Spammer Gets 9 Years

[TheDesigners]

Thought you all would like this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/interne....ap/index.html

[Silverbug]

Nice, its about time someone got done.

[generic]

nine years.

ok then theres the appeal where about 50% of the time is dropped, then you get day for day and 6 months off the top for good behavior and you end up eith 2 years in prison, then theres parol after 1/2 your sentence is serverd which puts him away for 1 year max. lets see. make over 750,000 a year, hes set for life now and and all you have to do is serve one year in prison... any takers

[dpyers]

There's some uncharted case law territory here. Apparently they gave him 9 years because the court didn't know what an appropriate sentence should be. It's intended to argue it out in the appeal. Which is one of the reasons they allowed him to remain at liberty pending the appeal.

The appeal will likely be focused on three points
- They arrested him 2 weeks after the law he's charged with breaking was passed which may not be enough time to comply with the law - particularly if no opportunity to comply with a new "unknown" law was presented first.
- Included in the indictment were charges for offenses he comitted before the law was passed.
- He was charged and tried in a state were he was neither a resident nor had any business interest or operations - Virginia - home of AOL - which is apparently the only reason that local was chosen.

[toddharr]

Check this out....

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050410

[mresell]

Originally Posted by dpyers

There's some uncharted case law territory here. Apparently they gave him 9 years because the court didn't know what an appropriate sentence should be. It's intended to argue it out in the appeal. Which is one of the reasons they allowed him to remain at liberty pending the appeal.

The appeal will likely be focused on three points
- They arrested him 2 weeks after the law he's charged with breaking was passed which may not be enough time to comply with the law - particularly if no opportunity to comply with a new "unknown" law was presented first.
- Included in the indictment were charges for offenses he comitted before the law was passed.
- He was charged and tried in a state were he was neither a resident nor had any business interest or operations - Virginia - home of AOL - which is apparently the only reason that local was chosen.

Well the crime he committed was in VA using AOL servers, supposedly. Not sure about time line tho. VA has the strictest spam laws. Glad to see it finally was applied. This is about more than junk mail. Really about fraud. Fraud is fraud. Altho, I would like to see less jail time and more fine for this. Unsolicited mail is bad, but my real issue is with obvious criminal intent. The publicity is a good thing.

Technical solutions would be better. We can very well go and convict violators in many other countries.

[dpyers]

The government has arrested people in the US who ran gambling servers in the Carribean under the claim that the crime was committed in the clients state (pc location) where the the bet was made from - not at the location of the gambling server.

In this instance, they seem to be saying that the crime was committed at the client's (AOL users) server location - not the location of the clients pc nor the location of the sending server.

Suppose I write a libelous (sp) article about you in Dallas and mail it to a newspaper in Washington who publishes it. Along the way, the mail went through a distribution center in Atlanta. Where would I be charged with libel? - bearing in mind that the newspapaer may have subscribers in both Atlanta and Dallas.

Personally, I think computer crime occurs where it interacts with the end-user, not in any start or interim location. In the past, the Gov. has also argued that way.
This case would make sense to me if it was for spam committed against AOL users in Virginia - not against AOL servers in Virginia, which is what the news media suggests.

[mresell]

Originally Posted by dpyers

The government has arrested people in the US who ran gambling servers in the Carribean under the claim that the crime was committed in the clients state (pc location) where the the bet was made from - not at the location of the gambling server.

In this instance, they seem to be saying that the crime was committed at the client's (AOL users) server location - not the location of the clients pc nor the location of the sending server.

Suppose I write a libelous (sp) article about you in Dallas and mail it to a newspaper in Washington who publishes it. Along the way, the mail went through a distribution center in Atlanta. Where would I be charged with libel? - bearing in mind that the newspapaer may have subscribers in both Atlanta and Dallas.

Personally, I think computer crime occurs where it interacts with the end-user, not in any start or interim location. In the past, the Gov. has also argued that way.
This case would make sense to me if it was for spam committed against AOL users in Virginia - not against AOL servers in Virginia, which is what the news media suggests.

Well, it is complex. There are alot of issues surrounding this. However, If someone is using AOL servers to commit a crime I feel AOL has legal recourse. It violates their TOS. That may make it a civil suit or at least part of it. But at least someone is finally prosecuting these
fraudsters. Like I said UCE is one thing, but the fraud in any way is the big problem for all involved. To me it is very similiar to mail fraud, but the problem there is the postal service IS the govt. the internet is not. At some point that could change. The govt. has a way of getting into things it shouldn't.

[DigitalSkyline]

Another example of, if it can't be taxed, it shall be illegal.

[dpyers]

Originally Posted by DigitalSkyline

Another example of, if it can't be taxed, it shall be illegal.

lol - I buy cigarettes online from Indian Reservations - no state taxes. I save $15-$20 per carton. Apparently the Attorney Generals of several states have asked the various charge card companies to report any sales to their state residents so they can go after the individuals for state cigarette taxes. The US credit card companies have agreed.

The online cigarette retailers are getting around this one by switching to banks in other countries for their merchant accounts.

[Silverbug]

Originally Posted by dpyers

lol - I buy cigarettes online from Indian Reservations - no state taxes. I save $15-$20 per carton. Apparently the Attorney Generals of several states have asked the various charge card companies to report any sales to their state residents so they can go after the individuals for state cigarette taxes. The US credit card companies have agreed.

The online cigarette retailers are getting around this one by switching to banks in other countries for their merchant accounts.

lol scammy

[DigitalSkyline]

glad I dont smoke...that sh is expensive!

[Altair]

The whole idea of spamming isn't a new one. I don't see people trying to press charges against the credit card companies because they receive offers in the mail. Oh, but that's different, they are using the government to to send there snail spam instead of AOL and they are just killing trees to create their printed mail. If AOL cannot secure their servers from this type of use, then they need to get new techs.

I don't agree with spam, but you cannot put some one in jail for sending an offer to you, otherwise there are a bunch of companies that should be dissolved and their owners put in jail.

In this case he broke an agreement. He should be dropped from AOL and at the absolute worst, fined. Lawmakers are trying to control something that is beyond controlling... The Web.

The people that receive "spam" typically do it to themselves, by giving out their email address to everyone. There are some that use "intelligent" systems that guess at email addresses, but then these people reply to the message which simply validates the email address.

People on the web need to wise up, or they will get trampled.

[toddharr]

I must respectfully disagree with you, Altair. When you snailmail me spam you pay the postage. When you email me, and the ISP charges me more to cover the cost of all the spam they carry, I pay part of the postage.

Email spam is "Postage Due"! It is also so overwhelming in volume, hiding my real email in a 100-1 ratio of junk. It's like the post office delivering a mailbag of junk every day with my few real mails having to be hunted out of the pile.

I've tried to use non-flammable phrasing here, but I know that any discussion on this topic risks devolving into flames. Be gentle with me, you follow on posters! <Grin>

Thats my opinion, make of it what you will

Todd

[DigitalSkyline]

True... but the punishment should fit the crime. Spamming should not be punishable by more then probation/fines/a year in jail for repeat offenders... unless there are other factors like fraud, identity theft etc.

9 years is ridiculous... what next a year in prison for jay walking?