Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge Imposes Nine-Year Term for Convicted Spammer

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 12:45 PM
Original message
Judge Imposes Nine-Year Term for Convicted Spammer
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBBYLZNA7E.html

LEESBURG, Va. (AP) - A Virginia judge sentenced a spammer to nine years in prison Friday in the nation's first felony prosecution for sending junk e-mail, though the sentence was postponed while the case is appealed.


Loudoun County Circuit Judge Thomas Horne said that because the law targeting bulk e-mail distribution is new and raises constitutional questions, it was appropriate to defer the prison time until appeals courts rule.

A jury had recommended the nine-year prison term after convicting Jeremy Jaynes of pumping out at least 10 million e-mails a day with the help of 16 high-speed lines, the kind of Internet capacity a 1,000-employee company would need.

Jaynes, of Raleigh, N.C., told the judge that regardless of how the appeal turns out, "I can guarantee the court I will not be involved in the e-mail marketing business again."

more

Is it just me, or does 9 years sound a tad harsh for spamming?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. sounds harsh to me.....................eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Not nearly harsh enough!
If you add up how many hours people spend dealing with junk email and how much everyone (including the ISP's) spend on trying to unclog the internet from all the junk email, nine years in jail sounds like too little time to me.

Hopefully this will be a deterrent to all spammers.

The real problem is that email is free. So of course these marketing companies are going to use and abuse it. Every email account should get either 500 or 1000 emails a month for free. After that, it should cost $0.10 per email. That would quickly put a stop to people sending out millions of commercial messages - and would allow legitimate users enough to keep things free.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
36. Spammers use services WE pay for to irritate the hell out of us
I'd have preferred to see a fine applied to the cost of internet service for every single person he spammed. Anyone who spams needs to pay for the privilege, and it has to stop. Spam is killing the system as far as email goes.

Make it all unprofitable, the little bastards will STOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
47. Make it all unprofitable, the little bastards will STOP.
It sounded so good I had to post what you wrote. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #20
71. Aw, Don't Make Free Stuff Cost Just To Regulate Behavior
That's as silly as making illegal drugs cost a lot to discourage use. It leads to all kinds of nasty stuff. In a perfect world, everything would be free. Think Star Trek, they don't even have money any more.
: )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #71
78. Your analogy is not even close
If you are talking about my suggestion that spammers be charged to spend email, the analogy you use does not even come close to fitting. What the heck do drugs and what they cost have anything to do with making junk mass mailers pay for the costs they dump on everyone else.

Do you like subsidizing free commercial email. Is that what you are suggesting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #20
74. Oh please...hang 'em high! Glad you not a judge, prison contactor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. What, are you a spammer? An anti-spam software salesman?
There must be a reason why you are sympathetic to this guy. You've only offered BS as a reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
48. An appropriate indeterminate sentence would be...
Make him read aloud 10 million junk emails (the number he sent per day). When he finishes, then let him out of jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. If he read one every minute 24/7 then it would take him 17 years. :p
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #48
62. A slight change to my proposed sentence
But if he reads one that contains a virus, then his hard drive gets erased and he has to start over at 1.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarefullyLiberal Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
50. leftofcool, did you even read the article?
Edited on Fri Apr-08-05 03:34 PM by CarefullyLiberal
The guy was selling phony products and pornography and was called one of the top 10 spammers in the world and he was making as much as $750,000 per month, yes, PER MONTH!

And by the way, a jury of 12 recommended the 9 years, not the judge. The judge allowed him to stay out of jail while his case is appealed, pretty nice judge if you ask me.

Jeremy Jaynes deserves every second of jail time he gets for the misery he brought on others.

Fergus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
73. eeeeyooowwch...harsh to me also...but cannibus sellers getting life so
what do I know...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az_lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. 9 years? Pretty harsh indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Dunham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Way too harsh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. Am I nuts to even question whether that was harsh?
I think it's a serious political statement and precedent made by this decision. This is NOT cool and yes, btw IMO.. it's as harsh as it could be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spinbaby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Not too harsh
I may be biased because I just finished deleting a couple of hundred junk emails offering various scams, drugs, and products inappropriate to my sex. And this is just what got through my filter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. Not too harsh
How much productivity is lost by all that spam clogging up the inter-nets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
7. Sounds good to me. Spammers do billions $ of damage.
Before you say that this kind of sentence is harsh, speak with some of the IT workers who have to fight fires when spam clogs or breaks their companies' email systems. Spam causes a lot of real damage and lost email.

Spammers don't care about this damage, and those who puzzle why spammers should be viewed as serious criminals frequently don't understand how much damage they do. If this fellow had burned down a house, everyone would see how much harm this fellow caused, because it would be located in one geographic place. The fact that his damage is distributed over hundreds and thousands of companies and individuals doesn't make the damage any less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. You're right...I don't understand what IT folk go through,
sounds horrible. I'm just concerned that the law is written horribly, and we better believe this law WILL be exercised when people start bulk mailing for political purposes as did the Kerry.com group of people did, for just one example. The infrigment of freedom of speech is under attack in this law that is backing this guilty plea, is it not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spinbaby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. The difference is...
People SIGN UP to get email from kerry.com and they can opt out if they want to. Spam is dumped on you whether you want it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Yep. A crucial difference. Politicians have learned not to spam....
Regardless of the law, that would ruin their reputation. I wouldn't vote for a spamming politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. I don't want political junk mail either!!!
"I'm just concerned that the law is written horribly, and we better believe this law WILL be exercised when people start bulk mailing for political purposes..."

I don't want your bulk political mail either. Keep it out of my email box. Any politician send out bulk junk email should be given 18 years!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. Molester minister get six months for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy
Edited on Fri Apr-08-05 01:07 PM by NNN0LHI
http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=6436&Section=Local

Molester minister gets six months

March 30,2005
Brittney Booth
The Monitor


EDINBURG — Former Trinity Worship Center minister Robert Dale Franklin will spend six months in jail and a decade on probation after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy who he had agreed to spiritually mentor.

State District Judge Mario Ramirez on Tuesday sentenced Franklin, 38, after hearing testimony from the boy’s family, Franklin’s supporters and Franklin himself.

"There is no excuse for any of your actions," the judge told Franklin who pleaded guilty last week to two felony counts of sexual assault and admitted to a drug problem.

Franklin’s guilty plea halted a jury trial and allowed him to avoid 10 other felony counts a grand jury indicted him with, including charges he gave marijuana and cocaine to the boy.

more

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
histohoney Donating Member (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. The molester
needs WAYYYYYY more time. I still think the spammer got what he deserved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. Well, I guess this reflects where our priorities as a nation are.
It is more important to sentence harshly for costing companies money than it is for such a heinous crime as child molestation and ruining a person's life. That's it, isn't it? Money wins out over people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. Yes but he may have sent spam showing naked bodies in a kids e-mail
Wouldn't want the little kiddies seeing a naked body. Never mind the showing of Saddam's sons all shot up on every single TV channel for two weeks solid. That won't effect their little minds at all. Actually it may even help turn them into good little Christian soldiers some day. But the picture of a naked body? Oh, man. That could just destroy a kid. We all know that.

:sarcasm:

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #33
57. Excellent! Excellent!
Are you a lawyer? Great argument! Your Subject got me sucked in. Great post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #33
66. Especially the one that showed the AUTOPSY.
You know the one where they were cutting the steel brace out of Dudes Leg.

The kids will join the Marines just to "GREASE THE TOWEL (RAG) HEADS"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toymachines Donating Member (782 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. interesting precedent
what was his disruption to society? how much did he cost society? this is what i would need to know to judge his sentencing. 9 years might not be too much for the amount he was making, and the very high output of spam. considering the circumstances though, i would probably shorten it quite a bit. or maybe just fine him a lot. take away his ill gotten funds and give it to the school district. thats my virdict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
10. SPAM is Internet vandalism.
Edited on Fri Apr-08-05 01:09 PM by TahitiNut
It's theft of services and every person pays for it. It stops people from engaging in the honest and open communication that the Internet would otherwise provide and destroys the 'value' of a personal email address. It's theft. It's vandalism. It's an egregious abuse of the 'commons' - as in the Tragedy of the Commons.

It's also part of why children aren't able to use the Internet as freely as they might ... with porn and adult materials flooding their email.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Agreed but you are specifying the types of spam,
Which I think needs to be done, but in this law, the spam is not specified, it could be someone sending a mass media mailing out, trying to inform the public of serious information. I just think the law should be written far more specific than this. The loopholes would give access to stomp on our right to free speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. I disagree . .
. . people have a right of free speech. But thay can not come into my house while I'm eating dinner and insist on selling me things.

If spam was required to be labelled as such I would block it by that label - or better, I would use a provider who blocked it before it was even put in my mailbox.

