Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Violating a court order forbidding any access to Facebook?

Yes, as stated in the article.

"Spamford" Wallace has a slight history, including multiple instances of recidivism after former spamming episodes dating to 1991.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Wallace

In the late 1990s, his company, Cyber Promotions, aka Cyberpromo, was widely blacklisted as a source of unsolicited email. Wallace's high-profile pro-spam stance and unrepentant persistence earned him the derisive nickname 'Spamford'.

Prior to his email spam ventures, Wallace had gained notoriety in other questionable marketing circles, as a heavy utilizer of junk fax marketing, a practice outlawed in the United States since 1991.[2]

In 1995, Wallace formed Cyber Promotions, entering the spam market. Thanks to a self-marketing campaign, Cyberpromo rapidly became the most successful seller of email marketing—as well as the number one source of unsolicited email. After Cyberpromo failed to become a legitimate business, Wallace returned to junk faxing in late 1997.[2]




So why is violating a court order not to access Facebook considered criminal contempt, not civil contempt?


I read previously that he is charged criminally for hacking the 100,000-500,000 accounts. They were real accounts which belonged to real people and he may have phished them.


Who said it was criminal contempt and not civil contempt?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: