluded, or the structure or whatever. Maybe it was even due to their own mental imbalances. (I'm not condoning their behavior, only saying that I understand.) In any case, there is some reason why this happened and similar or copycat events continue to occur. There is some stressor, and I hope that these tragic events will cause the average person (student) to take a closer look, to stop and think about the impact of their actions. I can only hope that whatever brought about the change at the Post Office can happen in America's Schools. Maybe Jocks won't pick on Geeks because they're afraid of being shot. I realize that this is the wrong means to the desired end, but if we can take what was a tragic circumstance and make positive change as a result, at least there is some good. (My fellow Geeks, please do not take this a permission to go and shoot Jocks, and please do not believe that this is a good way to make a difference. I'm just arguing that since it's already done, maybe there can be some positive change.)
It appears that problems seem to fester and not come to serious light, let alone get lanced, until some extraordinarily bad event takes place. This is really unfortunate, but seems to be true.
Even though I agree that the killing of these two "shady" businessmen is certainly about the monetary fraud they committed, if it causes a Spammer to stop and think, "Maybe there is someone out there pissed off enough about what I am doing that they might try to do me bodily harm...", even to simply stop and consider the impact of his/her actions on others, this can only lead to improvement in our internet community the same as improvement has come to the Post Office.
Yes, I do recognize the downsides to all this as have been stated in many other posts. Labeling this as a Spam revenge thing can cause certain less-than-critically-thinking individuals to see us in a bad light. And this is the same tactic (at least the fear component) that has made it damned difficult for many women to obtain consitutionally protected abortion services. But there are facets of life that are simply fait accompli and we try appreciate the benefits we receive and fight against the injustices. As with most things, they can be used for bad or good.
IANAS (I am not a sociologist
Russ
Re:Oh..? (Score:1)
By the way, your sig sucks.
Re: do the math (Score:1)
Look at it another way: one of the 50 or so times some driver of a car deliberately tried to run me off the road on my bike, I smashed his windshield and dented his hood. Almost every serious biker I know in the area (Denver/Boulder) has been attacked/hit by auto drivers. Was I justified for reacting that way to a single incident? Maybe not... he threatened my life, but I could have gotten away. Instead, I cost him a few hundred dollars and scared the shit out of them. If that had been the first time it happened, I'd have let it go. But nobody who saw that will ever try to bump a bike again. And everybody who saw it, except the guys in the car, thought I was justified.
We need to retaliate every once in a while, give them a scare, or they'll never stop.
Re: (Score:1)
An even more tried and true method is to start stealing from the big guy. If the big guy doesn't like your action (s)he has the resources to do it and get away with it, and something to lose if they don't do it.
Re:Nerds, Guns, and Killing (Score:1)
As for gun control, that definitely wouldn't have stopped someone angry enough to kill from killing. Murder is against the law, and he didn't mind breaking that law, so why would he care if guns were outlawed? Outlawing guns is the worst thing you can do. If you don't believe me, look at Australia. They banned handguns and saw a VERY sharp increase in the amount of violent crimes involving guns.
Re:(applause) Hear Hear (/applause) (Score:1)
Serves no purpose. The article should be moderated down. Roblimo, and Zerbey should loose buko-Karma for this ilk.
Re:For once.. (Score:4)
I really don't need to hear anyone making cheap jokes at the expense of a couple of dead people.
Then ignore the thread. Nobody is forcing you to read these posts. Asking the moderators to aggressively down-mod this thread just so it palatable to your own sensitive intellect is just a little selfish (not to mention arrogant).
It's not funny.
But it is funny. Perhaps you don't know the definition of comedy. According to Mel Brooks (and he should know), "Comedy happens to other people. Tragedy happens to me." I don't know those two, so therefore it's funny. Apart from that, do you not realize that jokes and laughter are a very human coping mechanism for stressful stimuli?
It's not cute.
You're right, it's not cute. But cute is not the same thing as funny, and many of the posts here are hilarious.
They're dead.
That means they are totally beyond caring what we do or don't say about them. Are a few dark jokes going to make them any more dead? Will false empathy and crocodile tears bring them back to life? It didn't for Diana Spencer, so don't expect a miracle for these two losers. So who is harmed by a little dark humor on Slashdot? Before you claim yourself as a victim, though, please remember that nobody is forcing you to read Slashdot.
Those were human lives.
They were SPAMMERS so 'human' is a debatable term. Additionally, there are now over 6 BILLION people on this planet. It's not as though human life (or spammer life for that matter) is exactly a scarce commodity.
all of these tasteless jokes would be appropriately tagged ``flamebait''
Thanks ever so much for so selflessly volunteering your services as the "Touchstone of Tastefullness". From now on, I'll make sure to consult you before I read anything. God forbid anyone should be subjected to potentially offensive material.
I for one did not need this to ``brighten'' up my morning.
You've never administered a public mail server, have you? Well, after spending all night cleaning up a spool directory that was clogged with over 6 Gigabytes of UCE, this sure brightened up my morning.
I think there's a phrase that could be paraphrased here somehow, but I've been awake too long dealing with spam to think of how right now. The original quote is "A Liberal is just a Conservative that hasn't been mugged yet." I think it could go "An Overly Sensitive Thought Police On Slashdot is just a Heartless Uncaring Bastard who hasn't spent all night sorting and cleaning spam out of a mail spool yet.
Not murder, pre-law justice! (Score:1)
Stopping spammers is simply self defence. Yes, it should be the job of the police to stop the spammers, not the individual victims. There are always problems involved when private citizens attempts to enforce justice. But until the law starts working, we really have no alternative.
I want spammers to know that, yes, spam is cheap advertizing. But spam hurts people. Even if the spammer is too stupid (or greedy) to see how spam can hurt. And some of the people hurt might take it personally. Very personally.
What's not wrong with it? (Score:2)
Even if it's "fake child porn", all it does is encourage other pornographers and those that want to download child porn. It's sick, disgusting, and perverse and to think of it as anything other than that makes me suspicious of whoever does.
I'm sorry if you disagree.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
To all those requesting moderation... (Score:1)
1. Set your threshold to 0 or 1 (or higher).
2. Set your reading order to "Highest scores first."
3. When a new topic comes up, especially a controversial one, wait a little while before reading it. Give the moderators a little time. If the article was posted at 11:50, don't come in at 11:55 and start complaining about the off-topic posts.
--
Re:Roblimo and Zerbey loose Karma (Score:1)
Tongue in Cheek (Score:1)
DO NOT ASSUME IT'S SENSATIONALIST! (Score:2)
FYI, the article you didn't read mentioned spam in passing. It was not a "spammer's get whacked" article... that's the spin the person who submitted the article put on it.
The two victim's business dealings in general were the focus of the article. The fact that they manipulated stock, defauded people, etc. That they used spam as a part of that was only simply mentioned. When they mentioned potential suspects, they only said there was more than one gunman involved, most likely, that certain people (ex husband of one of the victim's gf) was cleared, and a strong suggestion that it was tied to their "shady business." No mention of spam.
There's no mention of net vigilantes wreaking horrible vengence on spammers. I'm dismayed that a few people here actually are assuming this is what has happened (and, even more dismayed that they seem to sort of be into it...).
You know, if you are against media hysteria, perhaps you should try to not jump to conclusions yourself.
Re:A dead spammer a day, keeps the UCE away (Score:1)
>Eagle
Nah, not offing lusers. Just rm -rf'ing them.
Dan "Now
- that
is a LART" PooreRe:New Spam Bill (Score:1)
1st offense: Fine, say $1000 or local equivalent
2nd offense: Confiscation of hardware, triple the 1st offense's fine (in line with the TCPA for the sender knowingly violating the law)
[here's where we start to differ]
3rd offense: Spammer locked in a cell with a 386 using a 2400 baud modem (I'd say lower but I don't think you can find 150 baud modems any more), being fed tons of spam to an inbox that only holds about 100KB or so, with bounced messages disappearing completely, never to be seen again. To get fed, the spammer must find the right message (out of thousands of choices) and reply to it, deleting the rest. Note that the 'send food' message won't have any identifying markings in the Subject line or From line to indicate it's the message that must be replied to for the spammer to get food, and may even be buried in a message with the subject of a spam the spammer him/herself sent in the past.
4th offense: Wait a second... how do dead people spam?
