×

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!

UK Makes Spamming a Fineable Offense

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the get-your-punish-on dept.

Spam 310

woodhouse writes "The BBC has an article about the new UK anti-spamming law which comes into force later this year. Under the new law, spammers can be fined up to 5000 pounds in a magistrates court, or an unlimited amount in the crown court. Sadly, prison terms won't be used to enforce of the new law."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

310 comments

I WIN FAGS!! (-1, Troll)

Leffe (686621) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996937)

First post!

I am the best first poster, ever created. I even created some C++ script code for this special moment:

#include
void main(){
cout"hello world1";
return 1;
}

If only I could steal someone's subscription...

Oh, and just so noone will mod me for anything else than trolling: If you do, you are a fagoat.

Re:I WIN FAGS!! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6996956)

Man, I had to reboot my windows box after running that. What kind of idiot are you, huh? With first post comes responsibility!

Re:I WIN FAGS!! (-1, Offtopic)

Vengie (533896) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996964)

its a shame this wont compile.
you forgot to escape your angular brackets (< and >) and so your include line is bare and the << operator is missing. HAHAH SUX0R!

Re:I WIN FAGS!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997002)

Note to self: Always preview the prepared first post in another topic to perfect it.

Oh, and BTW, I forgot to post anonymously, whatever, I'll get well known!1

Everyone will remember me as the 'First Post Man' of Thursday 18 September 2003.

Re:I WIN FAGS!! (0, Offtopic)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997066)


Everyone will remember me as the 'First Post Man' of Thursday 18 September 2003

Dear Goatse.cx guy,

Thank you for your valuable input. Unfortunately your writing isn't up to the calibre that the highly focused slashdot readers demand.

Please go back to stretching open your bottom.

Thank you.

spamhaus rebutts this claim (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6996940)

Re:spamhaus rebutts this claim (3, Interesting)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997030)

The BBC article [bbc.co.uk] sais:

Under the new law, companies will have to get permission from an individual before they can send them an e-mail or text message.

Whereas Spamhaus [spamhaus.org] say:

From 11 December it will be legal to send spam to the millions of hapless employees of British businesses (as long as each spammer gives each employee the opportunity to 'opt-out' of his individual spam campaign).

So which is right?

I'd assume that it is Spamhaus. Shame the BBC can't get their stories straight :-(

Re:spamhaus rebutts this claim (3, Informative)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997079)

both.

one refers to people ("private individuals").

the other refers to businesses.

Re:spamhaus rebutts this claim (1)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997164)

I stand corrected. The next line of the BBC article states:
But the regulations do not cover business e-mail addresses, despite some calls for a blanket ban on spam.

I'm glad to be protected as a private individual, mind, but "employees are not individuals" seems incoherent, somehow.

Re:spamhaus rebutts this claim (3, Insightful)

Jonny Royale (62364) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997094)

Perhaps it's the difference between "individual" and "employee of British buisness", you can't get spammed on your personal e-mail accounts, but your buisness account is fair game....Although, how are they going to tell the difference?

Re:spamhaus rebutts this claim (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997040)

Mod this one up +5 Informative.

Interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing how the spammers abuse the law, and how (hopefully) they strengthen the law in the future.

Re:spamhaus rebutts this claim (3, Insightful)

zaphodbblx (705015) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997153)

Yep Unenfoceable and ball-less but the MP's in parlament can thump their chest and say how theyr'e doing their job. I guess they have gotten clues from us over here in america

Sigh, site is slashdotted. Here's the Text (-1, Redundant)

scumbucket (680352) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996950)

UK bans spam messages

Spam said to make up half of all e-mails sent
The UK has made spam a criminal offence to try to stop the flood of unsolicited messages.

Under the new law, spammers could be fined 5,000 in a magistrates court or an unlimited penalty from a jury.

But they would not be sent to jail, according to the new measures introduced by Communications Minister Stephen Timms.

Spam has become the bane of internet users, with junk messages making up more than half of all e-mails sent.

Permission to send

"It's crucial that people feel safe and have confidence in utilising electronic communication technologies," said Mr Timms.

"These regulations will help combat the global nuisance of unsolicited e-mails and texts by enshrining in law rights that give consumers more say over who can use their personal details. "

The measures take effect on 11 December and will be enforced by the Information Commissioner.

Under the new law, companies will have to get permission from an individual before they can send them an e-mail or text message.

But the regulations do not cover business e-mail addresses, despite some calls for a blanket ban on spam.

The British measures are not as drastic as Italian anti-spam laws.

Earlier this month Italy imposed tough regulations to fine spammers up to 90,000 euros (66,000) and impose a maximum prison term of three years.

EU legislation banning unwanted e-mail is due to come into force on 31 October, but correspondents say that, given the global nature of the internet, it may have little effect.

Most spam comes from the United States and Asia, and will be outside its reach.

The EU legislation leaves it to each member state how to enforce the legislation, as long as the enforcement is "effective".

The UK legislation also sets guidelines for the use of cookies, electronic tags that help websites keep track of visitors.

In future, people will be able to insist that sites do not store their personal information.

the bbc doesn't get slashdotted, redundant (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997106)

dumbasses.

Bullshit (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997145)

Do you really think the BBC will suffer the Slashdot effect? They won't even notice the extra traffic. They are the biggest and most visited content site (i.e. not Google) on the net and have bandwidth to spare. They have servers on at least two continents and publish their news in 43 languages. Now if the BBC posted a link to Slashdot on it's front page, then we might see the 'BBC effect'.

WILDCAT IS ON TEH SPOKE!!!!~11 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6996951)

see subject

TEH SPOKE ARE ON TEH YUO!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997111)

eat subject.

JUMP PUT OF TEH SPACESHIP! TEH SPOKE!!!1`1 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997224)

How about a restraining order (3, Insightful)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996953)

How about a restraining order on spammers where they are ordered not to ever touch a computer again. That's what they do to a lot of crackers.

Re:How about a restraining order (0, Flamebait)

Mephie (582671) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997086)

They're putting restraining orders on white people?

Profiling!!

Re:How about a restraining order (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997126)

Don't be silly. It's only racism if you do it to colored people. Otherwise, we call it "diversity."

blimey! (-1)

rifter (147452) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996957)

Time to move to the UK I reckon! :)

Re:blimey! (1)

lewiz (33370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997116)

> Time to move to the UK I reckon! :)

No, honestly. I wouldn't bother. It's not that good. Besides... how much spam comes from the UK anyway? It's all from (search for real figures) China, etc. This will probably have little/no effect on spam counts.

could be worse (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6996960)

Better to be fined up to 5000 pounds in a magistrates court...

...than to be pounded by 5000 magistrates.

...or courted by a 5000 pound magistrate.

Re:could be worse (1)

sikpig (618887) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997167)

...or fined up to 5000 pounds of flesh.
Sorry, had to, but wouldn't that be an even better deterrent?

and. . . (2)

loraksus (171574) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996967)

sadly, nor will being drawn and quartered.
Soon hopefully . . .
Besides, we can always start inflicting pain and death on the spammers where the authorities don't really care about the problem. . .

This is a good start (4, Insightful)

chia_monkey (593501) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996969)

I noticed they can get jail time in Italy. Cool. So jail time and fines in Italy. Fines in the UK. I wonder what the US will do besides say "spam is bad...don't do it" or "spam is bad. It's not spam if you have an opt-out option". Oh I hope these set good precedents.

Re:This is a good start (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997028)

Fines are OK, but I would have expected much better from the British. Say, something like the end of Braveheart???

Re:This is a good start (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997159)

I too would like to see the end of Braveheart but sadly there are too many copies already out there to make it feasible.

Re:This is a good start (1)

MasterSLATE (638125) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997213)

That would just make spammers into martyrs... Definately not a good thing.. Italy giving jailtime??? Thats a little crazy as well. But fines, as long as they actually work and are COLLECTED, is a good idea.

Re:This is a good start (1)

pVoid (607584) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997068)

Or endorsing Verisign to go counter a very valuable spam determintation technique.

On a side note though, I'm not too sure about jail time for spam. Heavy fines, yes, jail time... makes me stop and think about it.

Re:This is a good start (1)

gilmour14 (693816) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997222)

I wonder what the US will do besides say "spam is bad...don't do it"
  1. Most likely start charging people to block it.

Oh no! (5, Funny)

Prince_Ali (614163) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996970)

Sadly, prison terms won't be used to enforce of the new law.

Oh no, we need to get these violent people off the streets before they e-mail again!

Jail time? (3, Funny)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996974)

Sadly, prison terms won't be used to enforce of the new law.

Jail time? How about death sentence.

Good think I don't live in the UK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6996975)

ajklasjdljasdjqoweuqioweuqiwelololololdghfgdfgdfgd gdg

Re:Good think I don't live in the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997012)

please elaborate

Huh? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6996978)

Sadly, prison terms won't be used to enforce of the new law.
Prison for sending email? Come on, let's stop with the juvenille, knee-jerk reactions.

skip prison... (4, Funny)

ejbst25 (130707) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996981)

...straight to death sentence!

Seriously...while we all hate spam...someone *really* wants spammers in jail? On the right is the rapist, then murderer, then child molester, then spammer.

Re:skip prison... (2, Funny)

bs_02_06_02 (670476) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997058)

Yep. I can picture it... Sounds perfect. In fact, it makes me smile.

I wonder if the spammer would be interested in selling penis enlargements to his cellmates?

Re:skip prison? (1)

YetAnotherDave (159442) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997059)

well, maybe the prospect of being locked up with a 300 pound known murderer would keep a few people from spamming...

nothing else tried in the Good Ole USA(tm) has worked...

Re:skip prison... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997128)

Sounds about right to me

Re:skip prison... (4, Funny)

Our Man In Redmond (63094) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997151)

So the biggest one . . . the biggest, meanest nastiest father-raper . . . he comes over to me and says, "Kid, what'd you get?"

"I didn't get nothin'," I said, "I had to pay $100,000 and help secure a couple dozen open relays."

"What were you in for?"

"Spamming"

. . . and they all moved away from me on the Group W bench and gave me the hairy eyeball and all sorts of mean nasty stuff, until I said "and promoting Viagra and free pr0n" and they all shook my hand and we had a great time playing with the pencils and using the computers on the shelf by the window to strip a couple of mailing lists for addresses.

Who could clean spam better than a spammer? (1)

KingDaveRa (620784) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997175)

We could have convicted spammers sifting through all the emails we get every day, deleting the spam. It could all work towards better spam filters. That'll teach the sods.

A good reason to send spammers to prison (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997216)

A good reason to send spammers to prison would be that it creates an even greater incentive for other offenders to stay out of prison.

Prison should be reserved for violent criminals... (5, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996986)

Why should we waste money keeping these people in prison when they're not a physical threat to anybody, and when we can force them to become productive members of society? Don't spend my money throwing spammers in prison, use their ill-gotten gains to catch other spammers, and then force them to work at a job that helps the economy rather than forcing them to sit behind bars and have gay sex on the taxpayer tab.

Re:Prison should be reserved for violent criminals (1)

bwaynef (692229) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997038)

I agree that me having to support a spammer in the "Big House" repulses me. I like the idea of them paying a fine also. Seems like they could work some community service in with it for an extra touch to help expedite the results of any contributions they may make to society.

Re:Prison should be reserved for violent criminals (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997049)

Why should we waste money keeping these people in prison when they're not a physical threat to anybody

I don't think you quite understand the motives behind this law.

It's not to prevent them to cause any harm to others, it's to prevent others from causing harm to them.

Re:Prison should be reserved for violent criminals (0)

Kedisar (705040) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997056)

They are a threat, at least somewhat. They clog thousands of emails per day with their rubbish, wasting millions of dollars. However, they shouldn't be executed, or put in jail for life or something exorbitant like that. I mean, you *can* get put in jail for copying movies, and that's not a physical threat to anyone, either.

Re:Prison should be reserved for violent criminals (2)

bs_02_06_02 (670476) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997089)

All it would take would be a night in a holding cell... just a short stint with a 300 lb criminal. Then, a few of the stories would get out.

Re:Prison should be reserved for violent criminals (2, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997141)

> All it would take would be a night in a holding cell... just a short stint with a 300 lb criminal. Then, a few of the stories would get out.

Subject: H0T PR1S0N R4P3...........493121742
Subject: R A P E ACTION!
Subject: F|_|CK1NG in Jai1!!1!!1 (ye47fa3d)

You were saying?

Re:Prison should be reserved for violent criminals (1)

nmx (63250) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997233)

Subject: F|_|CK1NG in Jai1!!1!!1 (ye47fa3d)

Could someone explain to me what the purpose of those random numbers/letters at the end of so many spams is? I have been wondering about that for some time.

Re:Prison should be reserved for violent criminals (3, Insightful)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997205)

I guess the Enron exec, who defrauded millions from their employees and shareholders should walk away free then?

Jail time for spammers is justified, IMHO, when we're talking about the career spamming scum. The ones who illegally hijack foreign servers, illegally hijack unused netblocks, continue spamming despite being terminated from multiple ISPs, continue spamming despite court orders to stop (Sam Khuri comes to mind), etc. etc.

I don't think a first time offender should be jailed, but there is NOTHING else that will stop the career spamming from spamming other than locking him up (with no Internet access). These people are sociopaths, they belong in jail.

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers

Re:Prison should be reserved for violent criminals (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997241)

I guess the Enron exec, who defrauded millions from their employees and shareholders should walk away free then?

No, he shouldn't. But he doesn't give anybody their money back by rotting in a cell.

there is NOTHING else that will stop the career spamming from spamming other than locking him up

Spammers spam for money. If the chances of getting caught are higher than not, and getting caught means you loose all financial rewards from your actions, there will be no incentive to spam.

UK?!?!?! What about the hurricane!?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6996989)

North Carolina is being torn apart and the hurricane damages will be in the billions and you people are talking about some canned spam in the UK!? Unbelievable! HAVE SOME PRIORITIES PEOPLE!!

Re:UK?!?!?! What about the hurricane!?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997008)

I'm waiting for Dubya to launch the War on Weather. More people will die from weather related incidents this year than died in 9/11's attacks (I mean the terrorist ones, not the people we killed (which were much, much more)).

Re:UK?!?!?! What about the hurricane!?! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997121)

C'mon. This is North Carolina we're talking about here. I don't think that there's over a billion dollars in assets in all the carolinas.

After all, what's the going rate for a trailer?

Re:UK?!?!?! What about the hurricane!?! (0, Offtopic)

GISGEOLOGYGEEK (708023) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997228)

yes have you all forgotten? the US is the only meaningful spot in the world! Ignore all other stories!

I bet the huge forest fires in western canada this summer caused way more damage than this little category 2 hurricane will.... and that you never heard about the fires.

Eh... (2, Insightful)

Kedisar (705040) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996996)

All spammers are going to have to do is just set up their servers in 3rd world countries. The UK isn't going to travel to Zaire to shut down a steamboat. Who spams FROM Britain, anyway?

Still, this does make it a lot harder for the very few spammers in Britain to, well, spam. Moving your servers to Zaire isn't exactly easy.

Warped world view.. (5, Insightful)

molo (94384) | more than 10 years ago | (#6996999)

You must have a warped world view to advocate having people jailed for costing you time and money. Especially in a world where someone only gets 1 year for a hit-and-run [ktvu.com] that killed a little girl and maimed another.

-molo

Hi Molo! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997015)

In my native language "molo" is a slang expression for a dick.

Just thought you might like to know...

Re:Hi Molo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997196)

You must be an american to be such a "molo".

Kinda like that american girl that killed and maime two others.

The terrorists missed when they crashed those planes; They should've hit you.

Laws don't apply to scum (2, Insightful)

jafuser (112236) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997001)

Unfortunately, this will just drive the scum to spam from other countries or to go further underground by exploiting vulenerable PCs with viruses and such.

Enacting laws is a nice symbolic step, but we need a technical solution if we are to ever to put the brakes on spammers.

5000 pounds, eh? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997005)

5000 pounds... I'd say, 2.5 tons is a pretty hefty fine :)

In abstentia (3, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997014)


From the article:Under the new law, spammers could be fined 5,000 in a magistrates court or an unlimited penalty from a jury.

and

Earlier this month Italy imposed tough regulations to fine spammers up to 90,000 euros (66,000) and impose a maximum prison term of three years. EU legislation banning unwanted e-mail is due to come into force on 31 October, but correspondents say that, given the global nature of the internet, it may have little effect. Most spam comes from the United States and Asia, and will be outside its reach.

Couldn't the spammers be found guilty in abstentia? Remember how the US snapped up Dmitry Skylarov when he entered that country.

Whoa! 5000 pounds! (0, Redundant)

FroMan (111520) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997017)

I saw the part about not going to jail and that the UK doesn't have the same laws against cruel and unusual punishment, but 5000 pounds!

I mean, that like having Rossanne Bar sit on you or something. Could anyone live through that?

Oh, nevermind, pounds in UK are currency. My bad, that's right, you guys use metric too, don't you... Carry on, nothing to see here.

Re:Whoa! 5000 pounds! (1)

GISGEOLOGYGEEK (708023) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997081)

Actually the US went metric way earlier, in the early 1800's, but you got lazy and stopped after making your money metric.

Re:Whoa! 5000 pounds! (1)

Deflagro (187160) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997099)

I know this is a troll but oh well...

Yes the UK uses metric, as does every other advanced nation. It's funny that the USA fought for their independance from the british, yet still cling to the system of measurment even they found was outdated!

OTOH...Roseanne is just nasty, and no I think that would be fatal

register reports otherwise (4, Informative)

deadmongrel (621467) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997018)

check out register.co.uk call it a toothless tiger. more like a pussy(oops!) read the article here http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/32914.html

Billy Tauzin's Opt-Out spam bill (5, Funny)

bs_02_06_02 (670476) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997021)

Billy Tauzin continues to promote Opt-out... which means anyone can spam you as much as possible until you complain. Then, they have someone else spam you, and then you complain, and then someone else spams you, and this continues until someone gets killed. Opt-out. What a terrible idea! But, no one in politics knows anything about technology. Most politicians are puppets. Democrats and Republicans both.

Interesting thought (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997022)

Is there any way I could obtain a english e mail account. I realy like the idea of having a account that after I use it once online, its not spamed all to hell. But also what happens when say this spammer in say japan spams a UK e mail address. Can they still be fined, or possabley baned

When spam is punishable by death (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997023)

That's when the politicians will get my votes.

Wait till someone forges your mailadress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997092)

Then you are in deep trouble, Mr. Triggerhappy. And wait till the next Lovsan-Series, when 80% of UKs Windows Machines will have sent Spam. They have experience in removing thousands of dead cattle from their feet-and-mouth-epidemic, but I surely doubt they could execute 20 Mio. people...

The folly of law (3, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997024)

We all hate spammers, so anti-spam laws are good.

This is the same logic that got us into the situation where someone who gets caught having sex with their boy/girlfriend on lover's lane (especially if you're in Mass. and happen to be in a non-missionary position) can end up having to walk around to all of your neighbors and tell them you're a sex-offender... joy.

Yeah, so the definition of a spammer is what? If you get 1000 messages a day with my name as the return-address, do I get fined? What if the headers are *very* convincing? What if it's "from" someone else, but it came from my network? What if that was someone who I let put thier virus-infected laptop on my wireless network?

This is not an easy problem.

Re:The folly of law (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997100)

what about going after the sponsors of the spam?

Re:The folly of law (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997154)

Excellent point, touching on where most of these laws fail - identifying the spammer, and identifying them correctly. Thanks for hitting the point mostly - saves me a little bit of typing.

It won't help (1)

krewemaynard (665044) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997036)

from article:
"EU legislation banning unwanted e-mail is due to come into force on 31 October, but correspondents say that, given the global nature of the internet, it may have little effect.

Most spam comes from the United States and Asia, and will be outside its reach."


the same goes for any US laws if they come along. it's nice to think that this might do some good, but it'll just create more government jobs and suck tax dollars into another useless program.

"The EU legislation leaves it to each member state how to enforce the legislation, as long as the enforcement is "effective".

too broad...and still ineffective. spammers will just move to other countries with no regulations on this stuff.

enforcement (1)

jgercken (314042) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997043)

A step in the right direction but I'm afraid the problem is too international to be affected much.

1800 emails (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997061)

I sent 1800 spam emails to my MP, Michael Wills. I told him this was a month's worth after deleting the disgusting ones.

I wonder if it helped...

5000 pounds you say? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997065)

What if instead of being fined 5000 pounds, spammers were forced to eat 5000 pounds of SPAM? Just a thought.

Hang them! (1)

EnterpriseNCC-1701 (664193) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997075)

Bah! 5000 Pounds is nothing. They should be hung. Electric chair will do fine as well.

Re:Hang them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997237)

They should be hung.

I'm a spammer. I am also packing 10 1/2 inches. I'm afraid your law would be too late for me.

Can sending your resume (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997077)

to an employer who isnt interested in you be considered spamming too?
its gonna be like.. ooh I am unemployed .. to ... ooh I am in prison...
ROFL

Re:Can sending your resume (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6997114)

yeah if you want a job where you do nothing but get anally raped by your cell-mate Bubba every day; spam employers!

Don't hold your breath - need to see it in action (4, Informative)

IIH (33751) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997105)

While it sounds great on the surface, just look at the corresponding fine for breaching the UK telephone do not call list - this is also up to 5,000, but no one has ever been fined [bbc.co.uk] despite 250 complaints a week being received over the past four years.

Let's think about this... (4, Insightful)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997123)

Sadly, prison terms won't be used to enforce of the new law.

Slashdot seems to me to be the place where people gripe about overly harsh sentences for people who are involved in things like P2P and software "piracy," and then say how it's totally out of whack because you go to prison for 5 years for rape and 25 for copyright infingement.

While agree that spam is a social ill and needs to be curtailed, we need to be careful not to go overboard.

A bit extreme (4, Insightful)

Follis (702842) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997165)

Jail time for spammers? That seems a bit extreme for a few reasons. 1) Cost. It costs a LOT of money to keep someone in jail for a year. I don't want to pay it. I don't think you do either. 2) This is a non-violent offence. I can see locking someone up for assault. But spam? That's like locking someone up for possessing narcotics. 'Ain't hurting nobody. Just fine the hell out of them, which will remove the profit margin.

Better punishment idea (2, Funny)

thorgil (455385) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997168)


Make them copy each mail...BY HAND!

If the spammer send 10 000 of a specific message:
Punish him by making him write 10 000 copies of the mail sent. With PEN and PAPER.

And of course... the spammer would have to pay for the papers and pens as well.

That ought to teach him/her!!!

And yeah... if the mail contains images or such...
let him/her write the ones and zeroes....

Lawmakers in the UK (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997172)

Obviously the lawmakers in the UK are not very smart about the financial impact of this decision. It would be so much more cost effective to simply enable people who were spammed to shoot the spammer (cost of bullet and cleaning materials to be paid by spamee).

Finable (1)

holzp (87423) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997187)

UK Makes Spamming a Finable Offense
Does this mean we get a free Torvolds with each spam?

I wonder... (2, Insightful)

Its_My_Hair (703796) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997192)

Is the fine for each offense? What about repeat offenses? Apparently spam is effective so it well may be worth it to spammers to continue spamming and counting the 5000 pounds as "costs of operation".

This is why (3, Insightful)

bigjnsa500 (575392) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997193)

This is why there are so many frickin' laws on the books as it is. Somebody pissed off? Call a Congress person or Senator and make a law to prevent you from being pissed off.

Here's Bob. He's not pissed off, he is only fuming. He wants a law to prevent whatever it is that makes him fume. Calls his Senator and gets his law.

What's wrong with this? BOTH ARE THE SAME!! Its coming to a point where there will be a law for not picking your nose, or a law to not cut your fingernails in public.

Man, doesn't anybody get this besides me?

Prison term/rape (0, Redundant)

beta21 (88000) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997199)

You know if anyone is deserving of prison rape its spammers...

This is a joke. Prison rape is a serious issue and no-one needs to be subjected to it....

ok even sub humans like spammers

A Finable Offense! (1)

BlackBolt (595616) | more than 10 years ago | (#6997209)

UK Makes Spamming a Finable Offense

Oh my god, that means my grandfather's a spammer! He's lived in Finnland for years, they must'a sent him there when he was just young!

Which reminds me of a joke from LaughLab... The New Zealander wants to get into Australia, and at the border, the guard asks him, "Do you have a criminal record?". The New Zealander replies, "Why, do you still need one to get in?"

Ba-da-bump.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...