Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Spam King' Released From Prison, Now Lives In Seattle

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the stocks-and-pillories-by-pike-place-market-please dept.

Crime 275

dmmiller2k writes "Apparently, after 'nearly four years in prison, the man dubbed the 'Spam King' by federal prosecutors, is allowed back online.' I wonder if there's some variation of Megan's Law requiring him to register with the local police department and notify all his neighbors with computers?" I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.

cancel ×

275 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nope. (-1, Troll)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372198)

No spam in this post.

Re:Nope. (1, Offtopic)

al0ha (1262684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372234)

Off topic but please don't click on the link to Dropbox in the post above - it will make money for the spammer who posted it.

Re:Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372258)

Robert Soloway, is that you? Didn't take you long, did it?

Linking to Wikipedia??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372240)

If I wanted biased articles produced and maintained by fascist wankers I would watch Fox "News"

The Wankerpedoa link doesn't even have anything to do with the story....

Re:Linking to Wikipedia??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372376)

Fox Coward, you again?

And notify all his neighbors with computers (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372248)

via email no doubt

Re:And notify all his neighbors with computers (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372756)

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

       

       

Nope, no information law (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372268)

"I wonder if there's some variation of Megan's Law requiring him to register with the local police department and notify all his neighbors with computers?"

No there isn't, and after he has completed his parole he can apply for a name change in case his current name and reputation makes it hard to find employment.

Re:Nope, no information law (0)

Hojima (1228978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372312)

Guess me and Dorthy better take a vacation to Seattle quick. Dorthy is my pet shotgun.

Re:Nope, no information law (0)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372346)

Mine is Mossy. Mossburg 590A1

Re:Nope, no information law (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372598)

Mine is Howey the Howitzer. She's not the slimmest of gals...

Re:Nope, no information law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372916)

You name your guns? I thought manly men like yourself just named their dicks. Yours wouldn't happened to be named Toto would it?

Re:Nope, no information law (1)

Manfre (631065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372372)

A background check would catch name changes and most employers ask their potential hires if they've ever been convicted of a crime. If he lies during the interview process and the employer later finds out, that will probably get him fired and soil his new name.

Re:Nope, no information law (3, Interesting)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372510)

You didn't read the summary did you?

"I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list."

Thats what a name change is for, and while I'm aware of putting other names in on applications, in many states theres a sunset on how far back they can look for name changes and for convictions.

Washington's law is 7 or 10 years I think.

I actually had a fight over a job in Washington 2 years ago. The form said "within last 7 years" and I'd had a conviction for a misdemeanor 16 years ago, so I didn't put anything in. I was offered the job, then the background check hit that and I had the offer pulled back. I was about to start fighting it, then I moved to Alaska for more money.

Re:Nope, no information law (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372378)

Depending on the job, even a basic background check probably would find alternate names. Every job application or background check consent form has asked for previous names/aliases and criminal background. Either lying or omitting has the potential for repercussion that could be worse then just telling the truth to begin with.

Re:Nope, no information law (1)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372472)

It definitely would. And you're usually required to describe all felonies committed in the last 5-10 year period. Can't remember the exact time frame, but having your name changed doesn't relinquish a felon's obligation to declare his status when applying for jobs when explicitly requested.

Re:Nope, no information law (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372514)

It seems as though there are quite a few people here who do not think the punishment decided on by our legal system is enough, and wish this "spam king" would have to keep paying, and paying, and paying for his crimes. Now, I do not hold absolute trust in our current legal system, but the alternative is mob rule and vigilante justice, which is a thing no sane citizen would wish for.

Personally, I think the punishment is sort of light. But that does not entitle me to take action against the man. The law of the land does not boil down to "What I, personally, think is fair." If I felt strongly enough that this punishment was too light, I would write to my representatives to advocate for tougher cyber-crime laws. I would not go to this criminal's new home town with a gun, as some are (jokingly? who knows in today's political climate.) advocating.

Nor do I wish that this man never finds employment again. That would mean that my tax dollars would go to support him. I'd rather he finds some useful work, due to my own self-interest, and my feeling that, once you have paid your dues to society, you deserve a second chance.

This is coming from my civilized side. My vindictive side thinks the man should die in a fire, but I am trying REALLY HARD not to give in to my vindictive side. If I did that, we'd have a lot of dead motorists here in New Mexico (land of the worst drivers in the world) and I would be in jail myself.

Re:Nope, no information law (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372582)

I think the guy should be banned from computer ownership and work for at least twice the time Mitnick was originally banned.

And stick him with only access to a land line too.

I don't condone killing him or a database for computer offenders by any means.

Re:Nope, no information law (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372650)

Do you think that Mitnick was treated justly?

If not (which seems to be a popular opinion), his punishment doesn't really serve as much of a point of reference.

Re:Nope, no information law (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372760)

Yes, except for the solitary confinement, same with Terry Childs.

But I'm not talking about the jail time, but the terms of the parole.

Re:Nope, no information law (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372720)

+1 for this. So many people jump straight to vindictive and GLORY in it. It's nice to read a bit of civilization as a counterpoint to that.

Re:Nope, no information law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372726)

He should have been sentenced to implementing ECMA-376 [ecma-international.org] in COBOL without bugs. When he's done with the 6000+ pages of docs, he can go.

hire! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372274)

probably they would hire him straight away.

Spammers Vs. Virus Writers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372282)

What's worse?

Reading Slashdot for years, virus writers seem to be better thought of.

Re:Spammers Vs. Virus Writers (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372536)

What's worse?

Reading Slashdot for years, virus writers seem to be better thought of.

It takes some small measure of hacking skill to write a good virus. All it takes to be a spam king is to have the morals of a rabid weasel.

Re:Spammers Vs. Virus Writers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372580)

But then Virus writers steal and destroy.

Spammers merely annoy.

Re:Spammers Vs. Virus Writers (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372878)

Reading Slashdot for years, virus writers seem to be better thought of.

Protecting oneself from viruses is easy and has few side effects.

There's no protection against spam that doesn't also kill some of the utility of email. There was a time when one could put an email address everywhere and be contacted only by interesting people. I even had my email address published here in Slashdot.

Spammers killed all that. They are much worse than virus writers.

How about a second chance? (4, Insightful)

ecotax (303198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372284)

Not that I have much sympathy for the man, but he did serve his sentence, sending spam isn't a sex offense, and denying someone internet access is a pretty harsh punishment these days. How about giving him a second chance?

Re:How about a second chance? (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372358)

Ya know, I really, really want to agree with you. Everything you say makes absolute sense.

And yet, spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it. He couldn't possibly have been unaware of the fact that, had he accidentally taken a shiv to the ribs while in jail, there would have been widespread cheering. Perhaps guilt-ridden cheering, but cheering nonetheless. Clearly, he didn't care then, and I really don't see how four years in prison would make him care now.

At the very least, it seems as if there should be some sort of expedited process for prosecution should he return to spamming. Not to deny him due process, but just to place him on a high priority list for investigating. Call it "spammer profiling".

Re:How about a second chance? (1)

ecotax (303198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372478)

Ya know, I really, really want to agree with you. Everything you say makes absolute sense.

And yet, spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it. He couldn't possibly have been unaware of the fact that, had he accidentally taken a shiv to the ribs while in jail, there would have been widespread cheering. Perhaps guilt-ridden cheering, but cheering nonetheless.

I'll have to plead guilty here.

Clearly, he didn't care then, and I really don't see how four years in prison would make him care now.

At the very least, it seems as if there should be some sort of expedited process for prosecution should he return to spamming. Not to deny him due process, but just to place him on a high priority list for investigating. Call it "spammer profiling".

Keeping a good eye on him makes sense, and I would be surprised to find out this isn't happening already.
And of course he knew exactly what he was doing. But spending a few years in prison will certainly have left an impact on him, for better or for worse.

Re:How about a second chance? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372740)

Keeping a good eye on him makes sense

Does it though? This was a non-violent offense. Exactly how many resources do we dedicate to tracking non-violent offenders?

Re:How about a second chance? (2)

jbolden (176878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372554)

4 years in prison, like most suffering, can do a lot to change a person's attitude. Its much harder to see evils you profit from than those you suffer from.

Re:How about a second chance? (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372722)

I sure hope you're right. It's just that somebody who starts from such a clearly bent perspective (i.e. willing to aggravate literally a billion people to the point of violent rage, or at least talking that way) seems unlikely to learn the intended lesson of the suffering.

But for everybody's sake, I hope you're right. The actual damage is comparatively small, in the scheme of things, but the collective irritation seems to add up to a heavy emotional toll.

Re:How about a second chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372596)

Being in prison won't make him grow a conscience, but it will make him want to avoid a return trip.

Personally, I find your justifications for lifelong punishment to be petty. You simply aren't in a position to know whether or not he will return to a life of crime, so you have no business treating him like he already has. Whether you like it or not, the law gives people second chances, and if you had a grasp of history you would be grinning from ear to ear about this fact.

Re:How about a second chance? (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372608)

And yet, spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it. He couldn't possibly have been unaware of the fact that, had he accidentally taken a shiv to the ribs while in jail, there would have been widespread cheering...
At the very least, it seems as if there should be some sort of expedited process for prosecution should he return to spamming.

Wow. Just... wow. If you're not joking then I really hope you one day gain a sense of perspective.

Re:How about a second chance? (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372884)

Nope, not joking, and not sure which part you find humorous.

Expedited prosecution for somebody who has already been proven guilty once doesn't seem unreasonable. I explicitly said that I wasn't talking about violating due process, simply ensuring that the FBI was keeping an eye out (through legal means) rather than waiting for spam complaints to be traced back to him. We know that takes a very long time, and is hard to trace from that end. But if you know where it starts, it may be easier.

As for the violence against him, I admitted that it's an awful thing to wish violence on somebody. But I also know that I'm not causing that violence by wishing, and my life got noticeably better when this spammer stopped spamming. The perspective by which the world is a better place without him is perfectly reasonable. The means would still be deplorable and I don't condone them, but the celebration of his no longer plaguing me is sincere.

Re:How about a second chance? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372984)

Expedited prosecution for somebody who has already been proven guilty once doesn't seem unreasonable.

It takes resources and manpower. If they're going to do that, save it for violent crimes, first.

As for the violence against him, I admitted that it's an awful thing to wish violence on somebody.

It's not the wish, it's the disproportionate justice behind that wish that's disturbing. *Stab* *Stab* "The sun is out, the flowers are in bloom, and my inbox has fewer things in it!"

Re:Expedited Process (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372768)

You mean like the judge blasting him with 11 trillion 1 day sentences?

Re:Expedited Process (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372898)

I'd settle for 11 trillion millisecond sentences, served consecutively.

Re:How about a second chance? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372990)

spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it.

Seriously? What he did may have been annoying (and in some cases, fairly bad), but it wasn't that bad (at least, I don't think so). There's no reason to think that he won't change compared to other 'criminals'.

Re:How about a second chance? (2)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372398)

He is having it right now.

Re:How about a second chance? (1)

straponego (521991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372476)

Spam deprives us all of internet access. Sure, the costs are more spread out, but spammers steal more time and money from other people's lives than a hundred life sentences could equal. Spammers are sociopaths, pure and simple.

He'll probably get a job in finance.

Re:How about a second chance? (1)

ecotax (303198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372606)

Assuming you're right that he's a sociopath, that in itself does not justify punishment - only the typically resulting behaviour does (except in the financial industry, where it earns you a nice bonus, of course).

Re:How about a second chance? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372750)

only the typically resulting behaviour does (except in the financial industry, where it earns you a nice bonus, of course).

Or Congress, where it gets you a committee chair.

Re:How about a second chance? (4, Insightful)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372490)

Not that I have much sympathy for the man, but he did serve his sentence, sending spam isn't a sex offense, and denying someone internet access is a pretty harsh punishment these days. How about giving him a second chance?

I agree. To err is human, to forgive divine. Besides, if he's denied a legitimate job, what's he gonna do?

Re:How about a second chance? (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372626)

If he wants a second chance, all he has to do is click the unsubscribe link at the bottom of all the harassing emails he will receive. He'll then be removed from the mailing list in 7-10 business days.

Re:How about a second chance? (3, Insightful)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372638)

sending spam isn't a sex offense

Hell, these days sex offenses aren't sex offenses half the time, they're stupid teenagers [msn.com] that some prosecutor wants to make an example of.

Potential employers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372294)

I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.

You're dreaming. He thinks of himself as a businessman; he'll start another business (honest or not). He's not going to apply for a regular 9-5 job.

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372298)

The Slashdot post makes it sound like the guy is evil. Seems some people are real quick to condemn.

babys second intention, stuff that really matters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372306)

1. DEWEAPONIZATION (not a real word, but they like it) nothing else happens until some progress here, 'they' say.

2. ALL BABYS CREATED/TO BE TREATED, EQUALLY. (a rough interpretation (probably cost us. seems like a no-brainer but they said we fail on that one(:)->) we do not need any 300$ 'strollers', or even to ride in your smelly cars/planes etc..., until such time as ALL of the creators' innocents have at least food, shelter, & some loving folks nearby. again, this is a dealbreaker, so pay attention.

they also report a curious feeling of agitation as if they could feel the discomfort of their contemporaries/fellow babys. they're preparing a statement in regards to our apparent need to vaccinate them until their immune system is irreparably damaged, when their own little evolving bodies already come equipped (dna?) & have more ability to ward off more bio-crap (+ increased consciousness & intellect) than we could ever imagine. there's some evidence that they are now able to digest small amounts of crude oil (mixed in their diet/atmosphere) with only minor adverse affects. are they on the ball/advanced or what? do the math. see you at the play-dates?

Re:babys second intention, stuff that really matte (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372492)

are you building a boat that floats on almost any substance?

floating ark type temporary/outdated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372790)

many will be airborn(e) (even some without vehicles?) around the time of the big flash. the thing with arks, is that they're found (much) later all banged up? see you there?

such a gooed memory? are you part of the /. 'censorship with a smile/smirk/vandalism' squad?

why spam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372316)

What's the use in spamming at all anymore? It's not as easy to catch a virus through E-mail these days, and botnet developers use way more surreptitious means to infect computers

Re:why spam? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372620)

spamming has nothing to do with spreading malware. It is a very profitable means of advertising requiring only a very low response rate. Many otherwise legitimate companies spam, they use off-the-shelf software for "email blasts" from paid-for mail lists or targeted web scrapings.

Re:why spam? (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372628)

What's the use in spamming at all anymore?

Because it's profitable. Cite:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/profitability-of-spam-finally-measured/2159 [zdnet.com]

From TFA:

...this provides a yearly revenue rate of the Storm botnet for the sale of pharmaceuticals of around $3.5 million dollars.

I was not notified (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372326)

as one of the many who provided the authorities records of his spam I was under the impression I would be notified of his pending release prior to the date. So much for that idea and I don't understand why he has been granted parole. (posted anonymously for obvious reasons)

Wahhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372526)

This wasn't a violent crime, and your identity was probably protected, right? Or they told you it was? And they told you they'd keep you in the loop too? Looks like your a scared informer. Boo hoo, this guy is not the Russian mob. Stop snitching and you won't have these worries.

Re:I was not notified (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372572)

I guess you better be on your guard then because I heard he was seen at a grocery buying a massive quantity of Spam. I shudder to think of what he plans to do with all of that Spam. It almost certainly isn't anything good.

Idiots (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372332)

> I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.

Why? What will this guy do when he can't find a job and needs money? This stupid sentiment that criminals should suffer forever is actually creating crime...

Re:Idiots (4, Insightful)

SargentDU (1161355) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372446)

You have hit the nail on the head. Those who have been found guilty of sex crimes are particularly marred for life. I know a guy that was 18 with a 17 yo girlfriend, her Dad did not like the boy, and got him labeled a sex offender. He cannot get rid of the stigma and he is now in his late 40's.

Re:Idiots (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372594)

Well there are statutes that allow you to expunge your record. He sounds like a perfect case. Most states now have a multi year split required to avoid this sort of thing.

Re:Idiots (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372822)

The odds are that the guy you know is lying - it's almost impossible to get sex offender status for something like that even these days, when it's really pretty easy. Back 30+ years ago it wouldn't have happened, and he could easily have gotten it expunged.

Re:Idiots (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372508)

Don't you know? Jail is supposed to last forever. Criminals should never actually go free. Jail is a black hole where we toss people we do not like.

Re:Idiots (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372842)

Jail is a black hole where we toss people we do not like.

We thought that was called "Australia".

Sincerely, England - 1871

Re:Idiots (1)

clampolo (1159617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372600)

I agree that he should be forgiven once he has made amends. So after he has visited every person that he sent spam to and begged for their forgiveness, he should be left in peace.

Re:Idiots (1)

khr (708262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372834)

What if he just sends them an email instead of visiting?

Re:Idiots (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372634)

I would expect ethical behavior from any employee of mine. While spamming isn't illegal, it is pretty unethical. As an employer in the computer industry, I would likely not consider this person or any one who has worked at a spam related company. Ethical behavior is pretty high on most employers list of expected behavior, in part because it can adversely affect the company itself.

The problem with not being ethical is that he didn't think it was wrong. I'd hope that he learned that spamming wasn't ethical while in prison, but if he didn't or if it only identified spamming as unethical, who knows what else he has a problem understanding that it's wrong or unethical. He may not even associate the actual act of spamming as unethical, just using other folks' e-mails as the From or using garbage in messages to bypass filters. Unfortunately, he'll likely find himself working menial jobs for a long time.

[John]

Re:Idiots (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372976)

A different perspective if you'll indulge:

This guy was the "Spam King". Literally the king of a new form of incredibly low cost high volume advertising. He pioneered it. He made it happen. From a business development or marketing perspective I might be very interested in bringing that kind of person into my organization.

takes one to know one, apparently. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372682)

This stupid sentiment that criminals should suffer forever is actually creating crime..

Actually, we advocate the death penalty for sociopathical spammers. So in that respect, their termination ENDS their crime spree. Unfortunately that view isn't shared by the legal system.

Re:Idiots (2)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372812)

Yeah, nerds have strange priorities. The guy sent a shitload of annoying mails. Sure, you can make up some meaningless aggregate number for the damage he did, but if you cost each person in the world $.01 you've suddenly done (OH NOES!!!) ~$50M in damages. It's a bullshit metric.

His sentence was appropriate, he served it, and he's out. He didn't murder a child or rape an old man or something like that. Grow up, nerds. Spam isn't the worst thing in the world.

Retribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372336)

Yes I think it's definitely a good idea to prevent ex-convicts from getting jobs, because we should continue to punish them as a society to really drive the message home: "you can do your jail time, and you can even reform, but we're not going to stop punishing you... ever". We should marginalize these people because that will really work well. /sarcasm.

Re:Retribution (1)

jonescb (1888008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372828)

I agree completely. Also, it's pretty disturbing how many people here are treating this guy like a violent serial killer. Is sending spam email really all that bad? So just because you've been inconvenienced for the 5 seconds it takes to clear out your spam folder this guy is now public enemy number 1?

Who's being punished here? (5, Funny)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372344)

FTFA:

As part of his plea deal, probation officers will monitor every e-mail Soloway sends and every webpage he visits for the next three years.

Oh how I would torture them...

Re:Who's being punished here? (1)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372456)

Yeah - you've got to feel sorry for those poor probation officers. If they are really unlucky Mr Soloway will visit /. every couple of hours and they will end up having to read through every single post on every thread (reading at -1 - aagh) just to check he's not doing anything wrong. They'll be jacking their jobs in within a week.

Re:Who's being punished here? (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372994)

They'll be jacking their jobs in within a week.

I don't think it'll be the slashdot traffic that will make them do this.

No, we do not need another Megan's Law (4, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372368)

In general, the libertarian-leaning Slashdot population is quick to criticize the Megan's laws. But now that it is about something important... SPAM! ... well, those principles all go out the window, huh?

Those laws:
- Do not work.
- Are likely unconstitutional.
- If the likelihood of recidivism is that high, the person should not be released anyway.

Re:No, we do not need another Megan's Law (1, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372442)

In general, the libertarian-leaning Slashdot population is quick to criticize the Megan's laws. But now that it is about something important... SPAM! ... well, those principles all go out the window, huh?

That, and if he could throw/catch/kick a ball/puck/quaffle not only would all be forgiven, but folks would be fighting over a chance to give him a job.

Re:No, we do not need another Megan's Law (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372632)

In general, the libertarian-leaning Slashdot population is quick to criticize the Megan's laws. But now that it is about something important... SPAM! ... well, those principles all go out the window, huh?

Name a single Slashdot poster who has done this. You won't because you can't.

His Job Hunt (1)

SkydiverFL (310021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372380)

I can see it now...

New message from "Robert Soloway" ... subject "Resume.doc"
New message from "Robert Soloway" ... subject "Resume.doc"
New message from "Robert Soloway" ... subject "Resume.doc"
[snip x 1,000]
New message from "Robert Soloway" ... subject "Resume.doc"

I wonder if he DOES apply for a job, if he'll even THINK of using an automated resume distribution system. Hell, I wouldn't even click the "send" button if I were him.

Re:His Job Hunt (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372468)

I wonder if he DOES apply for a job, if he'll even THINK of using an automated resume distribution system.

Highly doubtful ... from TFA:

"If I send out spam e-mails, that's a violation of my probation. End of story," he said. "I'm being very careful. If I send out an e-mail, I'm not even going probably to CC it. I'll send a unique e-mail to each person."

I suspect being in prison was enough for him to decide he doesn't want to go back and run afoul of his parole.

May not be a good idea... (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372384)

I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.

I don't know if that's a good idea. If you take someone who has shown he's willing to commit crimes and make it impossible for him to earn a living legitimately, then what ways does that leave him to earn one?

~Loyal

wonderful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372400)

i hope i am first on his list to get some spam email!

Great idea: Spamking's law (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372432)

Dear neighbour,

I have recently been in prison for spamming. As part of my rehabilitation I am required to contact you and inform you of my crime. If you can spare as little as one dollar please make your tax decutable donation out to "Spammers rehabilitation. 45 LaughingAllTheWayToTheBank Street, Idiotsville". From time to time I'll be contacting you to let you know about similar opportunities as well as a host of unbeatable specials for valuable goods like viagra. My friends from Nigeria will be contacting you with some fantastic financial opportunities I know you won't want to miss.

Yours in Spam,

The Spam King.

Re:Great idea: Spamking's law (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372590)

Why it's the AT-5000 Auto-Dialer. My very first patent.
Aw, would you listen to the gibberish they've got you saying, it's sad and alarming. You were designed to alert schoolchildren about snow days and such.

Re:Great idea: Spamking's law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372644)

And if it's not too much trouble, please solve these three CAPTCHA's, just so we know you're human.

Laws should be made to address actions (1)

chicago_scott (458445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372460)

I still can't believe this guys was given four years for doing the same thing that companies do to my snail-mailbox everyday. Laws should not be based on what medium was used to perform an action; they should be based on the actions themselves. Either outlaw electronic junk mail and snail-mail junk mail or don't do anything at all. Doing the former only serves to corrupt the law.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372630)

Junk snail mail is paid for by the sender, spam by the recipient.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions (3, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372648)

With junk mail:

-- you pay for the paper
-- you pay for the printing
-- you pay for the fulfillment
-- you pay for the postage

You as the sender have a strong incentive to not be wasteful. That's not at all the same as spam.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372688)

Snail-mail spam is paid for, by the companies sending out said mail. Spammers don't, they hijack.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372728)

This would bankrupt the postal system - the main reason it probably hasn't been done in the first place.

work in spam prevention (1)

ItsLenny (1132387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372462)

I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list. I would think he would be well suited to help prevent others from doing what he did. Depending on the company and what they want him to do them googling his name could be the best reference to his "real world experience" possible.

Washington (2)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372518)

First Microsoft, now the Spam King. It is clear: the world's IT evil is gathering together in Washington. War is coming.

the sky appeared as though painted on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372568)

not the abstract, it may have once been?

Spam King? (2)

rhizome (115711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372578)

Do we forget about Sanford Wallace so soon?

Googling Him (3, Funny)

jIyajbe (662197) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372652)

I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.

The only way that could happen is if a bunch of people all put the words "Robert Soloway" and "Spam king" together on a major website that Google crawls.

Doesn't seem likely...

you stay classy, slashdot (3, Funny)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372674)

Cause someone sending out spams is equivalent to raping children.

(Actually, most people on the Megan's Law list are folks who got caught peeing behind a bar -- er, exposed themselves to children who live in ally ways.)

request (1)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372804)

Do we know his mailing address? I have some lists I want to sign him up for.

My spammer story (2)

Brainless (18015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372836)

I'm not the author, but was involved in this bit. Spammer was sent to prison, escapes and killed himself and his family.

http://wildernessvagabonds.com/zp/index.php?p=news&title=Daily-Writing-The-Spam-King-Tragedy

Get past it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372892)

The man paid his debt to society. Let him get on with his life.

If this guy cannot get a decent job, then he'll only have spam to fall back on.

Repreat offender biding his time (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372894)

You know he'll do it again if - when - he decides he can get away with it. $20,000 per day trumps ethics for anyone but the Pope... and maybe not even him.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>