Spam as it is now is a theft of the bandwidth that I am paying for as well as an invasion of my privacy. Multiply that by millions per hour and you start to get an idea of the seriousness of this. We're talking about the ability to use the internet for anything - not just mass mailings.

I'm glad he got a stiff sentence - especially if it dissuades a few more of those assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. The key concept is "unsolicited".
In my opinion, any unsolicited email is SPAM. Unless and until I "opt in" I don't want it. "Opt out" is a total scam. There're far bigger problems with 'content-based' laws regarding such communications. The "free speech" zones, as perverted by the fascists, are not content neutral and relegated "anti" people to "out of sight and out of mind" locations. I'd rather avoid content tests altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. Put a stamp on it
"Which I think needs to be done, but in this law, the spam is not specified, it could be someone sending a mass media mailing out, trying to inform the public of serious information. "

It is still unsolicited junk mail. You may think the message is important. But if you feel that way, go to your local post office and put a stamp on your message. It should not cost everyone else millions of dollars just because someone thinks they have a political message to get out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithras61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
37. Definition of SPAM...
The official definition of SPAM is unsolicited commercial email. It is usually sent in bulk quantities, but that isn't a significant factor. Some states impose penalties for each copy of the email sent out, which obviously nets even the onsie-twosie senders. The content of the spam is irrelevant. I didn't sign up for that list, I didn't ask for it to be sent, therefore it is at best a nuisance and at worst costly and debilitating to my network and systems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
38. Spam is NOT free speech!
Spam is advertising.

There's a big difference.

Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithras61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Freedom of speech is irrelevant...
The defining characteristics are that it is unsolicited (meaning I didn't sign up to get it, or unsubscribed and continue to get it), and it is commercial (meaning they want money, business or information form me). You don't have the right to call my phone unlimited times to sell me something, or to barge into my house and persuade me to buy, so why should you have the right to clog my email inbox with the same garbage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoganW Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. Ok
So what if DU decided to send every DUer some information about a new book for sale. Yet, lets say a republican happened to be on the list. What's to stop that republican from having DU admins arrested like this guy? Careful what you wish for Mith. If bush packs the courts you can expect that's exactly something they would do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Your analogy does not work
"So what if DU decided to send every DUer some information about a new book for sale. Yet, lets say a republican happened to be on the list."

If DU sent out a email promoting a book and it went to register members of DU that had previously agreed to receive the emails (promotions), then there is no problem. That includes any Puke lurkers that signed up. Frankly, since DU is free unless you want to donate (every donate btw), then a promotion from them is fine by me - as long as I agreed to receive it.

But you are mixed up if you think that is the same as someone harvesting my email address and then sending junk mail I never asked for. Your analogy does not work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
14. yeah, I hate spam, but that seems way too harsh
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. Can I post your email address and see if you change your mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. sure... it's root@localhost
knock yer'self out... :+
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #34
46. Is that your real email
Is that your real email or a second one you set up in case it gets trashed by junk email?

I was trying to make a point. Maybe I did not do that clearly. Of course I was not asking for your email address. The point I was trying to make is that one can not put up their email address on their website anymore because the spammers spider the net looking for emails to harvest. As soon as you put up your email, you get a tone of junk mail coming in.

We could try an experiment though. We could post the email address you gave on a few of the prime sites that spammers use to harvest emails and they you could report back how long that email address remains functional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. no, it was a joke...
Edited on Fri Apr-08-05 03:34 PM by ixion
root@localhost, in email speak, is an email to the root account of the local box. If you give that email to a spammer, their SMTP server would send a message to itself, essentially.

Please don't misunderstand me: I really hate spam. I went to the point of writing my own spam filter just so my life could be manageable again, because I was spending a great deal of time cleaning out my mailboxes.

While this is annoying, I don't think it's criminal, in the same way that I feel that violent crime is criminal. Rather, I see it as a civil matter. There should be fines, and there should be many hours of community service, but I don't think there should be prison.

Prison does absolutely nothing to rehabiliate an individual. Sending someone to prison very effectively destroys that persons life.

I don't think it's warranted in this case. I still maintain a website that has my email address on it, and I've come up with a way to track who sells my email address. Despite these lengths, I don't agree that a nine year prison sentence is fitting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Sorry, I did not pick up on that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. no problemo
I probably spend way too much time around email servers. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoganW Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
44. The punishment should fit the crime
When child molesters get less time than this something is SERIOUSLY wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. exactly...
I can see this guy having to serve a few months and then having to do some community service. What he did was annoying, but only vaguely criminal. It's more civil, really.

