theregister.co.uk— David Ritz, the veteran American spam-fighter, has been hit by $60,000 in fines plus lawyers fees after losing a civil suit that accused him of illegal hacking.
Jan 17, 2008View in Crawl 4
Yes, I reiterate tech42er's f**k you. No s**t they need legal knowledge. But it's hard to exercise sound reasoning and judgement when you do not understand the fundamental elements of a case. Think of it this way: If you were a judge ruling on a murder trial, but you had no clude what "murder" actually was, would you feel comfortable ruling on it? If shysty lawyers had to explain to you what "murder" was, do you really think you would have a complete picture of what is actually happening? The same goes when the "perpetrated crime" is a whois lookup.
Closed AccountJan 18, 2008
HACK THE PLANET
rowjimmyJan 18, 2008
*awe yoo wetawded
ultramagnus0001Jan 19, 2008
Come on you Digg geeks, make those spammers pay. This will just keep happening and the spammers will win. <a class="user" href="http://sfldf.org/donations.html">http://sfldf.org/donations.html</a>Get that Jerry Reynolds guy, I know we have some hackers out there.
Closed AccountJan 20, 2008
Separate "crimes" get separate judgment. It doesn't really matter though. Most spam will be off the net by Q4 2008 and the rest by Q4 2009.
tokyosexwhaleJan 23, 2008
Yes, I reiterate tech42er's f**k you. No s**t they need legal knowledge. But it's hard to exercise sound reasoning and judgement when you do not understand the fundamental elements of a case. Think of it this way: If you were a judge ruling on a murder trial, but you had no clude what "murder" actually was, would you feel comfortable ruling on it? If shysty lawyers had to explain to you what "murder" was, do you really think you would have a complete picture of what is actually happening? The same goes when the "perpetrated crime" is a whois lookup.