Spammer's Sentence Misguided, Sends Wrong Message
from the hit-'em-where-it-hurts dept
We all agree that convicted spammer Jeremy Jaynes is a nasty slime deserving of punishment for his daily 10 million spam emails fix. But now we're not the only ones wondering if a Virginia court went overboard on his 9-year jail sentence. Brian McWilliams says basically the same thing in his column, adding that not only is it excessive but also misguided and potential dangerous. The gist is of the commentary is two-fold: first, the overly stiff sentence puts him on par with violent criminals and completely ignores other forms of punishment, ie, he may not have to hand over a penny of his filthy lucre; and second, crucifying him this way is a good deterrent but will only martyr him and create a public backlash. Perhaps the lesson for prosecutors here is that you might serve the public better by seeking more balanced penalties. Maybe a tad less jail time, more commensurate with the crime, and a bit more repaying of the ill-gotten gains. Even better, throw in some community service, like forced service in the fight against spam. On a big scale, Mr. Jaynes and his ilk could help catch spammers or figure out ways to thwart them. Sort of the bad-hackers-turned-good approach. On a smaller and far more satisfying scale, we could make them clean up after themselves. Put them on Deletion Detail. If Jaynes had to delete spam messages all day, maybe we'd be more inclined to believe his pledge to reform himself.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I say screw him!
Imagine if he sent out 10 million phone messages a day, or 10 million faxes?
LET HIM ROT! THESE SMACKTARDS NEED TO BE SHOWN THAT WE OWN THE INTERNET, NOT THEM!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I say screw him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I say screw him!
Okay, I'll be nice-- time off allowed only if they can improve on existing spam filering systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I say screw him!
http://tinyurl.com/3vzfs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
billion emails at (consultancy rate per hour or part thereof to press `delete' each) = $commeasurate with a small nation's GDP, probably... ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more time, take his ill gotten gains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
why is he any worse than TV for cutting into every good show with 15 minutes of ads? they are both driven by making good money from it. (not the best analogy...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
You need to understand something that you seemingly do NOT understand.
Ads on TV: Ads on TV are, in theory, supposed to subsidize quality programming (I know, i know). In theory, YOU as the user, do NOT PAY for these ads. You see these in return for lower fees for television viewing.
Spam: Spam advertising (indeed ALL spyware) is much MUCH more evil. Spam does not use the SENDER'S resources. It costs the same to the spammer to send 10 emails as sending 10 million. Who pays? ISPs...in other words YOU DO. Before you say "well I pay XX a month no matter HOW much email I get" you better think twice. You pay so much a month but you have either a per time payment (rare these days) or you have a upload/download limit (very common). Spam uses up that limit, hence uses YOUR limitted resources (whether its 1% or 10% is irrelevant...if I said you paid 10cents for every 100 spam would you be pissed? I would).
A better analogy would be is he any worse than the guy who sends 50 unsolicitated business faxes to thousands of companies in YOUR area? (see how that is?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
As for the public backlash to the oh-so-tough sentence, I think the responses here are a good indication of the kind of "backlash" to be expected. If there's any backlash at all, it will be against the court system for being too easy on the scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
GROW UP PEOPLE ... ITS FREAKING SPAM, NOT MURDER !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
wanna skin 'im?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
If there's any backlash at all, it will be against the court system for being too easy on the scum.
I wonder. I mean while I applaud the stiff sentence, I DO think monetary damages and reparations should have been imposed, also where's the backlash on the much lighter sentences for violent crimes, which ARE more heinous than this one (by this I am NOT saying the spammer should get off lighter...but that violent offenders should get heavier penalties)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]