Another Spammer Expected To Get Jailtime
from the a-good-deterrant? dept
Last week we were wondering if huge fines were really a deterrent on spammers, since, in most cases it was unlikely the spammers would ever pay. So, if fines don't do it, will jailtime? Another spammer appears to be facing about two years in jail for a bunch of bogus health and drug spams. In his case, it sounds like he may be in more trouble for using computers from Ford, Amocco, Unisys, the US Army Information Center, and the Administrative Office of US Courts to send out those spams, than just for sending the spam messages directly. Actually, if you're looking to avoid jailtime for spamming, you probably shouldn't make unauthorized use of any computers having to do with the US government, let alone the "Administrative Office of US Courts." This isn't the first time, of course, that a spammer has been sent to jail, but it still does raise questions about what the proper punishment should be.
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
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make them clean up their mess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make them clean up their mess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about a recording industry punishment?
I think a guy with a sandwich board sign saying SPAMMER having the stand on a busy street corner for a month is a delicious punishment. I know I would go out of my way to buy milkshakes and drive by and throw them at him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a technophobe counseling session?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a recording industry punishment?
And with all that milkshake business, I'm sure McDonald's would be down with it, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a recording industry punishment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about a recording industry punishment?
But you shouldnt have to but them, anyone with a spam mail from this guy gets a voucher for a free milkshake, paid for by any fines money that could be collected from the sale of any of his assets. One milkshake per spam received.
And they should be fish milkshakes. and hot. mmmmm hot fish mikshakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I agree with the milkshakes idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jail for emailing people? Seriously
Don't start saying that a spammer is causing real harm, either. That's just crap. Filling up your inbox is annoying as hell but you have no right protecting you against annoyances.
Apparently the case involves unauthorized use of others' computers, which should be punished. Also, if there was fraud and/or theft involved, again we have an issue. Simply emailing people about viagra or whatever should not be a crime. Get over yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail for emailing people? Seriously
That email selling me Viagra has a Subject line that reads "The roses are sweet...", or "Re: Your account." In the latter, it is implying that this is a reply to a message I sent. The from address says "Vern@someco.com" and that's not the spammer's real address. There are intentional misspellings and additional random text thrown into the message in order to try to fool spam blockers... in other words, it's trying to get around those people that DO NOT WANT this shit and actively try to keep it from cluttering their mailboxes. In addition, the spam is routed from hijacked PC's to hide the identity of the person that's actually sending the spam.
If a spammer wants to do business legitimately, they should have a double opt-in system with email verification that the person that they are sending their crap to really wants it. Many spammers claim that they do this, but I can assure you that not one of them that has sent spam to me has had me volunteer for it.
The truth is, spammers lie. When all is said and done, that's the only truth about spam. Lying is antisocial at the very least, and in some cases it can result in jail time (lying to a policeman, lying to a federal investigator, lying in court, lying about another person in print, etc.).
Spamming is not a victimless crime. There is a victim for every hijacked PC, and for every minute wasted while on the payroll when dealing with SPAM. There is a victim for every person that shells out good money to purchase "spam removal software" for their systems.
Don't coddle spammers! You're playing into their hands.
Sending a spammer to jail for hijacking PC's and sending the billions of crap messages sent out each day is just as fair as sending a wigged-out junkie who just robbed the local liquor store to jail.
If the death penalty is there as a deterrent for murder, then jail sentences should be there as a deterrent for spammers. Unfortunately, until all countries do the same, all we're going to be doing is moving the spam sources overseas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail for emailing people? Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail for emailing people? Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail for emailing people? Seriously
Apparently you do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail for emailing people? Seriously
Email is intended to enable communication between human building, and it's become an important communication tool, fast, inexpensive, convenient. It's become so important, that email messages more and more affect our personal lives and our financial lives.
If one important ligitimate message is lost because either the shear volumn of meaningless spam is so great that the important message is overlook, or if a SPAM filter incorrectly blocks an important message, then the socal and human use of email is compromised and we need to do something to keep parasitic bulk mailers under control.
We in the US didn't do a great job in controlling SPAM (to say the least) but the law can and should be revisited and expanded to make unsolicited commercial email flat-out illegal, and once that's done start jailing violators.
Millions, or billions, of people have their means of interaction compromised by a tiny number of 'business' and that needs to stop, in the interest of the expanding informartion society.
Faz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail for emailing people? Seriously
As for punishments, just like everything else, its should depend on the crime. A person that attempts to defraud people should face a stiffer sentence than someone that just sends out pointless e-mails - that's what blogs are for...;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail for emailing people? Seriously
First, let's all realize that you have FAR FEWER RIGHTS than most people would have you believe.
You DO NOT have a right to be free of annoyance.
You DO NOT have a right to a clean inbox.
The rights you have are clearly delimited in the constitution, and that's about it. Senator Schmo may help enact a law that (consitutional or not) provides some relief from annoyances, but that does not make it a right.
As to the fact that spam costs companies money: So the f**k what? LOTS of things cost a company far more money and nobody gets thrown in jail for it. Business has a cost, this is now one of them. Get over it.
Some of you objected to my earlier post because spammers take over other's computers. I addressed that specific issue, but I'll do it again. I agree completely that that's an issue, and should be dealt with. But that is an issue all by itsself, irrespective of whether the hijacker uses the machines for Spam or DoS attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jail for emailing people? Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punishment for Spammers
Even though I try to watch what she gets it arrives in her inbox faster than I can delete it.
Now let's answer that question, do you think life is too much? May others would get the idea that it isnt worth it,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punishment for Spammers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punishment for Spammers
Democracy in the US doesn't work that way. That is why we have a constitution. A Democracy where the majority vote can completely rewrite or change existing rights and guaranties is not a place I want to live. Don't get me wrong, I believe in Democracy and think that a democratic government is the best form of gov. on earth. But the truth is, the greek city states tried total democracy multiple times, and it didn't work. Too many times the majority simply made a new rule, giving dictatorship power to an individual or a group of individuals. The truth is, people are stupid and often will not see things in the long term. So if the short term benefit seems better than some suffering or economic hardship, many people will choose the short term. That's why the original writers of the constitution made it so hard to change it. it is a long and complicated process to change the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punishment for Spammers
We were definitely financially victimized!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punishment for Spammers
I believe punishment must fit the crime and sorry, but I dont think spam qualifies for taking a human life. Please tell me you are exagerrating when you are mentioning the death sentance.
And since the jails are all full, if you have to choose either a rapist/murderer/drug dealer next door or spammer I think most would choose spammer.
Take his money or house or property. Thats the way you punish the greedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punishment for Spammers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punishment for Spammers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
You forgot the rest of that quote...
"Unless corporations buy enough political influence to allow them to usurp the will of the people."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets bring back the stocks!
HEY! I have an idea!
Lets bring back the stocks! Then we could put EVERY petty criminal in them for a few days, and let people do whatever they wanted! You could throw your milkshakes at the guy � and he couldn�t even move to avoid it! Dirty diapers too! And if some vigilante really decided that sending spam was worth the death penalty � he could throw bricks at the guy, and break his jaw, or his skull.... poke out an eye maybe - really maim him good � and for LIFE too! And if it was a woman in the stocks we could build special ones so she would have to be bent over and anyone who wanted to could rape her at his leisure! THAT will sure send a message to all those spammers � it will be a deterrent!
Putting people in jail for sending you unwanted Email is equally as asinine.
It is an eye for an eye people. Not a life for an eye.
Let the punishment fit the crime � and stop throwing people in prison for non-violent crimes � for the love of God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]