Talk:Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel

Martha Siegel death info?

Can someone find out how she died? DS 16:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Nexis can't find an obituary. The earliest reference to her death that I can find is in "THE DAY THE NET CHANGED FOREVER, Hartford Courant (Connecticut), June 30, 2002 Sunday," in which the reporter found Canter but mentions Siegel in only an offhand "she died in 2000." I wonder if maybe the reporter got this news from Canter and, if so, is it true? If it were an acrimonious divorce, he might be lying. Uucp 17:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked Proquest, but found nothing either. However, I found plenty of stories about the SPAM itself. I then Googled "Martha Siegel died" and came back to the same 2000 date. Should we mark the date as uncertain since no-one can prove she's dead? - Thanks, Hoshie 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I would mark it as uncertain. Uucp 19:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Social Security Death Index lists a Martha Siegel, b. 9 April 1943, d. 24 September 2000. That makes her 5 years older than currently listed, so what's the source of her DoB? 216.103.50.52 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the August 6th, 2007 New Yorker. While the Canter & Siegel incident is mentioned on page 37, Michael Specter mentions an earlier spam from the Spring of 1978 when Gary Thuerk sent, "We invite you to come see the 2020 and hear about the DECSystem-20 family." Gary was "harsly reprimanded" but also netted 20 million in sales from the message. Michael also has a choice quote from Richard Stallman. Here is a link to the article. Zenyu 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Title of this article

According to this resource, the name of their law firm was: Canter & Siegel, Immigration Attorneys

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.pub.coffeehouse.amethyst/msg/477832eb09859797

I think we ought to consider moving the article back.

Also, the subject of the article appears to be a law firm, not two individuals, and I found no evidence that the name of the law firm was "Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel".

It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The current name (Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel) is more appropriate.

The article is about two people, not about a company. Although the lead sentence of the article does say that they "were a husband-and-wife firm of lawyers", the article is about two individual people who were married, were in business together as lawyers, and spammed Usenet. The article is not about their law firm.

That Usenet post (the one cited above) notwithstanding, it's not even clear that they ever had a law firm named "Canter & Siegel". The Google newsgroup post and the reliably sourced citations that are listed in the article under "External links" discuss them as two individual people, not as a business. Business names that appear in those sources include "Sheridan Worldwide, Incorporated", "Corporation Service Company," "Ricci Enterprises," and "Cybersell" (I don't think all of these were names of firms operated by Canter and Siegel, but at least two of them were). The only appearance of "Canter & Siegel" in the linked articles is a single mention in one quotation from Canter in the CNET News interview. --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess we had better change that opening sentence, because Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel were not a husband-and-wife firm of lawyers, they were partners in a husband-and-wife firm of lawyers. It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC) It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That strikes me as a difference without a distinction (or is it the other way around?), by which I mean extra words that don't make any difference, but on the other hand I think it is fine the way you've changed it. - DavidWBrooks (talk)

It makes a difference in this case, because there never was a firm of lawyers called Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel. The name of the firm was either "Canter & Siegel" or "Canter and Siegel", but as Orlandy points out, the subject of this article is not the law firm, but the husband-and-wife team who comprised the law firm. It also makes a difference grammatically: "Canter & Siegel" was a firm of lawyers, but Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel were partners in that firm. It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

also involved in an important case on jurisdiction

It might (?) be worth noting in this article that they initiated a case that turned out to be important precedent in how personal jurisdiction interacts with the internet, Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. (they lost). --Delirium (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Religious Reference

I cannot see that Canter and Siegel's religion is in any way relevant to this article, especially in the light of the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates|Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality guidelines. Therefore, I am removing the sentence and reference to their religion. Joan.salkin (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

occupation

The infobox goves Canter's occupation as "lawyer", but the text of the article says he was disbarred. Doesn't that make him a former lawyer? Considering the source of most of his money, would "spammer" or perhaps something a bit less pejorative be more accurate? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be a matter of terminology, but I don't think it makes sense to say that being disbarred means that you are no longer a lawyer. You can be disbarred in one state but continue to practice in another, after all. So I wouldn't change this to "former lawyer", unless we have reason to believe that Canter no longer practices law at all.

Adding "spammer" strikes me as a reasonable change. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not add "spammer" - that's a loaded perjorative, not a real job description. You might as well put "liar" or "jerk" or something like that. Leave it as lawyer; it's not like the story doesn't explain the details. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, he spammed to increase customers to his law firm. So the spamming was a means to an end. Using advertising doesn't make you an ad-man. If others paid him to spam for them, then he'd be a spammer.Yorkist (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

• http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=CrBBFv.5z0%40eskimo.com&output=gplain
• http://archive.is/20130119130641/http://news.com.com/2008-1082-868483.html

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

$100,000 quotation source

I searched around, and I believe that the quotation there is just a retelling of a retelling of a retelling of this quote:

> "Considering her openly misanthropic attitude toward the net.community, I have to ask Siegel, in closing, why she doesn't just abandon it?

> "No way," she says. "Why would I want to? We made over $100,000 from those postings!"

> No one I talked to takes C&S' claim to making $100,000 from their Green Card spam seriously. But, as one put it, "the IRS might."

It is from this interview, titled "A NET.CONSPIRACY SO IMMENSE... Chatting With Martha Siegel of the Internet's Infamous Canter & Siegel" by K.K.Campbell.

I'm not sure who K.K. Campbell is, but they appear to be the psuedonymous "Zodiac" who founded Marx & Engels Virtual Library: https://www.marxists.org/admin/intro/history/newsgroups/1993-12-28.htm Note the shared email address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:4102:5960:8cc4:3982:5736:f9ab (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, usenet postings are not acceptable as sources. I did find an interview of Canter by CNet. I'll adjust the text accordingly. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)