Violent offenders, habitual thieves and the like serve small amounts of time when compared to non-violent drug users, and now spammers.

Seriously, I hate spam. I went to the lengths of writing a custom spam filter to make my life easier. I get over a hundred spam emails a day, and I know people who get alot more than that.

I don't think, however, that a 'just' punishment is nine years in the pen. Since greed was his motive, let the guy do community service. It seems more fitting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #44
70. I agree completely
Anyone who molests a child should certainly get more than nine years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. It's vandalism causing millions of dollars in damage IMO.
It has to be stopped somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoganW Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. Oh please
how so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
entanglement Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. See post #17, they do more
than just flood your inbox.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
35. It clogs the internet with crap.
There were estimates of 80% of email is spam. Companies have to pay to have employees screen this stuff up,or get other companies to do it. Guess who pays for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoganW Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Screen what?
Edited on Fri Apr-08-05 03:10 PM by LoganW
My email address has been in existance for over 5 years. Guess how much junk mail I get a day? Maybe 2-3 at most. Why is that? Because I don't throw my email address around at everything that asks for it like an idiot.

Further, if you use news groups or EVER post your email address on an open web site ALWAYS write it as myemail@REMOVEaol.com. That eliminates a TON of spam.

There's a lot you can do to lessen spam. Unfortunately most people don't want to take the initiative and learn some simple things that they can do.

Further, clicking on remove links in spam really does help.

As far as companies having to spend money. Boo-fing-hoo. I'd rather them have to spend money than put a child molester out on the streets so they can put some spammer in jail.

No company has to pay anyone to screen spam. What company is nuts enough to do that? Most employees can be limited to internal email ONLY. That's all that's needed for most. Only those that do support/customer service via email (which isn't very great anyway) need email with those outside the company.

A more appropriate sentence would be to forbid spammers by court order from spamming, and stick them with hefty fines proportional to how much spam they sent.

BTW - I like the "or have other companies do it". It seems some companies have been formed just to leech off of other companies that don't have common sense. For example, many companies pay other companies to give potential employees personality tests that in fact don't work at all. Yet, they manage to count the cash for gimmicks like that. "Screening spam" would certainly be in that catagory when internal mail would solve the problem for just two hours of an IT employees wage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #40
56. You must enjoy getting phone calls at supper from solitcitors too.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
entanglement Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
17. The damage caused by spammers is
enormous. They drive up bandwidth costs for everyone. Spam-bots are major drivers of 'zombie' PCs. Spam unnecessarily congests networks, and a lot of it is attempted online fraud (ex. Nigerian scams), not to mention that it makes inbox management a nightmare. Lock the spammer up and throw away the key, I say. Do that to a few of these lowlifes and it will deter the rest of 'em. (however tough sentences won't deter spammers living outside the US, we'll need international cooperation to do that)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
22. Perhaps, it will set an example.......
Maybe a few of the bastards will even back off a little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youspeakmylanguage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
24. When it comes to the American justice system...
Edited on Fri Apr-08-05 01:42 PM by youspeakmylanguage
...sentences rarely reflect the true damage of the crimes. A petty thief can steal $50 from a convenience store and spend decades in prison, while someone who commits white-collar fraud usually steals much more and gets a much more lenient sentence, or at least a sentence in a more lenient correctional facility. Some would argue that the petty thief deserves a harsher penalty because his crime involved violence or the threat thereof.

A full-time spammer can steal millions from the American economy through lost productivity and increased IT costs. And if his spamming activities are on behalf of criminals engaging in phishing scams, his activities can directly benefit organized crime groups (mostly in Eastern Europe and Russia). Therefore I think spammers should be treated as harshly as a civil society would treat anyone guilty of stealing millions through non-violent theft and even prosecuting them via RICO if links to organized crime can be proven.

Also, if you think that fighting spam is a safe endeavor, ask yourselves what those organized crime groups that profit from phishing would do to someone disrupting any of their other illegal activities. I've heard stories of crackers (hackers engaging in illegal network intrusion) planting child porn on anti-spam systems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
26. Celebrate, Good Time!
Edited on Fri Apr-08-05 01:39 PM by slackmaster
Come On!

:party:

Fuck spammers. They've made some of my personal email accounts unusable, and waste millions of dollars in resources that businesses have to spend fighting them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoganW Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
29. Wow this is great news in my simplistic mind!
I hope all those who support this know that cases like this just cause child molsters and others on that level to get out of in order to make room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
31. Oh. Buy BIG CORP $$ Crooks get what.. 6 months if that. HARSH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
53. Then give the Greedy Corporation Crooks harsher sentences.
Then the Big Corp Crooks should get harsher sentences. This guy should get not one year less than the nine he has been given. I don't buy your logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
41. He basically stole millions. He got off light. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoganW Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
64. Really?
If I hit your car with mine did I "steal" from you? No of course not. I caused you damage in the form of money, but it's a different act than stealing. If I pulled a knife on you and TOOK your money in my hand and ran away with it that would be stealing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
entanglement Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
42. It seems most people
hate spam but love the spammer. Now haven't I heard something similar elsewhere? :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dryan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
54. Nine....
years is a little harsh. I would think 1-2 years would be sufficient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
58. Capital punishment would be more appropriate.
But this will do. :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #58
72. Or maybe caning ... followed by capital punishment.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #58
85. Yes, capital punishment.
Die, spammers, die.


"Prosperity is just around the corner." -- Herbert Hoover
"The economy has turned a corner." -- GW Bush

Herbert Hoover = GW Bush

Neither man cared about the Depression their economic policies created.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
59. They should fine him too...
say $1,000,000? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #59
84. For those advocating only this amount of money as a "sufficient" penalty.

According to an earlier post here a million would be substantially less than 2 months of revenue for him. Not sure what his costs are, but if you want the penalty to be one that he'll feel and make it monetary instead of prison time, depending on how long he's been doing it, I'd say it would have to be in the millionS of dollars. You can't make the penalty become just "a cost of doing business" that a lot of other companies treat the lighter penalties they get from lawsuits with caps on these financial penalties this administration want to give them. Otherwise, there's no disincentive towards people committing these crimes of this nature. They still come out ahead. Either heavy jailtime and/or take away *all* of their profits!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
61. My question is -
what are they going to do about the Chinese spammers? I get loads of spam from China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #61
80. The Chinese Government dealt with it
About a year ago it was nearly impossible to get legitimate email from China. The ISP's here were automatically blocking most all of it from China it seemed. The Chinese government made some noises about and perhaps took action to stop the spam originating from China. We went back to faxing for a while. Seems to have cleared up a bit now. Are you still getting tons of China spam?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #80
83. I'm getting some -
I'm not sure about TONS. :-) I kept one of them for a week to show everyone because it was hysterically funny. Most of them seem to be trying to sell me drugs. I have a spam program that keeps them out of my inbox, so I don't usually check them out - just delete them. But I really think the spam program is useless because the e-mails they catch have to be checked anyway to make sure they don't intercept one you really want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #83
87. I'll forward the 2,700 messages to the guy that thinks junk mail ok
This thread prompted me to check two email boxes I had no longer can use because they were overrun with junk mail. 1,800 junk emails in one and 900 in the other.

Some idiot in this thread or another thought spam should be allowed because it helps small business compete with large corporations.

I'm sure all those small business that sent all that junk email would love to get in touch with him. If someone has his email, give it to me. Next time I'll forward the 2,700 messages on to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockerdem Donating Member (706 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
63. Castrate the bastard
These pricks waste my time without asking. Concrete shoes in the Atlantic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoganW Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Do you know how much advertisement you get from corporations?
who get a free pass?

This guy causes you nothing compared to them. Watch tv or like the radio? You've probably heard far more advertising than this guy.

Both TV and radio bombard you with advertisements with out consent for something you pay for just like your email. (either in taxes and/or cable bills) The only difference is the corporations are able to spend millions on far more effective advertising.

Spam is the little persons advertising. With out cheap advertising like this how could a small business or individual possibly compete with corporations? Most can't put up millions for a TV spot.

If you're against spam you're essentially pro-big corporations and anti-small business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockerdem Donating Member (706 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-05 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Huh? You're seriously confused.
Edited on Fri Apr-08-05 04:48 PM by Rockerdem
If I choose a certain radio or TV channel, or read the local underground press, I volunteer to do it. I go in eyes wide open, fully understanding that sponsors pay the freight for the media I patronize. But spammers trespass on my slow internet connection without any benefit to me, and several times some have created great harm. They can rot in hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #67
89. More than seriously confused!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #65
81. You are saying we should subsidize business
"This guy causes you nothing compared to them. Watch tv or like the radio? You've probably heard far more advertising than this guy. Both TV and radio bombard you with advertisements..."