Dan "To keep this post on-topic with the thread" Poore
Re:Give me a Break! (Score:1)
Actually, I think the AC has a valid point. If you read the article, it nowhere says, or even implies, they were killed for their spamming. It is believed to be because of their "shady" business practices.
Just read the comments. How many posters look like they actually bothered to follow the link?
Certainly, the AC could have been a little more polite, but I just wish people would take the time to read the link for themselves, rather than believe everything they read on /.
it can only be wrong if it's from the govt (Score:1)
Killing Spammers (Score:1)
Re:sheesh... (Score:2)
Old joke with new twist (Score:2)
Q: What do you call 10,000 spammers on the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.
Sorry, it had to be said. :-)
Re:what next (Score:1)
On slashdot you can have a discussion with the other person while the spammer hides behind a faked email address...
Or if it would happen to be the real email address you just make a BIG mistake if you reply to the email!
Re:What's wrong with child porn spam? (Score:1)
Still, why does a sexual situation nessisarily hurt a child?
There is a difference between a child voluntarily, in private, engaging in sexual acts (for instance, with another child or alone), and an adult exploited said acts for the purpose of pornography.
It's natural for children to have sexual desires and to explore them; it is not natural for adults to interact sexually with children, because there is an inherent imbalance of power.
If a 13-year-old boy fantasizes about girls his own age, it's normal. If a 50-year-old man preferentially fantasizes about 13-year-old girls, something is wrong with him, because that kind of behavior indicates a need to dominate and abuse his sexual partners.
The bottom line is that child porn is not about children wanting to explore their sexuality. It's about adults who should damn well know better, exploiting children and using them to fulfill their own needs, with no respect for the child's mental or emotional stability. Is every child harmed by every sexual situation? No. But it's a risk no adult should ever take. That's what's wrong with child porn.
Give me a Break! (Score:1)
Read the CNN article you twits. They were probably killed because they had thier hands in god-knows-what kind of dirty buisiness.
I've been expecting something like this. (Score:2)
The government has allowed a massive annoyance and misappropriation of resources to continue for quite a long time now, and is not responsive to citizens' calls for regulation barring the practice (on the model of the earlier ban on junk faxes).
The spammers themselves are (understandably) unwilling to stop a practice they believe profitable, merely because people are annoyed.
The commercial network services have proven ineffective at stopping the practice, as spammers can create new accounts faster than the network operators can delete old ones, and the network operators themselves are not held liable for their customers behavior, and thus have no incentive to prescreen customers (and a disincentive, as it would reduce their customer base).
Technical solutions have not been effective - merely leading to an arms-race, which the spammers so far are winning.
This leaves a lot of very annoyed people with no effective way to abate the nuisance - except possibly direct action.
Now add to this the recognition that somewhere between one-in-50 and one-in-200 of the population in general are psycopaths. (Think of them as people with a brain damage that leaves them with no conscience - no sympathy for the suffering of others.) And that this group has the usual mix of smart and dumb, and of foreseeing and thinkers-for-today.
It's only a matter of time before one or more of them gets so mad as to try a little direct action. And given the above, such people might easily believe that the only direct action likely to eliminate the nuisance is to intimidate, damage, or eliminate the perpetrator of it.
This is, in my opinion, the inevitable result of the government's failure to live up to its claims of protection.
Please note that I'm not advocating either government action or literal attacks on spammers. I'm simply pointing out that I expect the latter in the absense of the former.
Really tho, (Score:1)
No, I'm not saying that spam isn't bad business. What I am saying, is that not all spammers are out to defraud, and make money off of us.
The most interesting thing for me, is to wait and see if this DOES discourage people from spamming. I mean, seriously, we can't say that these deaths AREN'T directly related to spam. This could scare potential spammers/scammers, especially ones specifically out to defraud or propate inethical business practices from making the first attempt.
Either way, reap what you sow = good way to think. Karma gonna git you sucka.
I think I've been getting email from them... (Score:2)
... On my aol account.
I kept getting messages like "I've got a stick to tell you about" etc. I think I actually responded once and told them it was illegal what they were doing (attempting to inflate the price through bogus means).
That is freaky shit.
Re:It's sad... (Score:2)
Apologies if I offended anyone I certainly didn't intend to.
Re:i once saw some good spammers, they were dead. (Score:1)
>> painful death.
> Really? For what is death *deserved*?
He just said it. For spamming.
The pain is extra for the child porn.
One of the first spams I received (before I learned that spammers are _always_ lying) started with "We found your name on a list of people with a special interest in child pornography...". If the spammer had been in reach my anger would have made his death far quicker than he deserved.
> Methinks thou trollest.
You wish. The existence of spammers are the prime arguments for the right to keep and bear arms.
Re:For once.. (Score:1)
I take it that means you are also expendable ;)
Re:For once.. (Score:1)
We'll all be expended sooner or later.
dang it...i thought i could live forever..
Re:What's wrong with child porn spam? (Score:2)
The definition of "child porn" varies. In Denmark, in means real pictures produced with real children ( 15 years) in real sexual situations involving other people, animals or objects. Pictures of "nakid kids" are not even considered pornographic (respectable newspapers will bring them to show that "now its summer").
So for me, it is quite easy to hate child porn. Producing it hurts real children.
Re:A cons. is just a liberal that has been spammed (Score:1)
You miss the point (Score:1)
And even if there was, distributing pictures has nothing to do with the children. Maybe it should be illegal to rape the children, but certainly not to distribute pictures of it. Most americans seem to have some very twisted values. It's ok for children to be porn, but not have sex? Come on!
*yawn* (Score:1)
I could understand it if I got tagged a -3 on that post for ``overrated'', but seriously, ``troll''? You've to be kidding me. Well, it wouldn't be the first (and far from the last) time when I voiced an actual opinion that a moderator thought was some sort of flamebait. Get a grip. I post often enough for you people to (probably more for the worse than for the better) know what is and is not a valid statement from my camp. heh.
At any rate, for those of you mindlessly crying out, ``Politically Correct''.. You've obviously never seen me post anything on a controversial issue (new to Slashdot, anyone?). I find the accusation to be useful for generating a few laughs, however. ;)
Re:What's not wrong with it? (Score:1)
IANAL, but I do know a homeowner is liable if anyone slips/falls/get hurt/etc on their sidewalk (even though the sidewalk isn't necessarily owned by said owner). I'm not clear if this extends onto the road (I doubt it), but it's quite possible if your bird causes someone to get ill, you'd be liable for it, *if* it happened on your side and stretch of the sidewalk (and they decide to press charges).
A reason why most people tend to shovel the snow off of their part of the sidewalk when it snows (patch of ice underneath snow is especially dangerous). I'm wary of people who don't shovel the snow (I end up walking on the road... much safer, plus I hope to keep out of the hospital).
Re:Nerds, Guns, and Killing (Score:1)
If spammers see the reaction slashdotters have had and think they will get killed by a raging group of Linux guru's, they may think again.
Think about it,
Does the net.... (Score:1)
In all seriousness, it sounds like spam was just part of how they did business. I didn't get anything from the article which would indicate that the killer(s) was a disgruntled spam-recipient.
I don't know anything about the victims, but the brief profile in the article indicated that they may have been involved in some shady business activities. A disgruntled business associate/customer/creditor sounds more likely than a hacked-off spam target. The fact that the victims were spammers is interesting to the slashdot community, but probably not to the world at large.
Re:It's sad... (Score:1)
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage [linuxsupportline.com]>
Re:For once.. (Score:1)
Damn straight.
However, I have taken the sensible precaution of arming myself. This makes me expensive to "expend".
The kindness in your heart... (Score:2)
It is important that we never let the public know that geeks are people who get angry when violated, and who are able hate the people who violate them repeatedly. Those are dark emotions which we should keep hidden.
Gosh, my karma is going to suffer today.
I was playing quake the other day... (Score:2)
Re:Someone mark the article as flaimbait... (Score:1)
Solution (Score:2)
simple (Score:1)
This is not about spam! This is, excuse, was a con artist scamming the _wrong_ client.
Re:Someone mark the article as flaimbait... (Score:2)
Why not indeed. How about because you don't know where they are, and by the time you track them down, if you can, you will have cooled off slightly? Road rage would happen alot less if the people involved were 100 kilometres (or miles, if you prefer) apart.
I don't think spammers are going to be murdered on a very frequent basis. Mailbombed? Possibly. ISP cracked? Maybe. But murdered? It is an idea simply lacking in practicality.
I'll admit it seems like a fun thought, but I would hope it never really happens.
Re:For once.. (Score:1)
Asking the moderators to aggressively down-mod this thread just so it palatable to your own sensitive intellect is just a little selfish (not to mention arrogant).
Arrogant? If she were being arrogant, her sentence would have perhaps been "You should moderate these down because I say so."
But cute is not the same thing as funny, and many of the posts here are hilarious.
Hi, you should also note that many of the posts here are incredibly stupid (i.e, the both of ours!)
They were SPAMMERS so 'human' is a debatable term.
Gee, I wasn't aware that "anonymous coward" was now synonymous with God.
It's not as though human life (or spammer life for that matter) is exactly a scarce commodity.
Hello, do you know the definition of the words you are typing? Quoting M-W Dictionary - lookup "Commodity" [m-w.com]: 1 : an economic good: as a : a product of agriculture or mining. Well now, since when is a human life an economic good?
I think it could go "An Overly Sensitive Thought Police On Slashdot is just a Heartless Uncaring Bastard who hasn't spent all night sorting and cleaning spam out of a mail spool yet.
That's pretty good. Think of it all by yourself?
Some might consider this flamebait (not sure why) but I would just like to inform them that this is sarcasm at it's finest!@#$
oops (Score:1)
Re:For once.. (Score:1)
So they won't be around to rip any more innocent people off. How is that a bad thing?
Re:Not Funny (Score:1)
cared about them....even if they stole $$$, they deserve to punished to the full extent of the law, but laughing and joking
about their deaths is so cold hearted and sick. have someone close to you die, and then see how quickly you find the
death of others so god damn funny.
Oh boo hoo hoo! Cry me a fucking river, why don't you?
If their family members aided and abetted in their thieving activities, or if they benefitted from them in any way, or are responsible for their upbringing into being such crooked bastards, then there ought to be absolutely no sympathy for them whatsoever. Do try and think on rational terms for once, and please spare us your misguided human compassion.
DEATH!!! (Score:1)
Spammers (Score:1)
Re:Maybe the rest.. (Score:1)
Re:sheesh... (Score:1)
Then you don't support anarchy at all. The thing about anarchy is that it (supposedly) resolves itsself. These people screwed some other people over, and now they're dead. They can't screw anyone else over, and the people who killed them aren't going to try to kill them again.
Problem solved, and if it were legal to kill people who had pulled a scam on you, everything would be good.
Re:sheesh... (Score:1)
Ah, I kinda like the tought. Fortunately I don't have a gun
--
Re:what next (Score:2)
Murder for sending out massmessages on IRC?
--
Re:To all those requesting moderation... (Score:2)
And remember - the purpoise of the moderation system is to give higher ratings to the most interesting, insightful, and funny posts.
The purpoise is not to make it so that you don't see anything that might upset/offend you.
Re:Spam Kills (Score:2)
Re:what next (Score:1)
Hmm, maybe I should get myself a gun after all. First take out all the local taggers, then take out all the spammers..
--
Re:(applause) Hear Hear (/applause) (Score:1)
Re:What's not wrong with it? (Score:2)
Most countries have outlawed murder and some have even outlawed assault and battery. Are you suggesting these laws and others like them are legislating morality? Because, if so, you really are stupid. Small wonder you chose to post anonymously.
-A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:OMG !!! (Score:1)
> for themselfves, check out the picture of their
> house
That house belongs to the father of one of their girlfriends. It states that in the article.
dave
Re:The *Important* Recent Dpam News (Score:1)
Is that a UL being passed around by idiots who believe everything they get forwarded in email?
dave
Re:Someone mark the article as flaimbait... (Score:1)
Who in there right mind would advertise with spam if they knew they were alienating 90% of there potental costummers?
Only a scam artist would want a quick load of costumers with little chance of repeate busness and no chance of expantion.
So in all honnestly I'm supprised spammers havn't been gun down before for non-spam related busness details.
On the other hand spammers do seem to believe pop culture and the idea is now planted firmly in our geek minds. Nevere mind the fact that we'd never accually kill annother human being even if we barely recognise em as such.
We are geeks and play violent video games so according to popculture we are dangerous violent blood thirsty psycopathic misfits.
I see a new first person shooter comming out... Geek revenge.. or "Spam Hunters".
Include on the game CD a howto on accually tracking down spammers and giving them das boot.
Finnaly direct players to call it a tranning program "Heh,heh,heh" simi-demonicly.
On the box front "The #1 spam elimination tool - Guns, bombs and psycopaths mag"
Maybe include a compemetry issue of this fictional mag in the box
Ok enough.. I have work to do... not related to spam however...
By the way.. Spammers beware.. we are psycopaths now and we know where you live..... muahahahaha
Nahhh .... (Score:1)
A: "Pollution"
Q: "How do you call all the spammers floating dead in the river?"
A: "The solution"
Yeah, it's reaaaaally baaaad to wish someone's death.
Re:Not Funny (Score:1)
People die.
Sometimes people who deserve it die.
If you rip off a bunch of other people really badly, you can expect to die.
If you engage in the sending of UCE, you do so at your own risk.
you're sick... (Score:1)
As far as mass-snail mailers, it's not costing you anything. Actually, neither is telemarketers. You can hang up/toss out the mail.
The main complaint about SPAM is that THEY are costing YOU money, or at least piggy-backing off of your internet connection fees.
POLITICALLY CORRECT MODERATION (Score:2)
Death is'nt funny? Hey, I've got bad news for you folks: WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE. And those guys are ALREADY dead. Tough. Shit happens. Plus they were crooks. Not just spammers, crooks, who probably ripped many people of their life's savings.
You merkins listen: KEEP YOUR 'POLITICAL CORRECTNESS' CRAP FOR YOURSELF.
There may be more truth to that than it seems... (Score:4)
These people were the ones behind the "JTSR Restaurants" series of spam runs late last year and earlier this year. That was one of the more massive spam runs of the last couple of years, involving nearly hundreds of fraudulently opened throwaway dialup accounts, and hundreds of hijacked mail relays over the course of several months.
I think that it is very much possible that someone who had his mailbox pummeled day in and day out with that crap -- many people received half a dozen copies of the same fucking spam every day for weeks -- went bonkers and tracked these people down.
When you start annoying tens of millions of people at random, you are bound to come across more than just a couple of nuts, kooks, and freakazoids. That's a given, according to laws of probability and statistics. There's no way around it. When you have such a large sample of population chosen at random, there are bound to be quite a handful of nuts in there.
Well, if you want to go around and start annoying and harassing a bunch of mentally unstable people, well, you'll just have to do it at your own risk. I'm really surprised that this hasn't happened more often.
--
Re:Really tho, (Score:1)
close your email account... (Score:1)
Re:Not Funny (Score:1)
Me neither. THey deserved what they got. Heck, they deserved a lot more.
Yes, it's annoying to get spam. but i have yet to see death as i justification for having to delete electronic mail.
Spammers cripple the net. They use up resources that aint theirs. They plague millions of people every day.
they deserve to punished to the full extent of the law, but laughing and joking about their deaths is so cold hearted and sick.
I prefer to say they deserved it. I prefer to say that I really hope this will happen a lot more often in the future.
--
Re:Give me a Break! (Score:1)
Re:For once.. (Score:1)
Humans are YAA (yet another animal). So who cares if a couple of people died? And beside, they were spammers so I personally enjoyed reading it. Quite frankly I hope this will happen more often in the future.
and all of these tasteless jokes would be appropriately tagged ``flamebait''.
I have a feeling my karma is suffering bad today. Spammmers deserve what they get. I cannot help it, but I *love* it when I hear about spammers, crackers and the like gets it bad.
--
Re:Spam Kills (Score:3)
"Both killed in iExecution style..."
discussion (Score:1)
but, you're right, these people won't use slashdot for discussing their spam-mail and that's the difference
it's your own decision to use slashdot, but when being spammed by email you are forced to receive this and you can't easily start a discussion with the other person
Someone mark the article as flaimbait... (Score:4)
Looking at the first few comments posting to this article, it seems as though we're in for a bumpy ride.
This almost certainly has nothing to do with spam, and a lot to do with the $10m of investors money that disappeared.
Read the article and think before posting some off-the-cuff reply.
...j
perhaps I'm not seeing something here.... (Score:1)
Nevermind, I really don't want to know.
-----
Re:What a great idea!!! (Score:1)
Sure, spam isn't great, but in what way is it stopping free software??
This way of thinking just gives the free software movement a bad name!
It's sad... (Score:4)
This is going to make us look bad. Now, not only is the net the playground of pr0n vendors and the dreadful capitalism-destroying mp3s, we're a bunch of gun-toting vigilantes who work out our grudges with guns as well as harmless flames.
A crime like this could lead to even more net-hysteria among the clueless.
Poor guys...scummy as they were, nothing it looks like they did would make them deserve to be gunned down like an animal.
Re:For once.. (Score:2)
In the same vein on how alot of us have had thoughts of pouring iron filings into the back of a crappy monitor at work to get a new one, this is kind of the same logic.
I have to say that making jokes about spammers (a general group) isn't necessarily a wrong or evil idea. However, laughing at a the real thing (specific people) is morally reprehensible. Nobody deserves to die - that doesn't mean we can't joke about it. Seems alittle contradictory? It is. Non sequir. None the less, it is true.
--
Re:sheesh... (Score:3)
Re:POLITICALLY CORRECT MODERATION (Score:4)
Actually, Political Correctness was introduced with Meta-Moderation. If you moderated a "darkly funny" joke up, then get meta-moderated by a tight ass you lose karma. This leads to conservative moderation and ultimately PC behaviour. It's because Rob added a conscience to the system (something above the action that determines if it is good or bad).
PC doesnt mean personal computer anymore (Score:2)
Humor is completely subjective, and while I really do appreciate the cheap one liners, some may not. Yet, you don't see the humorous posts crying out against the bleeding-hearts. Why? Because they get it, when they rub a handful of neurons together they know that censorship and tastefulness are the tools of the fascist-minded.
For once.. (Score:4)
..I actually find myself wishing for some more moderation. Honestly, anyone who's doing some moderation today, please take a moment to read this: I really don't need to hear anyone making cheap jokes at the expense of a couple of dead people. It's not funny. It's not cute. They're dead. Those were human lives. No one deserves to be murdered (this becomes an arguable point when it comes to the legal system and the death penalty, but in those cases the offenders have committed murder themselves, and as much as we all hate spam, it's not murder), and all of these tasteless jokes would be appropriately tagged ``flamebait''. Anyone who really cares to read all these sick, tasteless gestures can lower their threshold to 0 or less if they haven't already. I for one did not need this to ``brighten'' up my morning.
Spam Kills (Score:4)
a
little
pissed.
and dude, to the guy who said something about how the spammers did well for themselves, the house is owned by one of the guys' girlfriend's dad. i doubt either of them was very wealthy.
unc_
Re: (Score:2)
The *Important* Recent Dpam News (Score:3)
Microsoft's Y2K "important message" is being sprayed all over - including addresses that had previously opted-out of their informational newswire mailings, and apparently harvested addresses as well.
This spam is different. This time a huge company is violating it's own privacy policy and blatantly disrespecting the wishes of the recipients.
I'm very disappointed that this is getting no press whatsover. It is about the worst precedent that could possibly be set by a industry leader.
Prepare for the deluge of spam from mainstream companies.
This is bizare! (Score:2)
ObOnTopicComment: It wouldn't surprise me if this was spam-related. As with "road-rage", and other similar psychologically triggery scenarios, anger is not unusual. Mix that with a few too many down the bar, and a knowledge of who the spammer is, and this could easily be the result.
Whilst this is certainly disturbing, I have to say that inciting anger, to save money on marketing, isn't an FDA-approved method of staying in good health. It doesn't excuse what happened, no matter what the reason or motive, but if you choose to live dangerously, don't blame danger if you don't make a Hollywood escape.
Revenge spam (Score:2)
This is the _real_ reason you shouldn't try to get even with the spammers, you might hit the wrong people.
Maybe there isn't a murderer out there. (Score:5)
If so, I hope it's Open Source.
What's wrong with child porn spam? (Score:2)
"if it were child pornography spam then nothing short of what happened to them would be required"
Why is so many attacking this all the time? Ok, spam in general is bad but why would child porn spam be extra bad? If you produce it using real children that's bad. Just as producing regular porn by raping people. But I can't see anything wrong with child porn in itself.