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!

Spammers Face Jail Time

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the as-well-they-ought dept.

Spam 184

Lumpish Scholar writes: "An article posted in a couple of places (here (1)( and here (2)) talks about two San Diego spammers who face up to nine years in prison for spamming (and crashing an open relay in the process)." Naturally, tbe D.A. reports that the two spammers arrested "appeared convinced that what they were doing wasn't illegal." Can this really be only the second time spammers have been prosecuted? That might explain all the pink goop clogging my inbox ...

cancel ×

184 comments

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

Back in the day... (3)

carlhirsch (87880) | more than 13 years ago | (#361979)

Does anybody remember last year's /. story about the group of Spammers/Telemarketers that got burned by some guy who was Mad As Hell and Not Going to Take it Anymore?

The guy did a little investigation of the business and ended up cracking their network, and coming up with all kinds of compromising material like contact info and n00dz. I think the company was in Tennesee or thereabouts.

It was either brilliant pranksterism, an elaborate hoax, or a disgruntled ex employee/boyfriend. Never was quite sure which.

I did a quick search of the archives and didn't find the story. I'd be real interested in knowing what the aftermath of that story was.

-carl

Re:This goes to show (1)

BleemZ (219985) | more than 13 years ago | (#361986)

While your dreaming of that, I'll do what I've always done.



Go to some place like contest junction and flood the return email addresses back. Hey, its rude, but it works. I usually sign the spammer up for as many porn in your email things as I can find, and then I hit em with virtual greeting from somewhere tellin em to eat it.


I bet (1)

BleemZ (219985) | more than 13 years ago | (#361988)

Ya know when they release those estimates about how much spam really costs?


I bet they don`t include the traffic from people directed at the TOS guys, or the TOS guys salaries.

Think about it, there are actual people out there that only have a job because of email abuse!

Isn`t that sad? Spammers have created jobs that people depend on.

ugh, that is scary.

Computer Laws (2)

agentZ (210674) | more than 13 years ago | (#361990)

Back in the days when computer time was a valuable resource (i.e. before PCs), stealing computer time was an offense and you could prosecuted for it. However, there have been changes since then. Although the actual computer time stolen is no longer at the issue, the cost of repairing any damage and the cost of the investigation into an incident can be considered "damage" and be used as part of the threshold necessary to make it a federal crime.

Re:If you use spamcop you will see (1)

kuzinov (155239) | more than 13 years ago | (#361991)

I stand corrected, I have read your anti-spam advice. I think it's stupid and is approaching the problem fromm the wrong end.

It's not that hard (1)

vinnythenose (214595) | more than 13 years ago | (#361993)

Maybe I'm not understanding, but I'm not sure how spamming causes such a loss of money? You get spam, you click the delete button, or possibly the block sender button (depending on your email client). Yah, I get pissed off like everyone else, especially when I get a good email account that I like, but this is analogus to getting flyers in the mail, I hate flyers. I grab those flyers and put them in the recycling bin.

Having said that, yes I believe that all mail servers should not allow relaying. And there are ways around not allowing relaying for off site people to send mail. The system keeps a log, if the account has logged in in the last 5 minutes, then as long as their IP is the same, they can send mail. Of course this requires the person the check their email before sending. And of course it has some holes, but it's better than just allowing mail to bounce on through. I can't believe how much of my spam comes through the crosswinds.net mail servers. At least it used to.

Legal recourse... it's nice to watch someone tossed in jail for something like this, but I haven't seen Dick Clark put in jail for the Publisher's Clearing House crap mail.

To me, the law isn't the answer, tighter mail servers, and tighter free email systems (like hotmail... but don't ask me for details on how to make them tighter so they're less likely used for spamming, I don't know, I'm not about to think about it right now 'cause I'm not fixing them right now), and your mouse pointer over the delete, or your finger on the delete key.

Not so hard is it? Oh yah, and don't worry about it... but if you get 10000 messages a day, stop using your email account to sign up for stuff on the Internet!! Create a spam email account for that purpose!

Massive ignorance (was: This goes to show) (2)

tgeller (10260) | more than 13 years ago | (#361996)

Cute idea, but it belies ignorance about how things actually work. LOTS of people already do just what you're saying: I've never heard of ANY making it to the courts, for several reasons:

  1. Court is expensive and time-consuming. If your idea works so well, how many spammers have YOU taken to court?

  2. Before you can even enter the court system, you have to identify the plaintiff. Whoops, there goes more time and expense.

  3. Even if you win, collection is a bear.

  4. It's highly unlikely that the judge will accept receipt of an SMTP banner as constituting a valid contract -- unless that's specifically written into law. In the one place it's implied (Calif. Business and Professions Code 17538.45 (f)(3)(B) [suespammers.org] ), it's still debatable, and never been tried.

Having said this, some people *have* dunned spammers and collected. See this post [suespammers.org] .

In short: Your idea is an unoriginal fantasy. If I were still a moderator, I'd mark you post down as "inaccurate".

--Tom Geller, founder, The Suespammers Project [suespammers.org] .

Re:Does this make sense? (2)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 13 years ago | (#361997)

It's all about scale.. both spamming, and slapping display total contempt for others.

Why should causing a minor irritation for millions, and a major one for the hijacked mail relays admins, owners and customers, not attract a severe punishment? I'd accept that life, or capitol punishment would be waay too strong (probably ;),but a minor act affecting millions (and there's little point spamming unless you do it by the million) should be treated as seriously as a major act affecting only a very few.

EZ

No sympathy (1)

Gehenna_Gehenna (207096) | more than 13 years ago | (#361998)

"the spam was sent using an unauthorized e-mail account and caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage"

These guys weren't just innocent businessman trying to advertise, they were trying to do something slick...and I for one hope they get hammered.

Re:Doing something about it (1)

JofCoRe (315438) | more than 13 years ago | (#361999)

um, yea, just what we need... more laws.
Not to mention, laws governing the internet.
Do we have laws against junk mail?
Hmmm... I still receive quite a bit in my home mailbox... must not be.
Spam is annoying, but there's no reason we need more laws.

Ignorance of the law? Yeah right... (2)

JohnnyZed (107593) | more than 13 years ago | (#362000)

"They appeared convinced that what they were doing wasn't illegal"?
I'm glad that these guys got what was coming to them. Ignorance of the law has never been an allowable excuse for any other computer based crime (even if that so-called crime is merely someone doing something basically harmless, with no intent other than learning about how to play on networks). Seeing someone who DID have an intrusive intent arguing a defense that hasn't protected those that didn't and not getting away with it is definitely minor key justice being done.
Now if only this can become a good, solid precedent...

Spam and procmail (1)

Darkness Productions (143908) | more than 13 years ago | (#362001)

I remember when I accidentally sent a message to one of my friends (the mail got sifted through a giant procmailrc). I had attached a Perl script that he had asked for, and when they sifted the message, the auto-replied to me with a Cease and Desist(?), all because I had attached a Perl script that they thought was a virus...

read the fine print (2)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 13 years ago | (#362002)

Tell me again why spamming warrants a longer jail term than some violent crime?

"... up to nine years ...." IANAL, but it's my understanding that maximum penalties usually don't mean much -- they're useful for sound bites and little else. It's the minimum punishment (if any) that's important. I don't know the details here, but even if they're convicted, I bet they get a "community service" sentence that no one will care if they actually serve.

Break? (3)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 13 years ago | (#362003)

Wouldn't it only have to cost someone something, not necessarily break it? Stealing is itself a crime.

Re:No sympathy (1)

mcwop (31034) | more than 13 years ago | (#362008)

They should have to stand in line at the DMV for people as punishment. And I am talking the worst DMV in the nation - Washington, D.C. That will teach them. I frickin' hate spam.

Re:This goes to show (1)

mr (88570) | more than 13 years ago | (#362010)

There are many, many anti-spammers working on a solution, and if the solution to spam were this simple it would have been done years ago.

Why has this not been done? It requires work and co-operation. No one has created the perl scripts to parse the mail headder then create a report (the mail analysis part of the service)

Then you have to spend $0.34 to mail them a bill. And, do that a few times.

Then, you have to have a central place where people can sell the unpaid debt, so others can then BUY the debt and then take the debtor to court. (again, more software and bandwidth) And, the person buying the debt then needs to spend $$$ to take the spammer to court.

Also, ISPs have no legal obligation to help you find a spammer's real name/address

Sure you can. If a judge says so, they have to or face comtempt charges. The discovery process *IS* your friend.

out of the country
Yup. Its a problem. Look though at the content of the out of country crap however. If it is not for a product to buy, why even send the spam? If it is "no longer a domestic problem" and is instead an "international issue", and the content is more 'crap' than 'legit' content, the argument about it being a "valued service" goes out the window. With less pro than con arguments on a national level, legislation-however well intended, will get passed in the name of stemming the flow of the spam.

If a few get wacked, and wacked over and over again in small claims court, others will think "do I want to run this risk - no". It won't STOP the problem, but it will put a dent in the problem.

Yeah, it's hard (1)

jgarry (126205) | more than 13 years ago | (#362012)

to prosecute felonious spamming. Something actually has to break, not just use up someones electrons or time reading email. And, they have to be stupid enough to be caught. These guys were pretty clueless.

Re:It's not that hard (2)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 13 years ago | (#362014)

First of all, loss of money is easy. How much bandwidth is being used by spammers? Who pays for bandwidth? The RECIPIENT! Who pays for the publisher's clearinghouse crap? THE PUBLISHER'S CLEARINGHOUSE! There's the big difference.

Besides, in this case the spammers crashed the machine they were (illegally!) using as a relay. Theft of service, vandalism, and the like.

As far as separate accounts for spam vs. real mail, I don't want to go to the effort of avoiding spammers--I want to drive them into the dirt, where they belong.

Open services and legality of unauthorized connect (1)

chainsaw1 (89967) | more than 13 years ago | (#362016)

So, when you connect to an open webserver (yahoo, /., etc.) is it criminal to connect to it if the admin hasn't granted you specificly to access the computer? No, it isn't. So, why should any other service be different in the eyes of the law? Any service that is left open to the public for access without authorization can't really be prosecuted under this law. This would include telnet (MUD's), www, FTPanon, _open netbios shares_, gaming servers, and anything else (including open relays).

Spam (4)

xXunderdogXx (315464) | more than 13 years ago | (#362017)

What I don't understand is why people keep sending me porno ads to my ICQ account. And whenever I reply to the sender I never get an answer! Are these people really that busy they can't talk to somebody who they messenged? I want to carry on a conversation with a spammer. Get to know them. See what makes them tick!

-underd.o.g-

Re:Prison Time (1)

sik puppy (136743) | more than 13 years ago | (#362018)

yes, but the kiddie pix traders may not live out their terms, and they will certainly have lots of new boyfriends. (One of my high school football coaches (volunteer) had a full time job at as a head of security at a major prison - the guards don't see much or hear much when pedofiles get gang raped in the shower.

And to answer your question, no 9 years is not excessive. It needs to be enough deterent to stop the existing volume of spam, before it completely cripples the system.

What's next? (2)

SpanishInquisition (127269) | more than 13 years ago | (#362019)

Death sentence for trolling?
--

Re:What're you in here for? (1)

NoseBag (243097) | more than 13 years ago | (#362020)

You read my mind. All spammers should have to take the "Prison Proctology" course! Repeat after me: "No, I will not send spam! Ow! No I will not send spam! Yeeaaaoooowwww!"

Anti spam laws ... (1)

KenRH (265139) | more than 13 years ago | (#362021)

... in Norway now makes it illegall to send someone a "commercial e-mail" without first opptaining the recievers permission.

There is talk also about expanding this to telefon sale, but some are conserned about non-profit organisations that rely on gift/lottery sales generated by this.

Unfortunaly this law doesent help mutch as (almost) all the spam I get are from outside Norway.

Re:IANAL but ... (1)

jgarry (126205) | more than 13 years ago | (#362022)

You are wrong. Search the CA code on line (you can get there from http://www.ca.gov )for unsolicited && electronic and you'll find it in the Business & Professions code as a misdemeanor (section 1738, if my 5 minute memory is working). Couldn't find the felony one in 5 minutes, though - anybody? It also specifically becomes moot if the feds pass a law.

Re:Back in the day... (3)

gwizah (236406) | more than 13 years ago | (#362023)

You mean the story [slashdot.org] about this guy? [freewebsites.com]
Personally, I think it was hilarious! Im not sure what ended up happening either. It was just a funny "take back the net" story.

Re:pink goo clogging your inbox (1)

Vollernurd (232458) | more than 13 years ago | (#362024)

That should be Vigo that Carpathian.
---
Vollernurd.

Re:If you use spamcop you will see (1)

kuzinov (155239) | more than 13 years ago | (#362029)

Let me be a little less abrasive. By engaging in illegal activities like spamming the spammers, you one become no better and two set yourself up for legal trouble. Plus for all you know you could be attacking an innocent third party. Plus, the number one advice I can give is NEVER REPLY to a spam. All it accomplishes is letting a spammer know that your email address is real and suitable for adding to a CD mailing list.

1st Amendment rights, anyone? (1)

RobertAG (176761) | more than 13 years ago | (#362030)

This seems to break down into the right to spam vs someone's property rights on their own system. While, I'm against spamming (I hate dealing with it in my inbox), I can't honestly believe that I can keep someone from saying what they want to say. I mean, what if someone sends spam about a political situation or a crime being committed by a public figure? Should THAT be banned as well?

On the other hand, people can't just chew up bandwidth on other people's servers just for the hell of it. If you want to spam, then spam. Just pay in cash for the services you use to do it. Most mail servers are privately owned and therefore, I think, the owners deserve the right to say who uses their systems and who doesn't. The alternative to this is to establish an open public mail server to let people spam as they with. If the end user doesn't like it, they can just block the domain, or the particular person at that domain.

Maybe we need to establish different classes of email. The post office uses 1st, 2nd and 3rd class mail to make distinctions. Perhaps the time has come for a new e-mail standard. E-mail protocols haven't changed much in the last 20 years, except for client-side security additions. Perhaps new classes of e-mail should be created and linked to server security so that we can all be happy: "Legitimate" e-mail is freely allowed while "spam" is regulated according to the sys-admin's wishes.

And while we're on the subject of sys-admins, perhaps the sys-admin in the article can read his/her manual and block filter outside user who use his/her server to spam???

Re:Counterfeit money (2)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 13 years ago | (#362032)

Don't compare it with violent crime, compare it with counterfeit money. Spam has the same effect on electronic communication as coutnerfeit money has on the economy.

Ridiculous. Counterfeit money allows someone to steal merchandise from merchants, without the merchant getting paid for it.

Spam's effect on electronic communication is more like a fat person's affect on your sidewalk. While he's there, you can't use the sidewalk, but once he passes, it's usable again.

If he happens to be so heavy he cracks the sidewalk, you make him pay to fix it, probably in small claims court unless he's a good person and just says "sorry, send me the bill, real sorry about that".

If a spammer breaks your box, he should have to pay to fix it. If he crashes it causing it to reboot, you should be able to collect for whatever business you lost in the time it took to reboot.

Other than that, it's an annoyance, not a crime.

Spam needs technical solutions, not legislators passing a bunch of stupid laws. We have too damn many laws in this country now, it's caused a climate in which nobody respects the law anymore because it's not possible to get through the day without violating a few.

-

Re:Prison Time (1)

DaBB (247418) | more than 13 years ago | (#362034)

Hopefully - unfortunately they are being held in a segregated part of the prison system here in the UK so they get pampered time away from the general population. I must say that we don't seem to have the same kinda spam problem here (unless me and my friends have been really lucky) - get a few bits every now and then but nothing major - I suppose if it clogged my mailbox every day I'd wanna lock em up and throw away the keys as well.

Re:This goes to show (1)

Pyramid (57001) | more than 13 years ago | (#362037)

"Go to some place like contest junction and flood the return email addresses back."

I hope you realize that most spammers fake the return address and aren't inundating some poor unwitting victim's mail box with crap. If my email addr. wound up in the reply field of a spammer's message and you did this to me, I'd make it a point to report YOU!

Re:This goes to show (1)

bataras (169548) | more than 13 years ago | (#362038)

>>Wouldn't it be worth $100 to harass a spammer back? (local fees for a small claims action here)

Lawsuits for harassment are illegal. You'd pay a LOT more than 100$


Re:This is ridiculous (1)

no names left!!! (323949) | more than 13 years ago | (#362039)

just wanted to add.. im in agreement totally with you - spamming doesnt make me loose any sleep -i just delete it, set up a new message rule, done.

Re:Break? (1)

fedos (150319) | more than 13 years ago | (#362040)

Is property theft?

From Zaphod Beeblebrox, the wisest man in the galaxy: "Property is theft, thus theft is property, thus I own this ship".

Therefore, the spammers own your bandwidth.

Re:read the fine print (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 13 years ago | (#362041)

Some states are even more occult. Florida frequently dishes out long, long jail sentences. Later, when the news media has been fed the defense lawyer threatens an appeal and a new sentence is negotiated in order to quash an expensive appeals process. It is a treacherous system as no defendant really ever knows quite what his fate might be. It is sort of a form of coercion designed to make people submit without trial.

Re:Back in the day... (1)

macrohard0 (222758) | more than 13 years ago | (#362042)

Just do a web search on "Rodona Garst"

Re:Does this make sense? (1)

pallex (126468) | more than 13 years ago | (#362043)

Who cares - send them down! Can i visit them? Please? PLEASE?! :)

Lawyer: they won't do that much (if any) time (3)

hawk (1151) | more than 13 years ago | (#362044)

I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.



That is the *maximum* they can face on these charges. *Any* felony is punishable by a year or more in jail (2 yr minimum in some states). The criminal charge covers all crimes of that type, and has a sentencing range. It's much more likely that these guys get a much shorter sentence, or no incarceration at all. My guess would be probabtion including a month or two in the county jail rather than a priison sentence.


hawk, esq.

Open Relays (2)

kuzinov (155239) | more than 13 years ago | (#362045)

Being the Anti-Spam monkey at my ISP, I'd like to see the sys admins get prosecuted for leaving their mail server as an open-relay. If you run a mail server and you leave it open to relaying you are part of the Spam problem. But, I'm glad to see someone finally get prosecuted for spamming.

Re:1st Amendment rights, anyone? (2)

VAXman (96870) | more than 13 years ago | (#362047)

I have been wondering this also. Have free speech organizations such as the ACLU had any comment on this? Clearly, spam laws violate the first amendment. There is a very fine line between sending unsolicited e-mail to sell a service, and to send an e-mail for a political cause requesting donations.

The bottom line is: what right does the government have dictating who can send e-mail to who, and what the content is? That's exactly what a spam law does.

Re:back to the house analogy. (2)

susano_otter (123650) | more than 13 years ago | (#362049)

The house analogy is pretty weak, though. How about a "bridge" analogy?

Let's say you build a bridge in a public place; it spans a river, and links two communities together. Let's say further that while you posess the bridge, it is to some extent open to the public.

The question is, how much control will you exercise over access to the bridge? Will you charge a toll? Are the access control methods sufficient to prevent non-toll-payers from crossing the bridge? Finally, how accountable are you for the the traffic of criminals across the bridge?

Most Internet infrastrucure is absolutely not anaologous to a house - it's analogous to other forms of infrastructure.

Re:This goes to show (2)

CaptainSuperBoy (17170) | more than 13 years ago | (#362057)

There are many, many anti-spammers working on a solution, and if the solution to spam were this simple it would have been done years ago. It would be real tough for the "processing fee" part to hold up. I'm assuming this notice would be sent during the SMTP session, which means the spammer would never actually read it, which seems like a pretty solid argument in court. If I give someone a contract, they actually have to sign it before it is valid.

Also, ISPs have no legal obligation to help you find a spammer's real name/address. They don't benefit from helping you at all, so why would they cooperate?

Also, this wouldn't work for mail sent through open relays (since the open relay sees your SMTP notice, not the actual spammer), or mail sent from other countries. How are you going to take a Chinese spammer to small claims court?

--

execute them (2)

tresstatus (260408) | more than 13 years ago | (#362058)

chmod a+x ./spammer ; ./spammer ; echo "Now executing the spammer"

--
Tres_Status

Re:It's about time! (1)

jgarry (126205) | more than 13 years ago | (#362059)

About them being clueless, it's bull. They knew it was wrong, why else would they hack into a open mail relay; why would they hide their identify?

When I wrote they are clueless, I was referring to them being so stupid as to try to claim they didn't know it was wrong, and being so easily caught, and thinking there would be no negative consequence to their acts. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. I'm a long-time spammer-hater. I even still have my Canter and Seigel spamming the globe [geekt.org] t-shirt!

Want a grass roots effort? I have one! (1)

LennyDotCom (26658) | more than 13 years ago | (#362060)

You can read what the scumbags that sell one of the major spamware packages have to say forthemselves HERE [desktopserver2000.com]

or you can follow the link in my sig to find out more about what you can do to fight spam.
Including how to cost these jerks real money.

Law to ban spam (2)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 13 years ago | (#362061)

It would be better to have owners of SMTP servers do more to prevent spam. I would rather not see a new law specifically aimed at spam if it can be prevented at the source. Granted, this wouldn't completely solve the problem, but would eliminate a lot of it without forcing yet another law on people.

Hard to catch them? (1)

Fizzlewhiff (256410) | more than 13 years ago | (#362062)

I don't see how it is hard to catch them. Usually they are advertising some business. Why not go to the business and fine them for spamming? I'm sure rather than paying a fine the business will point the finger at the responsible persons who are doing the spamming. It doesn't seem like it is all that difficult to get to the bottom of it.

Re:Some info i found a while ago (1)

caffeineboy (44704) | more than 13 years ago | (#362063)

Unfortunately, the washington law was overturned in court.

Read about it here [ecommercetimes.com] among other places.

Damn shame too.

Re:You do damage, you do hard time! (4)

Erasmus Darwin (183180) | more than 13 years ago | (#362064)

It's nice to see that some jerks may do hard time for that, but it would be even nicer if they are punished becaause of the actual act of spamming.

Yes, but we are getting closer. The last "Spammers Jailed" [slashdot.org] story seemed to imply they might've been jailed because of the scam rather than the spam. In today's case, however, the crime was a direct consequence of the spamming -- even if the item being spammed was something that would've been totally legal/legit to sell via normal means.

Also, the things that bumped the crime up to a felony were things that weren't direct actions of the spammer but rather the consequences of their actions. From the POV of the spammer, it was just generically spamming through an open-relay.

So it's not ideal, but it's still Pretty Damn Good, IMO.

Re:Break? (1)

jgarry (126205) | more than 13 years ago | (#362065)

We need to see the penal code on it to really tell. Couldn't find with a quick search.

In common law, you would perhaps be correct. IANAL. If I say "hey, I saw a great deal on computers in the paper," and you go out and buy it, and it turns out to be stolen, and you lose the computer and your money, have I stolen anything from you? If I buy your house for $250K, and turn around that day and sell it to someone else for $325K, have I stolen anything from you? If I fake your IP address and use it to download free mpegs while you are offline, have I stolen anything from you? If I shoulder-surf your password to a mailserver, and don't do anything with it, have I stolen anything from you? If I encode stolen credit card numbers into a bogus napster file, have I stolen anything from any napster users? Are they receiving stolen propery? Is property theft? Is intellectual property law insane? Are the answers to any of these questions really as obvious as they appear?

Re:It's about time! (2)

Erasmus Darwin (183180) | more than 13 years ago | (#362066)

It might be a stretch to say that by sending SPAM to your POP3 server, that they had used your computer to retrieve and store SPAM without authorization.

Even that could be argued. CAUCE [cauce.org] has been promoting an SMTP-banner-based, machine-parsable policy [cauce.org] . Someone with such a banner would be in a better position to claim that the spamming was unauthorized access.

Re:What're you in here for? (2)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#362067)

The humor is not in the fact that the spammer is being sexually assaulted. The humor is in the fact that most spammers don't realize what they are doing hurts other people.

And as for prisons... well, I'd really like to live in a world where the American judicaial system sent people to prison to rehabilitate them rather than punish them.

As much as I'd like to see a spammer go to jail... (1)

Obliqueness (321184) | more than 13 years ago | (#362068)

From article(1):
"In this case, the crime was elevated to felony status because the spam was sent using an unauthorized e-mail account and caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage."

Meaning, these guys are probably getting plowed for ghost damages.
____________________

Re:You do damage, you do hard time! (1)

Tut'n'common (314243) | more than 13 years ago | (#362069)

...we, as individuals have to deal with this pest.

Nowhere in the constitution nor in the Bill of Rights does it say that you have the right to never be irritated. That is the price of freedom, and one that too many people are trying to legislate away. If we are to have true freedom of speech, you might actually hear something that could in some way be slightly unpleasant, disagreeable, or (horror of horrors) offensive to you.

Suck it up and get on with your life. I am not a spammer, I do not send out spam, I do not like spam. That is why I have this new little thing called a spam filter. Funny how the people of the world can take care of a problem without including the (any) government. I know that in this day and age, correcting a problem without crying to your legislator seems difficult, as it would actually involve some effort on your part, but try it some time. It is surprisingly refreshing to fix your own problem, turn the TV channel away from what you disagree with, and actually take care of yourself for a change.

Re:IANAL but ... (2)

Misch (158807) | more than 13 years ago | (#362070)

If I spam 10,000 users with get rich quick schemes and no server falls over then what case do people have to bring me to court?

Postal Fraud/Postal Lottery Statutes.

From the US Postal Service: http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/chainl et.htm Chain Letters A chain letter is a "get rich quick" scheme that promises that your mail box will soon be stuffed full of cash if you decide to participate. You're told you can make thousands of dollars every month if you follow the detailed instructions in the letter. A typical chain letter includes names and addresses of several individuals whom you may or may not know. You are instructed to send a certain amount of money--usually $5--to the person at the top of the list, and then eliminate that name and add yours to the bottom. You are then instructed to mail copies of the letter to a few more individuals who will hopefully repeat the entire process.

The letter promises that if they follow the same procedure, your name will gradually move to the top of the list and you'll receive money -- lots of it.

There's at least one problem with chain letters. They're illegal if they request money or other items of value and promise a substantial return to the participants. Chain letters are a form of gambling, and sending them through the mail (or delivering them in person or by computer, but mailing money to participate) violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 1302, the Postal Lottery Statute. (Chain letters that ask for items of minor value, like picture postcards or recipes, may be mailed, since such items are not things of value within the meaning of the law.)

Re:This goes to show (2)

hawk (1151) | more than 13 years ago | (#362086)

> All grass roots effort, and all without any new laws.


Well, there is the one about keeping the civil courts open on weekends . . . :)


hawk

Re:Doing something about it (1)

AstroJetson (21336) | more than 13 years ago | (#362087)

While we're at it, let's go after the guys running open relays and ISPs (can you say UUnet?) who harbor spammers. If anything I'm more pissed off at these guys because it's so easy to close down an open relay and these people are such poor netizens that they can't be bothered.

One day I was bored so I checked my company's mail server with Spamcop and found to my surprise that we were an open relay. I contacted our sys admin and moments later the problem was solved. We then contacted Spamcop and got ourselves removed from ORBS. I think a lot of folks don't realize the magnitude of the problem and also don't realize (because they don't bother to check) that they're part of the problem. I don't know if laws will fix this (and I tend to think of laws as a last resort anyway). Maybe awareness is the first step. I like to believe that most people would like to be good netizens if they knew how.

UUnet is another matter. They clearly know exaclty what they're doing and don't care because they're making money. Something must be done, but I'd still prefer that the internet community somehow solve this problem without getting governments involved.

Having said all that, I've noticed that the amount of spam I get from uunet is greatly reduced lately. Anybody else notice this? Maybe they've cleaned up their act a bit after a flood of spam crashed one of their networks in Britain. Pure speculation, of course, but I've definately seen a decrease in spam originating from uunet.

Re:Doing something about it (1)

kurisuto (165784) | more than 13 years ago | (#362088)

I don't think that businesses have some god-given right to force unwelcome advertising on me. Spam, junk mail, and telemarketing are all violations of my private space. I think I have a right to create my own personal space where I can choose to exclude advertising. Right now, the law is doing little to secure this right; this is a problem which should be corrected.

The "too many laws" argument strikes me as facile; it's a question of whether the laws are good ones or not.

This is ridiculous (4)

NateKid (44775) | more than 13 years ago | (#362089)

People always act like getting spammed is equivalent to being punched in the face. These are the same people who want to start unions to protect against the Carpal Tunnel syndrome they get from "Coding Sweatshops". Here's a quick fix to all your spam problems. Do not bother opening any mail about:
  1. Investment opportunities in India/Thailand/Mexico
  2. Having hot sex with Nicki or Linda
  3. Finding out your horoscope
  4. College degree in 3 months!
  5. Warning, New Dangerous Virus Causes Nuclear Meltdown (click attachment for more info)!
How about growing up and realizing that some things barely matter in life. I mean these guys should be in trouble for using an unauthorized email account. And if they really damaged a company's equipment though illegal usage of it, well fine, throw the book at them for that too. But some of the above coments, about how we need to be saved from spam is ridiculous. Most people open spam because they want to get something out of it (sex, etc.). Serves them right that they wind up wasting their "precious time". At least their time is less valuable now since all these "html engineers" are being laid off by the thousands.

Re:This is ridiculous (3)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 13 years ago | (#362090)

You miss the point. Sure, I can not open that mail. Problem is, it's already cost my ISP money for bandwidth and disk space to handle the incoming spam, and me money for space to store it in my inbox and bandwidth to download it, before I have the opportunity to not open it. To solve the problem I need to keep the mail from leaving the spammer's system in the first place.

As for saving me from spam, let me give you the magnitude of the problem: about 50% of my e-mail is spam, after applying filters to it. That's a lot of spam.

If you use spamcop you will see (1)

LennyDotCom (26658) | more than 13 years ago | (#362091)

that there are an awfull lot of servers with open relays almost every time I submit a spam thru spamcop.net
It reports the open relays it's amazing how many there are

but if you want to find out how you can fight spam follow the link in my sig.

The crime is theft(IANAL, either) (1)

graniteMonkey (87619) | more than 13 years ago | (#362092)

The internet is a cooperative network made for two parties to willingly exchange information. An analogy(some might say it's much more than an analogy) with harassment might work here. It's unwanted, so you don't want to be an accomplice in harassment, right? In the same way, you might not want to be an accesory in an unwanted communication over the internet, especially if it's costing YOU money to do it.

And this is all an aside to the fact that these guys actually hijacked someone else's property to send out their garbage. That definitely costs the targeted company money. Tie that back in with being an accesory in the action, and you've got a lot of stuff to be upset about!

Spam vs. Commercials (2)

Erasmus Darwin (183180) | more than 13 years ago | (#362093)

TV commercials are a similar market to the masses, but at least I can opt-out by not watchng tv.

Even more important is the fact that TV commercials fund the programming we watch. Either we have commercials to pay for content (US broadcast TV), we pay through the content directly (premium cable channels and countries with a TV tax), or we voluntarily donate money for the content (PBS).

Spam, on the other hand, has the exact opposite effect. Instead of reducing or eliminating the cost of "entertaining" email, it actually raises the cost across the board, due to higher bandwidth considerations and storage costs.

Re:This goes to show (2)

CaptainSuperBoy (17170) | more than 13 years ago | (#362094)

No need to resort to name-calling, man..

If ISPs don't help you track down the source of spam, then they will quickly find themselves on either MAPS or ORBS.

Wrong. ISPs are under no obligation to give you any information in order to stay out of the MAPS RBL. All they have to do is deal with spam problems, including killing spammers' accts, killing spamvertised web sites, not provide spam support services, etc. ORBS, as you apparently are unaware of, is an automated system for tracking open relays. ORBS has no information as to whether ISPs are cooperative or not. It doesn't even list ISPs that generate spam, only open relays.

ISPs aren't required by anyone to help you "track down the source of spam." Their only duty is to deal with spammers' accounts themselves. You even contradict yourself later on when you say "you are advocating a commercial entity supplies you with the names and addresses of it's customers?!! Pleaze". It is a huge invasion of privacy for any ISP to help you track down one of their customers. The problem is theirs to deal with, not yours. Unless there is a court order (I don't think small claims court can issue subpoenas) an ISP SHOULDN'T give you a spammer's name or address.

I'm real happy for you and your Asian ISP, but I hope you understand that's the exception, not the rule. I have LART'ed a LOT of spam from China, and have never received a personal response or a confirmed kill.

--

Re:Yeah, it's hard (2)

ReelOddeeo (115880) | more than 13 years ago | (#362095)

So what would happen if I had a very fragile open mail relay? Let's say, a very old Mac, running MacOS 7.x, and some cheezy SMTP server that isn't closed off. A seperate Linux box running packet sniffers, capturing everything to a big hard disk.

Would it still be possible to catch and prosecute spammers using a setup like this? Would it require that the poor little Mac actually have some other use besides as a spammer trap? Would there have to be any actual damages? What if it crashed the machine (very likely, btw)?

Opinions?

Counterfeit money (2)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 13 years ago | (#362096)

Don't compare it with violent crime, compare it with counterfeit money. Spam has the same effect on electronic communication as coutnerfeit money has on the economy. If we think electronic communication is going to be of real importance, we should fight spam as we fight counterfeit money.

Violent crimes have different issues, maybe the punishment is too light or too severe (although you can get executed for violent crimes), but that is independent on the length of economic crimes.

This goes to show (5)

mr (88570) | more than 13 years ago | (#362097)

We do not need laws VS spamming.

What we need is individuals who:
1) Announce on the SMTP port that they offer a mail analysis service
2) All mail comming in is subject to the processing fee.
(snif, snif, smells like a shrink wrapped EULA)
3) Send the spammers a bill for $250 for each chunk of spam.
4) Sell off the un-paid debt, so that somone local can take that debt and "take a spammer to small claims court"
4a) Have 31 (or 30/29/28) seperate people take the spammer to small claims court...one each day for a month of small claims actions vs the spammer.

All grass roots effort, and all without any new laws.

Wouldn't it be worth $100 to harass a spammer back? (local fees for a small claims action here)

Does this make sense? (5)

infinite9 (319274) | more than 13 years ago | (#362098)

Tell me again why spamming warrants a longer jail term than some violent crime?

Doing something about it (4)

kurisuto (165784) | more than 13 years ago | (#362100)

Mostly, we all sit here on /. and complain about spam; but if we'd make an organized effort to write to our representatives to have a law passed to ban spam, we might have a lot better weapon against it. We ought to organize a letter-writing campaign.

IANAL but ... (3)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 13 years ago | (#362106)

... there isn't a law regarding spamming. You can only start prosecuting if by the actions of them spamming they do other damage.

ie. If I spam 10,000 users with get rich quick schemes and no server falls over then what case do people have to bring me to court? Annoyance because of non-solicited email?

However if I crash two servers and cause a company a big headache and loss of business then they can get me for that and not the sending itself.

Last time i heard someone was prosecuted it was because what they were trying to get people to do was illegal not because they'd sent out 50 million emails.

Could be wrong though ...

--

pink goo clogging your inbox (3)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 13 years ago | (#362109)

Hey that pink goo cloging your inbox is not spam! It is the negative enegery of the entire city channeled into one form. Pretty soon that pink goo is going to form a dome over the museam and Vego the Carpathian is going to try to take over the city!

Looks like it is time to call the ghostbusters!

Some info i found a while ago (2)

eellis (112890) | more than 13 years ago | (#362111)

Fight Spam on the Internet! [abuse.net]

Spam Laws in the US, Europe, and beyond [spamlaws.com]

According to this page [mcnichol.com] , Washington law sets the following as penalties for spam:

The law allows for damages to the recipient of $500 or actual damages, which ever is greater, for EACH MESSAGE received. The law also allows $1,000 or actual damages, which ever is greater, to the Internet Service Provider, for EACH MESSAGE received.


Full text of the law is available [mcnichol.com]

Re:Does this make sense? (1)

Bobo the Space Chimp (304349) | more than 13 years ago | (#362115)

> I'd accept that life, or capitol punishment
> would be waay too strong (probably ;

If you've ever been in the middle of a Quake CTF tourney when people mini-pingbombed you to lop 150ms off your ping time, then you'd think differently...

class action suit against spammers? (3)

swinge (176850) | more than 13 years ago | (#362116)

How about a class action suit against spammers?

Here's how it would work: I get a spam and it wastes a little of my time and costs me additional money in wasted resources. Maybe it doesn't cost me too much, but together with all the other recipients, the "affected class", it would probably add up. So, to get the lawsuit started, first thing my lawyer will need is the mailing list that the spammers used, and any attendant records of how successful the deliveries were.

Any lawyers out there? Any way the courts would order the beginning of this sort of discovery process?

CAUCE (2)

CaptainSuperBoy (17170) | more than 13 years ago | (#362117)

This is basically the purpose of CAUCE [cauce.org] , which has worked with senators and representatives before to draft anti-spam bills. There have already been a few bills, none of which passed. They range from satisfactory to unacceptable.

There have been bills that effectively legitimize spam, and ones that basically prevent it. HR 95, which is in committee right now, is a very good anti-spam bill.

--

Re:This goes to show (2)

doctor_oktagon (157579) | more than 13 years ago | (#362118)

Sorry SuperLad, your comments are (adopts Sean Connory voice) "sheriously flawed":

ISPs have no legal obligation to help you find a spammer's real name/address. They don't benefit from helping you at all, so why would they cooperate?


If ISPs don't help you track down the source of spam, then they will quickly find themselves on either MAPS or ORBS.

I recently helped a huge Asian ISP get to grips with their Spam problem, and they were serious enough to devote significant time and energy to implementing my recommendations. They also listened when I explained how their "standing in the wider internet community" would suffer if they did not demonstrate their willingness to stop the spammers abusing their network bandwith.

On the other hand, ISPs do not have an obligation to help you find a spammers name and address: that is sensitive info you do not divulge about anyone except in a court of law (in pretty much any country). They do however usually have an obligation to find it themselves, and deal with it (by cutting the spammers account for instance).

It's like reporting to an abuse@isp account that you have been hacked from one of their IP addresses ... they will not tell you the details of their investigation, just that they are "dealing with it".

And in a forum that stands up and beats it's chest for personal privacy: you are advocating a commercial entity supplies you with the names and addresses of it's customers?!! Pleaze .....

Defending SPAM (1)

zhensel (228891) | more than 13 years ago | (#362119)

Now, I'm just as annoyed with SPAM as anyone else here, but just think about the consequences of seeking a law that ends most spam. Obviously, it'd have to be a federal law and even then you'd have to deal with foreign spam. So even if passed, it wouldn't work. More importantly, think about the dangers of putting even more regulatory power over the Internet in the hands of the US Congress. By requesting this regulation, you open up more discussion on Internet taxation, content restrictions, required filtering in public buildings, etc. Just because you can't install an e-mail filter to block out USA.net and, hopefully, hotmail.com, don't go persecuting spammers. The Internet is great because, though this is changing, it's free. You can spam, flame, and virtually threaten people all you like without consequence. Of course, you can also create controversial songs, art, prose, etc that wouldn't get any visibility outside of the Internet.

Now these guys managed to break something with the high volume of spam they sent, so there is a bit of a difference. That said, shouldn't any good server admin have this vulnerability covered? What if your legitimate e-mail bounced through the server during the period when the spamming occurred. Aren't you then possibly responsible for the malfunction? This wasn't an organized attempt to take down the server, so it isn't nearly on the level of intentional DOSs and the like. More like ServerSlaughter. Just think twice before you start writing your congressmen eh?

Re: IANAL but ... (1)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 13 years ago | (#362120)

From the US Postal Service: http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/chainl et.htm Chain Letters A chain letter is a "get rich quick" scheme that promises that your mail box will soon be stuffed full of cash if you decide to participate.

Yes but in that case what they are actually peddling is illegal. What about those adverts for laser printer toner cartridges? It isn't illegal to sell toner cartridges.

Also, when is mass emailing considered spamming?

  • 1 unsolicited commercial email?
  • 10?
  • 100?
  • 100,000?

If I send an email to someone I don't know going "hey, saw your site, why not buy my maxomatic doodah from http://doodah.com" is that considered spamming?

--

Re:It's about time! (2)

doctor_oktagon (157579) | more than 13 years ago | (#362121)

They knew it was wrong, why else would they hack into a open mail relay; why would they hide their identify?

They did not "hack into" a mail relay. They used the services of a badly-configured machine on the public internet. If they used an automated program to logon on their behalf, then they never even saw the "warning" message you had put in your SMTP server banner .... uhh you did *put* a warning message in your server banner, didn't you?!

You can put the slashdot effect to good use!!! (1)

LennyDotCom (26658) | more than 13 years ago | (#362122)

If you goto goto.com [goto.com] and enter "bulk e-mail" you get a list of
spam companys the pay goto.com several dollars per click.
It's fun to cost these scumbags real money!!
You can find out more ways to fight spam by following the link in my sig.

Re:IANAL but ... (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 13 years ago | (#362123)

I believe there is a US Federal Law prohibiting unauthorized access to computer systems. Using an open SMTP port might well qualify, even if the server didn't fall over. The key question is whether the accused knew their usage was unauthorized.

This is a very slippery slope.

back to the house analogy. (2)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 13 years ago | (#362124)

Having a window open or a door unlocked on your house is not a valid defense for a thief when they break into your house. Do you need to put signs on your window that says, "no thiefs allowed?"

Re:This is ridiculous (2)

Yam-Koo (195035) | more than 13 years ago | (#362125)

It's not that it's hard too see what's spam or not, the problem is to actually have to take the mental time to see through the spam. If I get 50 messages in my inbox, with 30 of them spam, it's going to take me a LOT lot longer to scan through my inbox to find important messages.

How would you like it if during every conversation you had, some random person jumped in your way, saying "buy viagra! cheap!" and then walked away. Sure, they didn't convince you at all buy viagra, and they probably wasted their time, but it interrupted what YOU were doing, and took a few seconds out of your life. Now, thanks to technology, people can do that 1000000x as rapidly. This is WRONG. It drains mail servers, bandwidth, and people's time in scanning their inbox.

Now, you won't hear me claiming this is a capital offense. But you're wrong in saying that sending incessant amounts of email, just because it's fairly obvious to be spam, isn't annoying and isn't a total waste of people's time.

Re:You do damage, you do hard time! (5)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 13 years ago | (#362126)

Nowhere in the constitution nor in the Bill of Rights does it say that you have the right to never be irritated. That is the price of freedom, and one that too many people are trying to legislate away. If we are to have true freedom of speech, you might actually hear something that could in some way be slightly unpleasant, disagreeable, or (horror of horrors) offensive to you.

Why, of course neither the American - nor any other constitution (yes indeed - there are others) provides a guarantee not to be irritated.

But probably most constitutions value the right of an individual to be left alone higher then the right of somebody yelling his message, by whatever means available, into my ear.

I also don't think that the American constitution grants you the freedom to forge e-mail addresses, to abuse third party networks or to crash computers to get your message across.

Further, you guys (usually) have flat rate network connections. Virtually the entire rest of the world does not. We might pay as much as 5$ an hour for a simple, local telephone connection. This means my bandwith comes at a price.

If you spam me (or any Asian, African, Australian or European) you are stealing, it costs. Does the American constitution mention a right to steal?

See, I didn't think so.

Free speech means you can stand on a park bench and blabber what you want to blabber, it means that you can publish text, image, video, music whatever. It means you have the right to publish, it doesn't however give you the right to force your publication on me. Especialliy not when I'm forced to pay for it.

You mention filters. Unusable for me. I run my own business and even when my primary e-mail address is spammed 9 times out of 10, I can't filter it. The risk that one legitimate message gets filtered is just too big. Such a filtered message could cost me ten thousands of $ in lost revenue.

So, to summarize:

You have the right to blurt your message, regardless how ludicrous

You have no right to force that message on me.

And you have especially no right to force your message at societys and my expense, OK?

What're you in here for? (4)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#362127)

Convict: Heh, what're you in here for?

Spammer: I don't really know! I'm just a business man with a little computer skill trying to make a buck.

Convict: Damn the man! Always screwin' over us small business men. Why, I'm in here for selling cars!

Spammer: Really?

Convict: Well, they weren't *my* cars.

Spammer: Uhh....

Convict: Hey nerd boy, You got a pretty mouth. You wanna have sex?

Spammer: MOMMY!

Spamming as a law of bad marketing (2)

davemc (16393) | more than 13 years ago | (#362130)

It's interesting to note that spamming came in vogue as an attempt to market to the masses. The problem was that it was too easy, too widespread. TV commercials are a similar market to the masses, but at least I can opt-out by not watchng tv. Unfortunately, I can't opt-out of reading email; it's part of my job.

Today, spamming is getting a whole new look as viral marketing; another glossy name for a chain letter.

Personally, I'd think we should use spammers to make spam... still tastees like pork, right?

davemc

Re:IANAL but ... (1)

silicon_synapse (145470) | more than 13 years ago | (#362134)

There is no Federal law regarding spamming, BUT various states do have laws against unsolicited e-mail. The article explains this and notes that this crime was elevated to a federal crime because of the "thousands" of dollars of damage.

--From the article:
There is no federal law prohibiting unsolicited commercial e-mail, though a bill was introduced last month. California is among the states that have enacted criminal laws against spam.
...
Under California law, sending unsolicited commercial e-mail usually is a misdemeanor.

In this case, the crime was elevated to felony status because the spam was sent using an unauthorized e-mail account and caused tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage.



--

It's about time! (3)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 13 years ago | (#362136)

I remember making a comment that criminal charges should be pressed against spammers.

Under the computer tresspass act, it is a criminal offense to use a computer that you are unauthorized to (hacking a mail relay, even if open). It might be a stretch to say that by sending SPAM to your POP3 server, that they had used your computer to retrieve and store SPAM without authorization.

About them being clueless, it's bull. They knew it was wrong, why else would they hack into a open mail relay; why would they hide their identify?

It's funny, they claim the SPAM is legal, but they hide their identity.

Re:This goes to show (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 13 years ago | (#362141)

I'm assuming this notice would be sent during the SMTP session, which means the spammer would never actually read it, which seems like a pretty solid argument in court.

Though if both parties were in the US then UCITA might be applicable...

Also, this wouldn't work for mail sent through open relays (since the open relay sees your SMTP notice

This is a problem with any third party relay, open or not.

Re:This is ridiculous (1)

Linux_ho (205887) | more than 13 years ago | (#362143)

Absolutely. And the comments about "hard time" for spammers are insane. Per capita, the US imprisons twice as many people for non-violent crimes alone as any country in europe imprisons for ALL crimes. We have over half a million people in prison who have NEVER been convicted of a violent crime.

We need to get a more balanced look at how we think of "hard time". When a judge is sentencing, they should consider whether the crime is heinous enough that we need to get this person off the street. Is it worth these costs to our society: the person will no longer be contributing to the economy, and taxpayers will be paying their rent, food, basic clothing needs, hiring guards, and buying security equipment.

I would rather just delete the spam than pay the spammers' rent for any length of time. Spamming should never incur more than a fine. The fine should be proportional to the offense.

Prison Time (1)

DaBB (247418) | more than 13 years ago | (#362146)

Up to 9 years? little excessive don't you think -I know Spam is incredibly annoying but sheesh, rapists don't get that kind of jail time - and three sickos who traded in kiddies pics on the net recently only got up to 13 months. Punishment should fit the crime - make them first point of contact for an AOL user helpline - 6 months of that might even be considered cruel and unusual.

Re:What're you in here for? (1)

Ronin X (121414) | more than 13 years ago | (#362148)

We send people to prison to rehabilitate them, not to punish them.

SO, when they sentence someone to life in prison without chance of parole they're hoping to rehabilitate them in their NEXT LIFE?

You can't generalize the purpose of prison like that. Different people have different philosophies regarding prison including:
rehab
punishment
keeping them away from society
a deterrent

To respond to your 'though', many who believe in prison as either a punishment or deterrent would rather think of it as an unpleasant experience, since in reality they're getting taxpayer-funded 3-square-meal, free gym membership, cable tv, place to sleep, etc etc.

Re:You do damage, you do hard time! (3)

Steve B (42864) | more than 13 years ago | (#362150)

Nowhere in the constitution nor in the Bill of Rights does it say that you have the right to never be irritated.

However, there are a fair number of laws that say I have the right never to be robbed, which is what spammers do with their automated postage-due crap.
/.

Re:Lawyer: they won't do that much (if any) time (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 13 years ago | (#362151)

As long as they get raped at least once in jail by some big guy named B1FF I'll be satisfied. Then we could start a pr0n site featuring pics and videos of spammers and the ass-pirates who love them.

That would be nice in theory.... (1)

SvnLyrBrto (62138) | more than 13 years ago | (#362153)

Except for the fact that spammers are actively trying to make filtering illegal.

Or have you missed all the stories on slashdot of late wrt spammers sueing MAPS and the like?

Yeah... I'm perfectly capable of writeing regexs to get rid of my own spam, installing filters, mulitple inboxes; or enableing MAPS in my sendmail.cf ..... or disableing all/doing none of the above. But some of the more malignant spammers are useing the courts to try and make efforts to block them illegal.

I say, if they're going to weasel their way through the legal system to try to force us to receive their junk bits; we should bloody well fight back in kind, and do our best to land the trash in prison.

john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!

Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if

Re:If you use spamcop you will see (1)

kuzinov (155239) | more than 13 years ago | (#362154)

Spamcop gets blocked now BTW because they come off a Mindspring mail server now. I have not followed your link just yet. But, I will state again, if you want to put a major dent in SPAM we should go after the open relays and spam havens. Let me put it this way, in the early days of automobiles before the ignitions required keys. Which put a bigger dent in the number of car thefts? Legislation against car theft or making it so you needed a key to start the car? Going after individuals who send SPAM is a futile task compared to cracking down on ISP's that refuse to secure their equipment. Take a large ISP like, hhhmmm rhymes with Dearthlink, that allows any idiot to relay SPAM off their servers. They end up sending more SPAM overall than any individual spammer could dream of. And yes, I know that there are many .cn and .jp's out there that will make up for it but it's no excuse for any mail server inthis country to be left open for a spammer's needs.

Spammers and the slashdot effect (3)

gwizah (236406) | more than 13 years ago | (#362155)

SAN DIEGO, California:
San Diego Superior court appears to be after another party in its spammer court case, this time slashdot [slashdot.org] is being sought for what is known as the "slashdot effect" [everything2.com] after a story posted on their web page pointing at signonsandiego [signonesandiego.com] completely knocked out their servers causing a panic. CmdrTaco was unavailable for comment at press time.

You do damage, you do hard time! (5)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 13 years ago | (#362158)

This is not a case about spamming, it's a case about computer theft and damage.

It's nice to see that some jerks may do hard time for that, but it would be even nicer if they are punished becaause of the actual act of spamming.

Aparently legislators only get involved when business are hurt, but not when we, as individuals have to deal with this pest.

I fear this is not really a victory for the anti-spam league (although it might send a strong message to spam-wannabes). On a sidenote: Salon [salon.com] ran a story [salon.com] a year ago, in which Janelle Brown actually tried to get rich quick, lose 90 pounds in a week or sign up for the greatest pr0n available TOTALLY FREEEEE!!!

The ironic thing is, that she had a really hard time actually contacting the seller and purchasing all those goodies...

non-violent offenders (2)

benploni (125649) | more than 13 years ago | (#362161)

How many more non-violent offenders to we need to lock away from society? Is this a socially benificial thing? Bah. You know it isn't spam or no spam.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?