You reasoning is off. For the commercials you listen on radio and watch on TV you get to view programming without charge. The junk email you get costs you money. You are paying to read the guys advertisement.

"Spam is the little persons advertising. With out cheap advertising like this how could a small business or individual possibly compete with corporations? Most can't put up millions for a TV spot."

Nothing in business is free, or should be, no matter how small your business is. I don't want to pay to subsidize someone else's business. The equalizer you want is called the internet. It already allows a small company to compete on an equal footing with the big companies. Put together and effective, professional looking website, drive traffic to it through legitimate means, and you will get sales.

"If you're against spam you're essentially pro-big corporations and anti-small business."

Not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MeinaShaw Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #65
88. 2,700 of your business buddies want to talk to you. Give me your email add
I just checked two email boxes I can no longer use because they are overrun with junk mail. 1,800 in one and 900 in the other.

I'm sure all those small businesses that sent that junk email will appreciate that you want to hear from them. Give me your email and I'll forward the 2,700 messages to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
68. kick to combine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
69. Judge Sentences Spammer to Nine Years
Edited on Sat Apr-09-05 08:45 AM by NJCher
This is an important story because it is the first case of a felony conviction under the new spammer law. This guy sometimes grossed up to $750,000 a month.
-------------

(AP) - LEESBURG, Va.-A Virginia judge sentenced a spammer to nine years in prison Friday in the nation's first felony prosecution for sending junk e-mail, though the sentence was postponed while the case is appealed.

...

A jury had recommended the nine-year prison term after convicting Jeremy Jaynes of pumping out at least 10 million e-mails a day with the help of 16 high-speed lines, the kind of Internet capacity a 1,000-employee company would need.

...

"We're satisfied that the court upheld what 12 citizens of Virginia determined was an appropriate sentence - nine years in prison," Hicks-Thomas said.


http://news.public.findlaw.com/criminal/ap/o/624/04-08-2005/fec300173d7f11f1.html



Cher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
75. Man gets nine years for spamming
BBC


A man has been sentenced to nine years in jail by a Virginia judge for sending millions of junk emails, or "spamming".

Jeremy Jaynes, 30, is the first person in the US to get a prison term in a spam case. He is said to have been the world's eighth most prolific spammer.

By selling sham products and services advertised in his messages, he earned up to $750,000 (£398,000) per month.

Jaynes has appealed, and the court has put off the start of his prison term because the new law raises questions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4426949.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. Not enough. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #75
77. How can he earn 3/4 of a million a month
Does anyone actually buy the shit that is in spam e-mails? I seriously can't imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demgurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-05 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
82. I think he should have to pay everyone....
he sent spam to. Maybe no jail time but that is debatable.

Whenever I have been approached by someone on the street, someone knocking at my door, or even a telephone solicitor, I have always told them to give me $5 for fifteen minutes of my time. They look at me strangely and ask if I am serious and I say yes. I said I will listen if they believe in their product but it will be fifteen minutes of my life I will never ever be able to get back and they can pay me for it. With telephone solicitors I tell them they can mail it to me with their phone number and I will call them. They all turn around and walk away and to this day I have never received money in the mail!

If nothing else, this man took away time from someone's life. This is time they will never get back for their entire life. Time, that added up, is something significant. I think he should be made to pay each and every person he ever spammed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
86. you DO KNOW his SPAM was for BOGUS products right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-10-05 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
90. Man sentenced to a year in jail in hatchet slaying
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/11318524.htm

MOORHEAD, Minn. - The family of a man killed with a hatchet says a one-year sentence isn't enough for a man who witnessed the slaying and then helped clean up the crime scene.

Lee Solarski, 22, of Moorhead, reached a plea agreement in the December killing of David Hinojosa Jr. of Dilworth. Hinojosa was killed on a gravel road north of Glyndon; authorities said it was over a drug debt of $50 to $60.

"Even though Lee didn't kill my brother, he didn't try to help him," Jennifer Hinojosa, 14, wrote in a victim impact statement. "In my eyes you are a murderer as well as the other two."

Clay County Attorney Lisa Borgen defended the agreement, noting that Solarski will testify in first-degree murder trials for James Allen Gunderson, 22, of West Fargo, N.D., and John Jacob Cooper, 26, of Fargo, N.D.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC