In his heyday, Ryan Pitylak was one of the world's worst spammers. Twenty-five million messages a day - the kind offering mortgages and debt counselling - made him a tidy profit and a fearsome reputation among his peers. But he fell foul of the CAN-SPAM act in the States and had to sell his house, car and more to pay his $1 million fine and substantial legal bills.
Now he's back, as a self-proclaimed "anti-spam activist" and blogger - and wants to advise companies on security matters.
The 24-year-old from Texas (profiled here in the Chicago Tribune) says he has turned over a new leaf, and now wants to right the wrongs created by spammers. His blog, which promises to lift the lid on an industry "veiled in secrecy" does make for some interesting reading... there are posts about the playboy lifestyle of "alpha male" spammers, and notes on identifying spam. But here's his latest missive:
"I am pleased to announce that I am now a part of the anti-spam community, having started an internet security company - Pitylak Security - that offers my clients advice on systems to protect against spam. Over time I have come to see how I was wrong to think of spam as just a game of cat and mouse with corporate email administrators. I now understand why so much effort is put into stopping it."
Not everyone's so convinced by this turnaround. Graham Cluley of Sophos isn't sure that people want to work with a poacher-turned-gamekeeper.
"Spammers like Pitylak have shown themselves to be prepared to break the law in their eagerness to pump out unwanted marketing messages. Some companies may feel uncomfortable about working with someone who has shown a history of behaving unethically, without caring about the consequences for other internet users."
What do I think? I certainly believe people can change their minds, but I wouldn't be the only one who remained suspicious of such a Damascene conversion as this. But my incredulity is stretched even more by this proclamation just a few months back: "I focus most of my academic time on issues related to the poor in developing countries. Many differnet aspects of the economy affect the poor (globalization for example) and a better understanding of these issues might lead to less people living in extreme poverty."
The irony that this man, who spent so much time of his time trying to trick people who were in financially desperate position, is interested in solving extreme poverty, is almost too much to bear. Let's hope leopards do change their spots.
