Posted by
Hemos
on from the good-riddance-to-bad-rubish dept.
KjetilK writes "Ananova reports in an article that two spammers have been jailed for two years after sending 50 million e-mails. According to the story, 12,000 people bought their scam. May they be served SPAM every day in jail."
That's a good question. It probably will never be known until the next case comes up. What confuses me is, if online spammers should be jailed, what about the people who make and advertise the meat?
==
This was a pretty liberal judge as it turns out, he had a laptop on his desktop the whole time. My cousin thought he saw what looked like gnome running on it but he couldn't be sure.
==
... and let me guess, Netscape was open and it looked like the judge was browsing slashdot.
According to the article, they plead guilty to fraud back in December '99. Either it took 12 months for them to get sentenced or there was more to this case than just the fraud. The article implies that the impact their behavior had on several ISPs was a factor (either as a charge that didn't get explicitly mentioned by the article or a contributing factor during sentencing). I'd argue that the article is less than clear on the issue and most likely this was a detail that didn't overly concern the reporter.
Either it took 12 months for them to get sentenced or there was more to this case than just the fraud
This is quite possible becuse the justice system moves INCREDIBLY slow. If you've ever seen it in action (and not tv version) you'd understand. Cases can drag on for 2-3 years.
Re:/. post is misleading
by
St.+Vitus
·
· Score: 1
The post did not say they were jailed for spamming. Read it again.
NO ONE can eat SPAM every day for longer than a week...it's just not natural. Then again, maybe spammers aren't natural either. I'll leave that question to the philosophers
--
You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB
jailed for fraud, not spamming
by
jkorty
·
· Score: 1
These two guys weren't jailed for spamming. They were jailed for duping people out of their money. I'm still waiting for a *real* spamming conviction.
jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
tolldog
·
· Score: 2
Reading the article, they are jailed for fraud, not for spamming.
Big deal.
People get jailed for that all the time.
I want to see people jailed just for sending spam.
-- -I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
garcia
·
· Score: 3
no you don't. We have enough problems w/people being jailed for stupid fucking crimes (possession of marijuana, fraud, money laundering). We need to put people away for murder, rape, major drug production and moving. We can't find kidnappers, rapists, and murders, but we can track down two idiots who sent out 50 million emails and had 12k idiots fall for their ploy...
Fill the prisons with REAL criminals not stupid idiots. They should be put on house arrest and served SPAM, not taking up space in the already overcrowded system..
Just my worthless.02
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
grytpype
·
· Score: 1
I cannot think of another case where con artists who used spam to con people were sent to jail over it. If you can think of such a case, post a link. Otherwise, shut up.
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
M.+Silver
·
· Score: 1
We need to put people away for murder, rape, major drug production and moving.
Whoa. It's illegal to move? Dang. And I had my eye on a nice three-bedroom Victorian.
--
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
The+Good+Reverend
·
· Score: 1
We can't find kidnappers, rapists, and murders, but we can track down two idiots who sent out 50 million emails and had 12k idiots fall for their ploy..
I agree with your other points, but it does tend to be quite a bit easier to find someone who's interested in selling you something. They have to pick up your money somewhere, most likely the place you send it.
The Good Reverend
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
KjetilK
·
· Score: 1
Reading the article, they are jailed for fraud, not for spamming.
Big deal.
True. And I never wrote they were jailed for spamming.
However, most of my spam is of the same sort these two spammers were pushing, so I'd say it is a big deal. Or at least a deal.
-- Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
TheCarp
·
· Score: 1
Excuse me but... fraud isn't a real crime?
Fraud... willfully disseminating false information for the purpose of doing or aquiring things that you are not entitled to?
As for drug production and moving... I see no reason to jail them, they are just filling a profitable market. I think they should have the FDA sent after them and be forced to slap ingredients labels on their products and do real quality assurance testing.
I think these con artists, because thats what they are, are the "Real Criminals". They are offering a product that they do not provide, they are stealing resources from ISPs and the rest of the net. They ARE cheating and swindling people out of their money, and giving headaches to admins in the process.
They are leaches on society. At least drug producers are providing people with a product that they actually want! Spammers force their junk on everyone, and use stolen resources to do it.
Imagine you walk into a store and purchase a large peice of furnature...they take your money and say "Just drive around back to the loading dock and we will load it on your vehicle"...then when you drive around noone is there and upon going back into the store, the clerk claims that he never saw you before and has no idea what your talking about. Are you saying this man would not be a "Real criminal" worthy of jail time? Thats effectivly what many of these spammers are doing.
Its fraud. Advertising using forged headers and obfuscating where your comming from... thats fraud too. These people are "Real criminals".
-Steve
-- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
Zachary+Kessin
·
· Score: 2
I would call fraud a very real crime. The main point of fraud is selling something under false pretense. Generaly fraud is directed at the people who can least afford it, the old, immigrants etc. Let the bastards rot.
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
-- Erlang Developer and podcaster
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
garcia
·
· Score: 1
sorry, your point is overexaggerated and worthless. Drug smugglers and dealers and lords, murderers, rapists, and kidnappers do much more damage to society than fraudulant idiots...
But what do I know?
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
Nehemiah+S.
·
· Score: 3
The war on drugs qua drugs and drug users qua drug users is ridiculous. People should be able to do anything that doesn't hurt others- which means that we should definitely have a war on drug addicts who murder, rape, rob, etc., but only on those people, not on harmless druggies. Money laundering is a crime which hurts me by masking crime or by forcing me to pay higher taxes, therefore it should be enforced as well.
Spamming hurts me in less tangible ways- they eat my time and my bandwidth. I think that spammers should be fined, not jailed, at a rate proportional to the amount the person reading the emails would have earned in the amount of time he spent reading the email (say one second per word, with a minimum fine on the order of $.50). People could rate their email addresses at whatever amount the wished to, and the spammers could decide what price they were willing to pay to broadcast their spam. People who didn't pay the fines should go to jail.
That would bring unsolicited email barriers to entry up to the level of USPS mail, and help to solve the problems (as well as make me some money, fast.)
Neh
-- ... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be where the eye of his telescope has already been
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
walt-sjc
·
· Score: 1
And you have proof of this? Fraud costs us BILLIONS. Does anyone remember the S&L bailouts that we taxpayers had to deal with? And anyone remember WHY the S&L's failed? The fraud that happens everyday by corporations and government harms ALL of us. Murderers, rapists, and kidnappers only harm individuals.
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
TheCarp
·
· Score: 1
That depends what you mean by "more damage" now doesn't it.
I wont agree on Drug dealers... unless you are talking about when they cheat people out (making them fradulent) or engage in turf wars - all things that are products of prohibition, not the actual profession of selling drugs (pharmasists are in the same buisness)
However the others... does a single murderer or rapist who commits a single murder or rape do more harm to society than a single con artist who fraudulently cheats 1 "dupe"?
Ok yes, in that case I would agree with you. However, while a murderer may kill one person (usually out of rage; few murders are actually planned acts) or a rapist may rape a few before he is caught.... a con artist will go on ripping off person after person. Its a willfull, planned, calculated act
Thes particular con artists ripped off 12,000 people, in a rather trivial manner. If unpunished, they could easily do it again and again. I can't remember the last time 12,000 people were killed all in one act, at least not without the sanctioning of some government.
Should rapists and murderers be let go free? Hell no. They are horrid crimes that should not be allowed, but neither should fraud be allowed. They are theives.
-- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
TekPolitik
·
· Score: 1
I want to see people jailed just for sending spam.
In Australia, somebody has been jailed for sending spam through unauthorised 3rd party relays - is that close enough?
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
Gone+Jackal
·
· Score: 1
True, but, guess what? spam isn't illegal! Wow, who would have thought? Spam itself probably won't (and shouldn't) be illegal for a very long time; spammers are going to get jailed for related crimes, though, and if it takes fraud charges to put them there, I certainly don't mind. Think about Mr. Capone's sentence for tax evasion after years and years of murder, theft, and god only knows what else.
Besides, if there is ever a law passed against spam, it will be because of cases like this. If you notice, the dumbest articles posted around here, even if Mrs. Taco and Hemos never realize it, are interesting for reasons never alluded to in the post.
--
"Oh Bother", said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh."
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 2
>Drug smugglers and dealers and lords, murderers, rapists, and
kidnappers do much more damage to society than fraudulant idiots...
Please differentiate your crimes. While I agree the original poster was a bit over-the-top, he's got a point.
Spam is theft - spammers steal resources from ISPs and recipients and deliver a "product" nobody wants.
Fraud is, well, fraud - merely a more sophisticated form of theft, whereby the theft is accomplished by deceiving the "mark", rather than brute force, such as abusing an open relay.
Drug "crimes" - well, if the stuff were legal and regulated (umm, like alcohol and tobacco), the "smugglers" wouldn't have jobs, and the "dealers" would be regular guys behind the counter of your local grocery store. Drug "lords" would just be CEOs of, umm, tobacco companies?;-)
If your argument is that "drug folks" cause harm to users of drugs, might I remind you that most of those drug users choose to use their drug of choice? They're not victims, they're customers.
If your argument is that "drug folks" cause harm to the rest of us, might I ask you to differentiate between the harm caused by the individuals on drugs (drunk/stoned drivers), as opposed to the harm caused by crimes (usually theft) committed by users to either (a) obtain drugs at artificially-inflated prices, or (b) the crimes (usually murder/assaults) committed by those in the industry to protect marketshare/turf. Legalization would likely greatly cut down on both of these forms of harm.
Unlike drug users, however, murderers, rapists and kidnappers all cause harm without the consent of their victims.
And in that respect (my own turn for hyperbole), the murderer, rapist, and kidnapper really do have more in common with the spammer (a variant of "thief") than individuals involved in the (illicit) drug industry.
(Of course, if you wanna nail the Board of Directors of $BIG_TOBACCO_INC for fraud for saying that smoking tobacco doesn't cause cancer, I'm with ya. At least your local drug dealer has the integrity to say "y'know, this shit'll kill ya!" as you fork over the dough:-)
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
Schnedt+Microne
·
· Score: 2
If you carefully re-read his (admittedly poorly worded) comment, I think you will find you can have confidence in moving into that nice three-bedroom Victorian. Just don't move the three kilos of hashish down in your basement into it.
-- Hay thar.
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
kwerle
·
· Score: 1
People should be able to do anything that doesn't hurt others- which means that we should definitely have a war on drug addicts who murder, rape, rob, etc., but only on those people, not on harmless druggies...
Spamming hurts me in less tangible ways- they eat my time and my bandwidth
I can't believe nobody has called you on this.
Drug users (aka smokers, alcoholics, etc) "[hurt you] in less tangible ways-". They affect the cost of your healthcare & taxes.
It's a tough call - certainly harder than you make it out to be...
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
Shemp
·
· Score: 1
You say we shouldn't punish people who use drugs. How about people who abuse drugs? Abuse them so badly that they can't live without them? You say that money laundering is a punishable crime because it makes you pay higher taxes. What about welfare for the the druggie who can't hold a job? What about the cost of medical care for him when he overdoses? There's my tax dollars at work.
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
Howie
·
· Score: 1
What about welfare for the the druggie who can't hold a job? What about the cost of medical care for him when he overdoses? There's my tax dollars at work.
How much do you suppose it costs to keep someone in a prison?
According to Peter McWilliams, $29 billion is spent annually to catch and incarcerate "drug possessors, users, manufacturers, and traffickers" - that's your tax dollars at work.
-- "don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
Re:jailed for scaming, not spaming
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
Spamming hurts me in less tangible ways- they eat my time and my bandwidth. I think that spammers should be fined, not jailed, at a rate proportional to the amount the person reading the emails would have earned in the amount of time he spent reading the email (say one second per word, with a minimum fine on the order of $.50).
Remember though that many spammers also enguage in other criminal activities, such as fraud.
According to the article, they pleaded guilty to fraud charges. Article says: They then sent a mass e-mailing, asking recipients for a £24 "processing fee" in exchange for a chance to work at home stuffing envelopes.
I'm a firm believer in the notion of a hands off policy about the Internet from the government. This is a new territory, not contained within the bounds of any one nation, yet governments attempt to enforce their will on it.
This is a case where the veracity of the Internet communities request for autonomy is really called into question. Can we have it both ways? Can we call in the cops when needed, but kick them out as soon as we are done with them?
I think this seems good on the surface, but has set a dangerous precendent about how much interference we are willing to allow by a national government. However, the question would remain, how would the Internet police itself and enforce judgement, without the help of nations?
This might be the most deceptively dangerous action in the Internet in the past few years, IMHO.
-- "Moving through the masses like a fish through water."
syrup
Well fundamentaly this is not a "Net" crime, this is fraud, using the Internet. If I do something that is illegal in the real world but do it online that should not make it any less Illegal.
For example if I were to call you and say "I hate you and am Going to kill you" I can reasonably expect the cops to be knocking on my door. I don't see why it should be any different if sent you an email that said the same thing.
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
true, but the tone of the slashdot post as well as the overall mood here is that spamming itself should be illegal as well. I think illegalizing mass-email itself is really dangerous, since such a law can likely be stretched by those in power to inhibit the electronic versions of things like policial campaigns, anti-government/corporate protests, boycotts, etc.
I doubt there are any crimes on the net that don't have at least something happening in the real world, so if you had to do something like that, then you simply have the government(s) of the relevant countr(y|ies)/state(s)/province(s) etc. catch the people for whatever real-world crime they've committed.
According to this page, 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.
here on/., there are two discussions going on simultaneously, and it seems some of the same users are in both.
In one, people are being righteously indignant that France has the audacity to tell Yahoo not to send data into the country that France finds offensive.
In this discussion, people are talking about how we need to stop spammers from sending us data we find offensive.
It's okay for the state of washington to pass a law outlawing spam (whatever spam is. Most people seem to define spam as "whatever I point at and call spam"). it's not okay for the country of france to pass a law outlawing nazi memorabilia. We find spam offensive. They find nazi memorabilia offensive. But it's okay for US to ban spam, and not okay for THEM to ban nazi memorabilia.
anyone else see a double standard here? Or are our ethics basically boiling down to "if we're for it, it's okay, if we're against it, it's not"?
If it's okay for the US (or a part of the US, like Washington) to ban spam -- why isn't it okay for France to ban what it thinks ought to be banned? Especially since so much spam these days originates from non-US hosts, either because the spammers are out there, or because spammers are using overseas relay machines.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome
=
When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell
France is a country doing something on the behalf of its people, not a person itself. It's quite possible that there are a few people in France who want Nazi or KKK regalia for whatever reason. France has taken it upon itself to tell those people that they cannot purchase these items. This is obviously an issue based in subjective morality - in other words, France thinks it knows what's better than its citizens. This may or may not be true, but it's not really the issue here.
On the other hand, spam is by definition not solicited. It is unwanted and unasked for. It is also effectively a form of 'postage due' advertising, where the recipient pays the cost of distribution and storage. And while Yahoo only takes money from those who want the products advertised within, spam is (once again, by definition) sent to people who aren't given the opportunity to opt-out before they ever see or pay for it.
Your analogy would be correct if France were complaining about Yahoo forcing people to pay for Nazi and KKK stuff they didn't want. This is not the case.
Spam is not and never has been about content. I don't care if it's porn or something from a mainstream corporation - it's about cost shifting, not the content itself. It's about not being forced to effectively pay for the extra resource consumption your ISP incurs via higher usage fees.
(note: I work as an abuse handler at a mid-sized web hosting company, and know that we could afford to charge our customers less if spammers didn't take up so much time and resources)
Sir, you have raised excellent points and brought forth questions I too would love to have answered by the group of "wave the flag at all costs" Americans that make up such a large percentage of the total users around Slashdot. Sadly, since you have found one of the countless number of glaring holes in the armor of patriotism in the US, you will likely be greeted by nothing but flames and other nonsensical ramblings (the non moderation of your very insightful post is an excellent example).
An honest answer from this group to the question you posed is unlikely at best, but I wish to congratulate you on capturing the true hypocrisy of many (not all) Americans.
Re:Fines in Washington
by
marvinglenn
·
· Score: 2
No, Washington (state) law does NOT have that provision. It got struck down by the court about a year ago over state to state jurisdictional issues when the state's prosecuting attorney tried to LART a spammer in Oregon.
IANAL-BILIW I am not a lawyer, but I live in WA
-- The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
Spam has nothing to do with freedom, it has to do with stealing resources.
Is it protected speach to compile a list of addresses and credit card numbers (without the knowledge of the owner), and for each address charge 50 cents to the associated credit
card number to pay for production and shipping
of your product catalog to the address?
-- -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
ask anyone prosecuted under the "local standards" provisions for erotic content, whether it's Mapplethorpe in Cincinatti or the local comic book shop owner in Utah.
the problem with the definition is that if you can't agree on the definition, you can't build legislation or tools to stop it, because everyone has a different idea of what it is. And you run the risk that someone else will simply define what YOU do as spam, and then beat your face in because they don't like it. it's really nice to be able to point at stuff and demand we burn the witches, until someone points at you.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome
=
When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell
No dude.
Yahoo is trying to prevent offensive material from PUBLIC broadcast. We are trying to prevent offensive material from being PERSONALLY delivered into our email accounts. And lets not forget that receiving SPAM costs you money...
More than 12,000 people were duped. Internet providers, including AOL, AT&T and Mindspring, were besieged by customer complaints and their systems were threatened by the overload.
The plea agreements require the men to reveal to the internet providers how they accomplished their scheme.
Here we go, everybody get ready for a constant battering of emails from large internet providers claiming faster service and lower rates. Thanks for adding another powerful weapon to the world of spamming
I think they should have been orderd to keep their mouths shut.
-- I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Uh..."SPAM" is not a synonym to "fraud"
by
boinger
·
· Score: 1
These people happened to deliver their scam via unsolicited email. That's not why they're being imprisoned.
Just like Jim Bakker didn't go to jail for being married to a woman with no fasion sense. That's just peripheral information.
-- Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Re:Uh..."SPAM" is not a synonym to "fraud"
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 1
>"SPAM" is not a synonym to "fraud"
(You obviously haven't gotten much spam in the past three years.;-)
The plea agreements require the men to reveal to the internet providers how they accomplished their scheme.
Doesn't seem like too much of a mystery to me... I sincerely hope they didn't get out of much jail time in turn for explaining how to use spammer software!
The real mystery is how they managed to trick 12,000 people out of almost $350,000 with such a pathetic scam.
Actually, its not really much of a mystery HOW. The reason these scams are still so prevalant is they work VERY well (for the scammer anyways). There are a lot of people in this world that will do almost anything for an easy buck that they will jump on any scam they are offered, sending in money blindly. Then when it doesn't work out, they'll jump on the next scam, even if it doesn't differ from the first one. This has been going on for years, even before the internet was popular.
Consider the fact though, 12,000 out of 50 million really isn't THAT many. A junk mailer doing this through the postal service wouldn't stand a chance of even recovering his money, let alone making a significant profit. But spam, its all gravy. That is why spam will continue to be prominant.
I do approve of the method of shutting them down though. Many times you don't even have to attack the act of spamming as most spammers are disreputable to begin with, and there is certainly some other legal issue you can snag them on.
Nothing about 50 million emails would give any "internet provider" more than a tiny blip on the radar. These observations about "almost brought the largest internet providers to a standstill" are untrue.
If the providers made the argument in court, in order to convict, I can understand it. But it cannot be true.
-- - In a knowledge based industry your main asset will always be people -
Internet Idiot Quotient (IIQ)
by
scotch
·
· Score: 4
Let's see, they sent out 50,000,000 emails, and
successfully suckered 12,000 people? This seems like a phenomenol hit rate - 1 in ~4100 or so. Considering many emails were probably never delivered, or rejected by filters, that's much better than I thought it would be. A sucker logs on every minute
-- XML causes global warming.
Re:Internet Idiot Quotient (IIQ)
by
JLester
·
· Score: 1
That's why spam will never stop. It's unbelievable that there are that many idiots out there that respond to these messages. As long as they do though, the spammers will have a huge incentive to keep doing it.
Lets give em a taste of what they gave us
by
wackysootroom
·
· Score: 2
I have an idea:
Lets find out what jail these guys are at and all get together to send these guys a package conataining 1 can of spam, and 1 $24 offer to make money stamping license plates!
Re:Lets give em a taste of what they gave us
by
sharkey
·
· Score: 1
AND...
Offers for deviant, homosexual rape web sites.
--
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Ok, so they got nailed for fraud, and not for the spam itself.
I sitll beleive that the 69,000pounds (about 120,000$USD) plus 2 years isn't an adequate sentence.
I thing the spammers should be sentenced to manually compose a personalized excuse email to every one of the 12,000 who bought their spam plus, of course, refund of the extorted money).
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
The main problem with Spam is the lack of interest from law enforcement in persecuting people who engage in spamming practices. While many spammers act like crackers in order to hijack open mail relays in to being spam amplifiers, not one spammer has been given the Kevin Mitnick treatment.
Spam costs real money to the ISPs that become unintentional spam victims, the free mail domains that spammers forge return addresses from, the victims who purchase commercial software from people not smart enough to set up a mail server to not be an open relay, and the sysadmins that have to constantly refine their spam filters from spammers continual spam filter dodging techniques.
As long as spammers do not get sent to jail for their acitons, they will continue to spam. These people could care less if they make 10,000,000 people angry, as long as they get a few thousand dollars by scamming ignorant internet users.
The only way to make the internet a place where people feel safe putting their east-to-remeber email address on a web page, in a usenet posting, or in the whois data for a domain is to make spamming a crime, and to prosecute spammers to the fullest extent of the law.
BTW, I have written some pretty effective anti-spamming software here. Note that this software only runs on Linux/Unix machines. Windows users can use sneakemail.
- Sam
--
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
the victims who purchase commercial software from people not smart enough to set up a mail server to not be an open relay
But the creators of such software are certainly not "victims" they are "fools". In order to make a relaying SMTP system involved extra coding in the first place. There are no good reasons at all to ship the product with relaying (let alone open relaying) turned on by default. I'm not even sure that the people who buy such software are really "victims". More incompetants pretending to by sys admins.
Ok, so the spammed and scammed. Which were they jailed for? My guess is the latter.
---
I guess it's too hard to read the fscking headline
by
Zico
·
· Score: 1
Even the headline of the damn article says that they were jailed over the scam, not for spamming.
Let's see, in the past couple of days, we've had the Sprint TOS that "makes porn-viewing illegal!!!" which didn't, the Apple "suit against FreeType!!!" that wasn't, and now this totally misleading article. Everytime I think Slashdot's sunk to a new low, they go the extra mile. Way to go, Hemos!
Cheers,
In my country: abuse of community resources
by
devphil
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, just fraud. And the people they defrauded were stupid, too. (I'm going to pay money for an opportunity to work at home... waitaminute.)
I want to see people jailed just for sending spam.
My dream is to secede from the Earth. Build a gigantic space station, or a Niven ring. And in my country -- of course I'm the benevolent dictator, what the freak did you expect -- spamming would be illegal, under the category of "abuse of community resources," which on an isolated space station would be a pretty serious crime...
...punishable by deportation to Earth.
-- You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Re:Sadly, they were convicted of fraud, not spammi
by
jtdubs
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, there ARE jobs stuffing envelopes. Stop by your local temp agency and ask them. My girlfriend is currently making $7 an hour stuffing envelopes during christmas break (from college). Fun stuff from what it sounds.... or something....:-)
Justin Dubs
Firing squad more appropriate
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Well, I can already hear the Libertarian contingent of slashdot crying out in protest now, about how it is these people's God Given Right to send 500,000 emails all around the world at the press of a button. After all, this is legitimate enterpreuerial activity, is it not?
Let's have a look at some of the spam I get daily. "MAKE MONEY FAST!! - LEGITIMATE HOME INCOME OPPORTUNITY!". "Are you READY - For a 10 INCH PENIS??". "Re: The information you requested".
Every single person involved, anywhere along the line, in this shit reaching my mailbox should be summarily executed without trial. No questions asked, no tears shed. Maybe make them do a few years hard labour first, fine - as long as their eventual fate is to be put up against a wall and shot repeatedly in the torso and genitalia, I don't care.
Write a letter to your congressman, and Fuhrer Bush, and tell them you want action NOW on getting the death penalty written into spam propagation laws. It's the humane thing to do.
en
Did they REALLY get jail time?
by
walt-sjc
·
· Score: 2
They may have been sentenced to two years, but that may have been suspended due to the plea agreement. Why would the prosecutor would go into a plea agreement to find out how they spammed? Everyone KNOWS how spam is sent and how spammers work. The problem is how to FIX the problem without breaking email for everyone else....
Most spammers just use poorly configured email systems (or email systems running VERY outdated software) in random contries around the world. Many of these systems don't log or validate connections so it
makes things VERY difficult to deal with.
Several things have to change before the spam problem will go away.
ALL ISP's need to block outgoing port 25 from cablemodems / DSL / dialups. Require users to use the ISP's mail servers. Exceptions can be made for "powerusers" who sign a contract. (this can happen NOW and could drastically reduce spam today.)
ISP's need to install rate limiters / spam detection on the mail servers (this can also happen today.)
Get everyone to upgrade to secure DNS and authenticated SMTP for server to server transactions. (This will take a couple years.)
It's not hard, but it may take pressure from congress to force ISP's to enact these measures.
ISP's are unwilling to do things themselves as they are too busy making money off spammers, and they are lazy. Make the ISP's liable for SPAM and THEN they will act.
Re:Did they REALLY get jail time?
by
SomeoneGotMyNick
·
· Score: 1
ALL ISP's need to block outgoing port 25 from cablemodems / DSL / dialups. Require users to use the ISP's mail servers.
That'll piss off anybody who runs a website through a virtual server located offsite from their ISP. Most ISP's wouldn't want to take the time to reconfigure their servers to every unique domain name being used for e-mail on multiple virtual web sites.
Been there, done that, switched ISP's because of it.
Re:Did they REALLY get jail time?
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 2
>ALL ISP's need to block outgoing port 25 from cablemodems / DSL / dialups. Require users to use the ISP's
mail servers. Exceptions can be made for "powerusers" who sign a contract. (this can happen NOW and could
drastically reduce spam today.)
Amen. If uu.net forced their "resellers" (typically large ISPs who lease POPs from spew-u.net) to block port 25, spam would probably drop by 40-50%.
Uunet is the source of 90% of the spam on the 'net today. Has been ever since Dialsprint blocked port 25. Unlike Dialsprint, uu.net has consistently opposed port 25 blocking, and has refused to block it for more than three years.
Props to Dialsprint for doing the right thing, even if it was six months late. As for uu.net, they can felch these two jailbird spammers' asses after Bubba's done fucking 'em. One load for every spam their customers send.
Aaw, hell, who am I kidding? Even that's too good for uu.net. Just firewall every IP they own at the router, and use procmail to bounce any mail with a uu.net IP address in any header to abuse@uu.net as a spam report.
When was the last time anybody actually got legitimate mail from a user on a uu.net dialup anyways?
Re:Did they REALLY get jail time?
by
mpe
·
· Score: 2
ALL ISP's need to block outgoing port 25 from cablemodems / DSL / dialups. Require users to use the ISP's mail servers. Exceptions can be made for "powerusers" who sign a contract. (this can happen NOW and could drastically reduce spam today.)
Third party relaying (incuding ISP provided third party relays) are part of the problem. As they were never part of the spec in the first place, my solution would be to get rid of all of them. If you want to send SMTP email you then have only one choice, follow RFC974. Without mass third party relaying any email who's headers show it has been through a third party relay will be obvious. (A popular spammer technique is to make the spammers real machine look like a third party relay. It's also slower to send the same message to multiple recipients directly than through a third party relay. (especially if the spammers machine also has to process identd queries for every one.)
ISP's need to install rate limiters / spam detection on the mail servers (this can also happen today.)
It's far easier to do this through routers.
Forced third party relaying adds a bottleneck for everyone, spammers are rarely a majority of users. Another part is to reduce the usage of dynamic IP addresses (and make any dynamic IP addresses less "dynamic"). Thus making it harder for a spammer to hide by changing IP address frequently.
Get everyone to upgrade to secure DNS and authenticated SMTP for server to server transactions. (This will take a couple years.)
If this is workable then third party relays are still redundant.
Hate SPAM? Dont we all! Well now you can actually do something to prevent spamming! That's right, but this offer won't last forever, so act now before it's too late. For the introductory low, low price of only $19.95, you can rest assured that you will never receive another SPAM email again. Simply send your Visa or Mastercard number to this address. Hurry, before it's too late!
Penguins love Salmon, but hate the taste of SPAM. The Linux Pimp
That reminds me of the only spam I have ever replied to. I received a spam saying basically, "Don't you hate receiving unsolocited email? We all do! Send me $25 and I will send you my book on beating back spam! It really works!"
They included a PO Box in the email, so I sent them a letter saying "Wow, you are so stupid." Sure, it probably didn't bother them that much (maybe I ruined the anticipation of a $25 check), but I felt better.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
atrowe
·
· Score: 1
I understand that spam can be annoying sometimes, but I can usually tell which are spam and which are actual messages directed to me by reading the subject. I simply check off all the spam and click "delete". At most, I've wasted 30 seconds out of my day. While I don't think spamming is the best way of making potential customers aware of your product or services (I personally don't purchase anything from spammers), I believe strongly in the First Amendment right of free speech and I believe that all speech, be it good or bad, should be protected.
I think it's absolutely rediculous that people are actually being thrown in jail for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech. I vaguely recall hearing that it costs the government somewhere around $35,000/yr to keep someone in jail. I damn sure don't want my hard earned dollars going towards this travesty of freedom. Our prisons are crowded enough as they are, shouldn't we be spending our tax dollars putting real criminals behind bars. You anti-spam people are so adamant about doing "whatever it takes" to prevent spam, but it gets to the point where the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Perhaps you should take a step back from your crusade for a moment and think again about the way our country is today when a spammer gets locked up and the rapists, murderers and drug users out there are roaming around, free to prey on our children and loved ones.
--
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
atrowe
·
· Score: 1
sorry about that bold tag. I was pretty pissed when I wrote that and I should have proofread it.
--
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Re:I guess it's too hard to read the fscking headl
by
KjetilK
·
· Score: 1
So where did I say they went to jail for spamming?
How about you reading the post?
OK, perhaps I should have posted what I posted in news.admin.net-abuse.email:
I just came across an article that reports that two spammers got two
years in jail each for fraud
I'll nevertheless insist that what is relevant in this context is that they were spammers, and that they advertized their scam by mass e-mail.
-- Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Yes, but does the Constitution give the right for
you to use my resources to communicate your message? Does this mean that if I am a book binder, that every book I print has to have a section somewhere that you are allowed to scribble whatever you want to in? So that my means of data transport is supporting your message?
Translation: When my mail server, including my bandwidth that I bought and my diskspace to cache your mail, is in subjugation to your spam email, I don't think it is any longer in the purview of Constitutional protection.
Consider instead putting up a website (where you pay for your own diskspace and bandwidth) and then putting listings to your website into popular search engines, even putting info into newsgroups intended for the purpose. But don't try to use my resources to push your message.
_lpp
Making money and the Internet
by
cecil36
·
· Score: 1
There are scams, schemes, and all kinds of other ways to make money on the Internet. Many people feel that spam is the best way to go, as they can reach millions of people (as it was shown in the article mentioned here). If e-tailers were smart (and there are some out there), they would be able to increase their sales and reduce their advertising expenses at the same time by just offering referral programs to their customers. Word of mouth advertising has been around since the dawn of commerce, and will never go away.
I have to disagree, I stuffed many an envelope when I was a poor student back in '94-'95. Of course, that wasn't my only job duty and I wasn't Working From Home. Nonetheless....
I even asked the boss once, why I (I was working alone) was stuffing envelopes by hand when there are machines that do the same thing. He said something about how people were more likely to open an envelope that had been stamped by a human (actual physical stamp, applied less than perfectly aligned). -- MailOne
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
Zachary+Kessin
·
· Score: 4
Yes it is. The problem with arguing this from a free speach point of view is this. You are free to go stand on a soap box on a corner and rant about whatever you feal like, simmilarly you can make up flyers and post them around town. That is protected.
The problem is that if I send 10,000 emails or more via 1 ISP you have used a lot of the resources of that ISP. You have basicly made them support you free speach. Which you do not have the right to do. Similarly if you send a letter to the editor of a newspaper he does not have to print it. So while SPAM may cost you or me as end users a few seconds of time in the case of an ISP it may tie up a mail server for hours, during which time other emails are being delayed.
The other thing is that just because we are arresting spamers (And in this case it appears that fraud was what they were arrested for) it does not mean that we are not also hunting down Murderers and Rapists.
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
-- Erlang Developer and podcaster
SpamGuyInJail.Com - Day 1
by
Sand_Man
·
· Score: 3
CLANK. Lock
"uh, hi."
"Hi, you gotta' be my new cell mate."
"Well, yes. What are you in for?"
"Simple Assualt, but I didn't do it. What're you in fer?"
"Spamming."
"Huh?
"Spamming, you know, sending out large volumes of unsolicited e-mail from my computer."
"Uh-huh. Say, yer hands are soft, kinda' like a girl."
"Uh, gee, umm, thanks, er....."
"And yer kinda pertty, too, how long you in fer."
Tune in tomorrow for the exciting day 2 of SpamGuyInJail.com. In tomorrows episode we find out if SpamGuyInJail picks up the soap or just leaves it on the shower floor.
Talk about slanting a story. They were put away for the scam, not the spam.
That aside, advocating putting people in prison for annoying business practices doesn't exactly jive well with having liberal free speech rights attitudes. If they've got the right to mail me advertising crap via snail then they damn well should have the right to do so via email. Whether I like getting the stuff or not.
It would be nice to see some sort of "party line" attitude when it comes to these Internet Free Speech Issues... but I don't think it'll ever happen.
Spam is commercial speech. Commercial speech does not enjoy the protections that free speech does.
What's the diff? Free speech is saying the goverment is wrong, that you think a law should be changed, or that someone should be impeached.
Free speech isn't saying "Buy my product, you will lose 50 lbs fast!" or "Work from home and make millions!".
-- Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
They where not jailed for spam. clearly slashdot put that in the headlines because they knew it would get people excited.
Spam has been ruled as protected as free speech. Get over it.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, and I'm not sure if this is bad or good. I want free speech protected, and if we make spam illegal what next?
besides, I would rather get spam, than the damn dead tree ads I get in the mail.
What I would like to know is did they get more time because the used a computer in this crime, then they would have if they used the Postal service? I think as a community we need to be watching out for sentences that are substantial longer for a crime committed on a computer then a simialar crime without one.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Slashdot sensationalism
by
SnakeStu
·
· Score: 1
I think as a community we need to be watching out for sentences that are substantial longer for a crime committed on a computer then a simialar crime without one.
Quite the contrary, we as a community (if we assume said community consists of individuals who are substantially more computer-savvy than the mainstream) should be aware that a crime committed on a computer can deal much more damage than a similar crime without one. Could the spammers have sent as many fraudulent ads by postal mail? Not without spending $10 million (assuming they used 20-cent postcards). The impact of fast, bulk data processing enabled by computers can make a crime worse.
I would not necessarily advocate a harsher sentence solely because a computer was involved; but if the use of the computer made the crime worse, as in this case, then the harsher sentence is a result of the increased scope of the crime itself.
Ignoring the greater scope of damage as a result of automated processing is a common mark of a novice user. For example, I have a family member who cannot fathom my concern over her forwarding of chain letters and hoaxes. "Well, it's not that big of a deal..." No, not from her address book alone it isn't, but exponential forwarding makes it into a big deal.
Re:In my country: abuse of community resources
by
SquadBoy
·
· Score: 1
But of course to build a Niven ring you would have to clean out the solar system, to include the Oort cloud. And so there would be no Earth to send them to but you could toss them into Sol. In any case sign me up. I'll send you my resume.
--
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics.
Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
(but they'd like it, id' bring their hits up over 5/day)
--
"Ummmm..."...The programmer's "Om."
Re:Sadly, they were convicted of fraud, not spammi
by
Ralph+Wiggam
·
· Score: 5
I sit across a very thin wall from the Pitney-Bowes machine you are referring too. It's a sweet machine but it has two problems that create human jobs stuffing envelopes: 1) It costs a half million bucks 2) It has major trouble doing fancy "non-standard" things that humans can do easily (like putting a card inside a folded letter).
Another thing keeping these machines out of normal office space is that it's about 25 feet long and runs at 90 decibles.
Not that I'm a Xian or anything, but isn't the lowest frozen level of Hell (according to Dante) the place where commiters of fraud go? (Personally I agree with you, but wanted to stir the pot a bit.)
Just a wee bit OT, but the 8th circle, Malebolge, is for people who commit fraud. The 9th frozen level is for traitors - with Brutus, Cassius, and Judas being munched on by Satan in the middle.
Disclaimer: IANAX, either.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
nchip
·
· Score: 3
If spam is such a nice thing, why do most spammers fake their headers, their from address and obfuscate the url on the body? Why do spammers connect to internet with accounts they got with fake ID:s. Why do they abuse open relays to hide the real origin of the mail?
I don't think freedom of speech covers speech with fake identity.
-- signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
rabidMacBigot()
·
· Score: 2
The free speech argument came up, IIRC, during the junk fax trials. Basically:
Commercial solicitations are not protected speech
The government may not restrict your right to freedom of expression, but you may not force anyone to listen to you. Furthermore, you may not force other people to pay to read/hear your views without their approval.
The only point spammers are making is "I am an inconsiderate bastard, and the cost of my advertising campaign will be yours entirely". They sure get the point across, but for the reasons outlined above, it's not protected speech under the first amendment.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
BillyZ
·
· Score: 1
Ok, people REALLY need to start READING the articles before they "reply" to them. These people were jailed for running a scam that made them £288,000 (if my math is right, which it usualy isn't). The only way spam relates is that's how they ran the scam. That and probably a form of virus attached to the e-mail to propogate the spam to more people. There are no first amendment issues. From the article, "The men pleaded guilty to fraud charges..."
what i'm curious about, is if this was in Los Angeles, why are all the amounts in pounds(£) and not dollars($)?
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I take no responsibility for any spelling mistakes in the above post.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
chuqui
·
· Score: 1
Your right to free speech does not imply I have a responsibility to listen, or to pay for your speaking. "free speech" as an argument for spam fails for two reasons:
1) it forces me to hear what you have to say. You have every right to say it. You have no right to force it on me if I don't want it.
2) you use my resources to force me to see it. You want to say something? put up a system and pay for it. When you start forcing me to spend my money, for your spam, you're making me pay for your virtual printing press -- and there's no constitutional right making me pay for your babbling.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome
=
When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell
Also From Ananova - Man Survives On Water And Sun
by
Sialagogue
·
· Score: 1
A lead article from their "Science" section:
MAN SURVIVES 0N 'WATER AND SUN FOR YEAR'
(Original here.)
Excerpts:
A retired mechanical engineer in India claims to have lived off boiled water and the sun for the last 364 days.
Hira Ratan Manek is trying to prove that the human body can turn into a photovoltaic cell and convert the rays of the sun into energy.
(Snip. ..)
In The Times of India Mr Manek explained that, to become a "solar cooker", you start by looking straight into the rising morning sun for only a few seconds. Slowly you increase the time to minutes reaching up to 30 to 35 minutes.
(snip. ..)
Neuro-physician Sudhir Shah, who has been monitoring Mr Manek's health with a team of doctors, said: "We believe that this is a chronic case of adaptation syndrome where the body reduces its demand for energy after 16 to 30 days of fasting. This is done by downing the regulation of receptors."
Mr Shah does not rule out the possibility that the temporal lobe in the human brain, which is believed to control parapsychic activity like the sixth sense, may have been activated due to this process.
::: Moral: You just can't trust virtual hotties for hard news anymore.
-- The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
Re:Sadly, they were convicted of fraud, not spammi
by
brad.hill
·
· Score: 2
Yes, you can make $1 per envelope stuffed. Just take out a classified ad that says "Make money stuffing envelopes at home! Send $1 for information to P.O. Box 1234" Collect the dollar from every sucker you hook, and send them a copy of this set of instructions. It's not even fraud!;)
Wow, I hope this eliminates the spam problem on the internet!
*Checks Inbox*
Apparently I could win $10,000,000 by emailing a reply to six friends, I can work from home in the real estate business making $200,000 a year AND for each time I forward this message 5 cents will be donated to a poor English boy without lungs.
Seriously, putting two spammers in jail is a good first step, but until all those bastards are rotting behind bars and worrying about dropping the soap, the world will continue to be annoyed.
--
Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?
Re:I guess it's too hard to read the fscking headl
by
Zico
·
· Score: 1
C'mon, take yourself out of your shoes as submitter of this story and check out the Slashdot home page. Spam logo, headline about spammers, saying they were "jailed for two years after sending 50 e-mails." That's about as accurate as saying they were "jailed for two years after eating at Denny's that morning" — both are factually true, but neither shows any cause and effect: they were jailed for two years because they were running a scam, not because they spammed people.
Now, I could've been less venomous about it, and I probably wouldn't have even posted if not for the other two SNAFUs that I mentioned, but after getting ready to post on the subject until realizing the true nature of it, I decided to post anyway. No ill will meant toward you, just a carryover of my annoyance from the other stories. (FWIW, I was going to express disappointment. I don't like getting spammed, but for people around here to applaud jailtime for someone just because having to delete a few emails is an inconvenience, while bemoaning all these other "freedoms" that they supposedly have taken away from them all the time, well it just seems pretty hypocritical.)
Alan Greenspan says the Happy Words and I make a pile of money.
Two spammers in the slammer, gettin' to know real market penetration with Bubba.
All is right with the world.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 4
(snip "spam iz free speach" argument)
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or to view any
unwanted communication, whatever its merit. . . We therefore categorically
reject the argument that a vendor has the right under the Constitution or
otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. . . We
repeat, the right of a mailer stops at the outer boundary of every person's
domain."
- United States Supreme Court, Rowan vs. U.S. Post Office, 1970
Whether or not you agree with me that spam is theft by trespass to chattel, the US Supreme Court has long since ruled that unsolicited commercial mailings -- even when paid for by the vendor (as opposed to spam, where the cost is borne by the recipient) is emphatically not afforded protection under the First Amendment.
Spam is not free speech. Hasn't been for 30 years. Now go away, troll, or I shall feed you a second time;-)
Alot of spammers leave a telephone number for you to call and leave a message. You really want to spend your money to do something that's essentially a waste of time and breath and will eventually be ignored?
Spammers usually use a fake or disposable email address. The only thing you could perhaps do is track the email to the offending SMTP server and tell the admin to secure their box.
Spammers' emails have links to "let you remove your email from their system." This is just another way to verify that they've pissed off a person at a legitimate address.
Lately some spammers have been putting on a disclaimer saying "we can circumvent this law because we're sending out this delicious spam only once." In this case they're not even letting you have the chance of removing your name!
The only way to prevent spam is for the formation of a group that tracks down emails/phone numbers and kills these people.;)
That's an AWFUL idea! My last apartment had asshole neighbors, and the circuit, any circuit I hooked it to, would blow every time I ran the microwave. The phone wires were in such bad shape that I was lucky to get connected to my ISP at all. Risking arrest just to move away from that dump? Even the Democrats aren't that dumb. (Well, maybe in Palm Beach.)
--
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I'll tell you what I'd pay for...
by
Greyfox
·
· Score: 2
I'd definitely buy into this if I could type a taunt on a web page and have it displayed on one of those LCD banners outside their cell for them to read. Or perhaps a mechanical vegetable catapult that you could use to pelt them with rotting vegetables. That'd be worth a few bucks a month to me...
--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's driving me crazy (not really, but it's annoying).
In the story (and I think that's an overly generous term for it) just below this one the Slashdot consensus and unconcealed editorial bias was that society was hoplessly totalitarian oppression and the only solution was super-extra-libertarian quasi-anarchist Freedom.
Now, everyone is cheering for people being jailed (actual jail, no rights at all, hellish violent existence) for sending email. Of course the story is incorrect, but both the posters and the editorial commentary approve of jail for the spammers based on the misinformation.
So to sum up, we should have rights to own guns and sell Nazi stuff on Yahoo, but we should be locked up for sending lots of email.
OR
The idea that a company would voluntarily* censor the sale of racist knick-knacks on a computer system is an ominous sign that "1984" is near, but a government putting real people in real jails for sending annoying email is a step in the right direction.
Could someone explain this to me. I think I'm behind some firewall that blocks the Slashdot groupthink brainwaves.
*This was due to government pressure from France not from the US, the country Yahoo does business in.
Re:AARGGH! Mind-bending Slashdot hypocracy...
by
Chris+Johnson
·
· Score: 2
I guess it depends who you look at. I know I often take time out of my day to try and skewer Randite-style fascists on Slashdot- but my anarchistic view is not Darwinism, but community. Anarchism is _meaningless_ except in the context of a community, and in that context it means 'you have to maintain good relations with those you encounter, instead of simply asserting authority and stomping those in your path'.
From this perspective, spamming is a particularly ugly form of asserting authority. "You can't stop me! Read more benchmark print supply spam! Store it on your hard disk, use your electricity for me!" This is authoritarian in a primitive way.
As for the jail: I dunno. What would you rather they do? I prefer the spammers to be jailed rather than lynched by a mob of Slashdotters, frankly. It's more socialist to maintain a community punishment mechanism than to make it the responsibility of the individual to exact vengeance.
Re:AARGGH! Mind-bending Slashdot hypocracy...
by
Steve+B
·
· Score: 2
So to sum up, we should have rights to own guns and sell Nazi stuff on Yahoo, but we should be locked up for sending lots of email.
Oh, puh-leeze. The correct summation is, "we should have rights to possess and trade our own property and labor, but we should be locked up if we steal goods and services from others".
(There is some controversy about patents and copyrights, but that debate is about the exact boundaries of what constitutes "stealing", not whether or not stealing per se is acceptable.)
The idea that a company would voluntarily* censor the sale of racist knick-knacks on a computer system is an ominous sign that "1984" is near
*This was due to government pressure from France
The idea that someone would argue that "voluntary" is synonymous with "coerced" is a rather more striking parallel to 1984. /.
-- /.
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Let's convince the gov't to work on Sam Khuri for a while. I mean, he IS in contempt of court sending out more Benchmark Print Supply spam, even if he's stripping the company name off the emails these days.
Seriously, putting two spammers in jail is a good first step...
Actually, I think it's meaningless in terms of spam control. They were jailed for fraud, not for spam, if I understand the article correctly. What is of more concern to me and is entirely unaddressed by this so-called "first step" is the 12,000+ fools who sent money to spammers. That the spammers were fraudulent in this case is beside the point -- the key issue is that so many people are so willing to prove the spammers "correct" (I won't say "right" because that could imply a moral judgement that I certainly wouldn't agree with).
The only "good first step" of relevance will have nothing to do with law, and everything to do with technology. And I don't mean filters or other patchwork currently in use; I mean real developments that make spam impossible to begin with, rather than trying to minimize its impact. A pre-authorization token mail system would be a "good first step."
"We repeat, the right of a mailer stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
The language from that ruling is actually suitable for unmodified application to spam.
--
If nobody ever re-invented the wheel, we'd all
be pushing around flintstones cars, wouldn't we?
Re:Interesting wording...
by
powerlord
·
· Score: 1
very interesting wording.
Didn't know the supreme court was so Net savy in 1970:)
Someone mod up the parent (#157)
I can just see this one sited in court after all, every knows that intent is only a piece of law... the most important piece is whats actually written =)
-- This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Re:In my country: abuse of community resources
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 1
> [on my space station] spamming would be illegal, under the category of "abuse
of community resources," which on an isolated space station would be a pretty serious crime......punishable by deportation to Earth.
You're a merciful one. I'd deport 'em to the sun. (And I wouldn't waste a spacecraft or a spacesuit on 'em either;-)
Re:I guess it's too hard to read the fscking headl
by
Darchmare
·
· Score: 2
Perhaps you should ask for your money back? I'm sure the Slashdot crew would be more than happy to give you a refund of the subscription fees they've asked you for...
Of course, you may also consider not coming here any longer, if it's so bad. You've been complaining about the quality of Slashdot for some time now.
why are all the amounts in pounds(£) and not dollars($)?
Because Ananova is a British site. In Los Angeles courtrooms, actual fines are generally levied in cocaine and / or film options.
--
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Re:I guess it's too hard to read the fscking headl
by
Zico
·
· Score: 1
Wheeeee! Let's all hold hands and dance in the Sugar Fairy Gumdrop Land where the golden rule is "If you can't say something nice about somebody, don't say anything at all," and we can pretend that everything's just A-OK! Gosh darn those complainers!
Hey, if you ever hear of such a spammer-elimination group forming up, let me know!
I'll work cheap, and I'll have the kind of job efficiency you can only get from someone who truly, fully, absolutely loves their job. I'll even work overtime free! The only caveat: I need to choose my own methods. No mamby-pamby death by lethal injection here - claw hammer to the forehead sounds about right.
Now there's a career I can truly aspire to excel in!:)
-- "So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
Darchmare
·
· Score: 2
---
I believe strongly in the First Amendment right of free speech and I believe that all speech, be it good or bad, should be protected.
---
I'm a big proponent of the First Amendment (I voted libertarian this time around and support the EFF), but this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.
Spam is analogous to someone running up to you, telling you something, and taking a few cents from your pocket each time without your permission.
Who do you think pays for all of that bandwidth, server space, administrative time, etc? The spammer? Nope. Your ISP does - and then pass on the cost to you. And what if a spammer uses the same ISP as you do? You pay for that too, as many spammers split without paying their bill or utilize a ton of bandwidth before leaving. Multiply this by the thousands of spammers out there, and it's obviously a big problem.
It's not free speech. It's theft.
Also remember that free speech doesn't give you the right to enter someone's property to spout off at them, which is exactly what spam entails. Just as a theater owner can boot you out of his establishment, don't tell me that I have to put up with (and pay for) someone else's speech in my own mailbox.
- Jeff A. Campbell
--
- Jeff
How to make the isp's act:
by
sik+puppy
·
· Score: 1
Since 80+ percent of the spam I receive comes from uu.net customers (like this should surprise anyone) and since their abuse department does nothing, i have been forwarding all uu.net sourced spam to hostmaster, webmaster, sales, info, and fraud, advising them that i was in California, and to stop aiding and abbetting spammers.
I actually got a nasty email from a sales person last week, complaing that they didn't want to see the spam. (sorry, on a different machine or i would post the full comment for everyones ammusement)
If everyone starts forwarding their uu.net spam back to their sales and info people, i would think that this might actually make them reconsider their position. According to spamhaus, they are currently sheltering at least 15 different spam companies. make them sleep in their own #$@%^& and see if it helps.
-- The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
shinji1911
·
· Score: 1
Your argument is flawed. While I agree that spam is a bad thing, the fact that they obfuscate their origins has nothing to do with their intentions.
Vigorous political protest in an oppresive regime also requires anonynimity, and that is arguably a Good Thing(tm), which would also likely require faking headers and connecting with fake IDs and using open relays.
The Most Encouraging News...
by
mrcoolguy
·
· Score: 1
...of the new year. Finally, something I can cheer about.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
slick_rick
·
· Score: 1
You know what burns me up? I can live with the email spam, whatever you delete it. But I got a fax machine a while back and the damn fax spammers have ran three rolls of transfer paper out already (at $25 a roll). I didn't buy a fourth. It is nuts, I can't even leave my fax machine turned on.
-- apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
atrowe
·
· Score: 1
I'm not denying that spam is annoying at best and unethical or immoral at worst. I don't know anyone who pays per byte per Internet access so it's not costing me anything at all. Most of the spam I get is under 10k so even if I did pay per MB for my access, the cost would be negligible. I'm not trying to say spam is good at all, I just think that it's a relatively minor nuisance considering all of the other things wrong with the world today. It seems like a lot of the slashbots have started this crusade to stop all spammers at any cost, even if that means wasting government resources and what few empty beds we have in our nation's jails. Even as we speak, there are literally, millions of people with swollen stomachs in the final stages of starvation. War torn countries have children who'se parents have been killed wandering the streets looking for food or a warm bed to sleep in, and you people don't seem to care about that because it doesn't directly affect you. It doesn't take 30 seconds to delete victims of genocide or ethnic cleansings from your inbox, so obviously what you can't see from the comfort of your living room doesn't matter. It's this attitude that will eventually lead to the end of humanity if we don't do something to stop it. I think it's a good idea to get involved in what you believe is right, but damn is it really worth it to harass all the spammers.
--
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
A step in the right direction
by
shanshier
·
· Score: 1
It is good to hear spammers were arrested. I as saded it wasn't for spamming but at least they won't be sending any more e-mails for awhile and hopefully this will at least stop the fraudulent spammers which is probably most of them. Now we just need to get ISP's and E-mail providers to tighten security to prevent spam. I think the net and citizens need to police themselves and the majority of Internet users should agree on a rules regarding spam and submit it congress.
I hope they start jailing more spamers. People ask are they a problem ? YES!
Besides the fact that there very annoying, they cost people money. Bandwidth, higher load on mail servers, time (which is money), buying/testing/developing anti-spam apps.
Plus, do you know how many veru important E-Mails I have lost becuase of spam spikes. Suddently. out of know where I get 500 messages (99.7% spam) Pushing all of my good email and needed email into the trash can.
I hope they start jailing them more, that should start causing it to taper off.
"In other news today, 17 'spammers' where crusified, 45 more are scheduled this week'...
until (succeed) try { again(); }
-- until (succeed) try { again(); }
Their Response Rate is Oddly Heartening!
by
Nova+Express
·
· Score: 1
The spammers harvested 50,000,000 e-mail addresses, but only 12,000 suckers fell for their scam. That means that only.024% of the targeted Internet population was stupid enough to take the bait. From reading Usenet, I would think the number of complete idiots would be much higher!
-- Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Re:Their Response Rate is Oddly Heartening!
by
Chris+Johnson
·
· Score: 2
They should name the suckers on national television as a warning to others >:)
"The plea agreements require the men to reveal to the internet providers how they accomplished their scheme."
Now, is it just me, or do I know see the real problem here -- clueless sysadmins at the ISPs! How could they not know what harvesting software is... jeez!
-- --
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -A.Einstein
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
atrowe
·
· Score: 1
chuqui, your argument is severely flawed.
"1) it forces me to hear what you have to say. You have every right to say it. You have no right to force it on me if I don't want it.
2) you use my resources to force me to see it."The same criteria would apply to your previous post. I did not ask to hear what you in particular have to say. In fact, when I click "read more" I am forced to read your post whether I want to or not. I may be interested in other posts, but perhaps I do not want to see yours. (Just an example as I have nothing against you personally)
Furthermore, your post is wasting bandwidth, my CPU time, and about 10k or space in my browser cache. You are using MY resources to further your own post.
--
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
slick_rick
·
· Score: 1
I do have a plain paper fax, and the number is unlisted. What costs me so much money is the film paper, or the "ink". A roll is only good for a hundred pages or so, and the spammers go through that in a month. They find the number buy doing "cold calls". Surely you have answered your phone at some point to be greeted by the beep of a fax machine? Accident? I think not. Then they sell the numbers they find to other fax spammers, and before you know it you are getting a hundred pages of fax spam a month.
-- apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)
Re:Plea Agreements - the real mistery
by
porky_pig_jr
·
· Score: 1
it's no mistery at all. people just fall for 'get rich quickly' schemes all the time. ever heard of 'nigerian gold' scam. absolutely ridiculous story - yet some people got tricked by it as well.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
Darchmare
·
· Score: 3
---
I don't know anyone who pays per byte per Internet access so it's not costing me anything at all.
---
It doesn't matter. Most ISPs and email providers don't charge that way. They take the average bandwidth and resource consumption of all users combined and factor that into their rates. If each user used fewer resources, they wouldn't have to charge quite as much.
In the end, if one person uses up more bandwidth, either the other users are given less bandwidth to consume or they are charged for it with higher base level prices. Generally the latter.
Also, this isn't counting the fact that many ISPs need full time handlers to deal with the complaints, extra servers to deal with the load, and so on. Just because there isn't a section on your bill labeled "Cost due to spam" doesn't mean you're not paying for it.
---
It seems like a lot of the slashbots have started this crusade to stop all spammers at any cost, even if that means wasting government resources and what few empty beds we have in our nation's jails
---
I agree with you that prosecution should be a last resort, but to be honest with you I think spammers deserve the jail time more than most of those charged with petty offenses. No matter how small you believe it to be, what spammers do is no different than theft. Most of them are con men (securities fraud, pyramid schemes, etc) as well.
Either way, it's nice to see that you worry about government resources. So do I. But don't you think user resources are important as well? And remember, the government is there to hear our grievences - that's what they are paid for. But I'm certainly not being paid to hear about someone's "Make Money Fast" scheme. In fact, I pay for it.
---
Even as we speak, there are literally, millions of people with swollen stomachs in the final stages of starvation
---
This is a false argument, based on the assumption that if we don't delete spam or turn in spammers that suddenly the other ills of the world would receive more attention. That's a pretty dubious argument.
You can turn it around, though - if I didn't spend so much time "just pushing delete" I would have more time to spend volunteering time and money to charity. You could even say that the extra processor time spent processing incoming spam uses up electricity, which means more factories churn polluting smoke into the air.
See how silly that sounds?
---
It doesn't take 30 seconds to delete victims of genocide or ethnic cleansings from your inbox, so obviously what you can't see from the comfort of your living room doesn't matter
---
Are you a horrible person because you're spending time posting to Slashdot instead of, say, volunteering time at the United Way or flying relief missions in Bosnia? If you're going to take up so much time preaching this kind of ill logic, you should consider spending that time on something more meaningful (like devoting every single moment of your life sacrificing your own rights because others have it worse).
---
It's this attitude that will eventually lead to the end of humanity if we don't do something to stop it.
---
*sigh*
The end of humanity, because we hold people accountable for their actions?
---
I think it's a good idea to get involved in what you believe is right, but damn is it really worth it to harass all the spammers.
---
Harass them? I just report them, and deal with those that are reported to me. Are you willing to extend your argument to those who are more visible in their theft? Should we stop harassing bank robbers because someone is starving in Africa? Come on. I'm not saying that spamming is of quite the same scale, but the principle (and morality) is about the same. People have no right to make someone pay for something they didn't ask for.
...and since you didn't mention it in your reply, I'm going to assume that you've rethought your freedom of speech argument.
- Jeff A. Campbell
--
- Jeff
Re:I guess it's too hard to read the fscking headl
by
Darchmare
·
· Score: 2
Hrm. Nope, it's probably better just to complain a lot over an extended period and yet never actually leave.
I have to admit, though, your blatant sarcasm is sometimes amusing.:>
- Jeff A. Campbell
--
- Jeff
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
WNight
·
· Score: 2
It's not like everyone has a certain ammount of money/time that they're willing to put into any charitable cause, for which all causes compete. It's not a zero-sum equation.
If I'm willing to send $50 to the EFF, that doesn't mean that if the EFF wasn't there I'd send $50 to another charity. It means that the EFF supports a cause that interests me and that I wish to support.
That's all independent from starving children, or any other cause.
Re:In my country: abuse of community resources
by
rark
·
· Score: 1
>..punishable by deportation to Earth.
damn, you're nice. I say just push 'em out the airlock
but then, I guess I'm a not so benevolent dictator, muahahahahaha!
Ananova is hardly worth quoting. They never provide citations for the sources of thier news. Truth, bullshit- who the hell knows?
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
chuqui
·
· Score: 1
2) you use my resources to force me to see it."The same criteria would apply to your previous post. I did not ask to hear what you in
Yes, you did. Unlike spam, my message was posted to/., a place built to encourage discussion. and you voluntarily went to/. and read the message. You agreed to read the message when you agreed to read/.
You voluntarily read/. -- the message was part of/. -- you agreed to it as part of/. nobody forced anything on you. you came and got it.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome
=
When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell
Re:Sadly, they were convicted of fraud, not spammi
by
Beowulf_Boy
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I tried that scheme at one time,
basically, you took the same note they gave you, sent them 1 buck, went down to the local copy shop, got a thousand copies and envelopes, and send them out, and hopefully, get a dollar from each person,
but you have your cost of the copies, envelopes, and stamps (not to mention time).
So, you usually come out broke.
This "did they go to jail for the SPAM or the SCAM?" argument is sadly moot, because in my experience, ALL UCEs are scams.
Whether its fake university diplomas, credit cards for losers with no chance of ever getting a real one, or D/Ling pr0n from Elbonia on the sly, I have NEVER encountered a UCE that offered something legit. The only legitamite spam I ever get is "opt in" stuff, like promos from Amazon.com
So I say all UCE spammers should rot in jail, because they're all con artists.
You give the mail, it gives the spammer and reports to their ISP.
Easy to use - and I received fewer spam mails after I constantly used it.
-- Two Worlds - One Sun [Spirit]
OMG... talk about old news...
by
Misch
·
· Score: 2
http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/breakingnews/199 9/12/21/emails1221_01.html
APB reported this on 12/21/1999.... Sentencing was set for April 24, 2000...
Could we please get some up to date news?
--
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Re:OMG... talk about old news...
by
PhilHibbs
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure thte/. crew were just dilligently researching the facts, ensuring that no mistakes were made in the article.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
atrowe
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, try again. I voluntarily agree to read my inbox every day as well. E-mail was designed to encourage discussion and I voluntarily go to hotmail to read my messages.
I voluntarily read hotmail. Spam messages are part of hotmail.
--
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Re:Sadly, they were convicted of fraud, not spammi
by
drinkypoo
·
· Score: 1
Another thing keeping these machines out of normal office space is that it's about 25 feet long and runs at 90 decibles.
Let's not forget the sometimes dramatic amount of downtime they experience...
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
sallen
·
· Score: 1
I think it's absolutely rediculous that people are actually being thrown in jail for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.
Read the article. They're being sent to jail for the SCAM for which they used SPAM to perpetuate. Secondly, when a spammer uses someone elses network or violates TOS's, going after them is NOT at all preventing their free speech. It's going after their misuse of networks or violation of agreements. Lastely, it's nice you can tell what's spam and what isn't and you can do that in 20 seconds a day. I get tons of spam daily. When I travel I have to dial long distance over slow lines to retrieve mail. When I get all the crap, I've not only had them use my storage, they've cost me REAL dollars sending their junk. That also has nothing to do with free speech. Restricting spam is NOT restricting free speech. It's like the FCC regulations on telemarketers... COMMERCIAL telemarketing is what has been restricted by regluation. Those who are charities, etc, are NOT restricted via 'do not call lists', etc. The constitution does NOT require that free speech force ME or others to PAY for their distribution of that speech. Much like free speech does not allow someone to come through my window to hand me their spam vs. sending it via email. An analogy to the old 'your constitutional right to punch me out stops just a hair before you connect', at which MY rights are violated. Their right to free speech SHOULD be that it extends to the point there it WOULD enter my mail server, but does not. AFter that, they are costing ME money and time, and the constitution does NOT guarantee that I must support, fund, nor acquiesce to their free speech. You've essentially convoluted the 1st amendment as have so many others. Using your theory again, it'd be like saying anything I or anyone else wanted to say would HAVE to be published in any newspaper, aired over any TV station, or read over any radio station I desired. To not do so, you are saying, is preventing free speech. To be kind, hogwash.
Internet providers, including AOL, AT&T and Mindspring, were besieged by customer complaints and their systems were threatened by the overload.
HellDesk: How can I help you? Irate Customer: I received an e-mailing asking for a £24 "processing fee" in exchange for a chance to work at home stuffing envelopes! So naturally I sent 24 pounds to Shklovskiy and Shtok in Los Angeles! HellDesk: Sir, the problem is in your brain. You must have gotten one of these substandard and shoddy brains. Irate Customer: OK, so how do I replace this brain thingy? HellDesk: Do you have a large butcher knife? Again from the article:
Authorities said Shklovskiy and Shtok devised a way to use personal computers equipped with commercially available software to "harvest" electronic mail addresses.
I would be happier if the article said, "The suspects used a technique called spamming. Spamming is..." This kind of description somehow feeds off of, and into the demonization of computer activity. I'm irritated by the wide-eyed naivete of 'found a way' in several ways. It's somehow similar to the way spammers never use the words spam or UCE in their websites; rather they refer to 'bulk e-mailing' or other ambiguous term. I guess in a broader sense it's part of reporters' general failure to supply the context of what they report.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
crucini
·
· Score: 1
If spam is such a nice thing, why do most spammers...
He's not arguing that spam is a nice thing. Spam is horrible and spammers are horrible. The question is, are we endorsing measures corrosive to our freedom in order to stamp out something horrible? I think drugs are horrible, but the war on drugs has done so much harm, both physical and moral, that it must be stopped. I think we'll all feel that way about the war on spam if the government earnestly wages such a war. Remember, freedom of speech is about horrible people saying horrible things. I'm not arguing that spam is really protected speech in the constitutional sense. But I think that it's better to err on the side of free speech even in private contexts.
Re:Sadly, they were convicted of fraud, not spammi
by
peeping_Thomist
·
· Score: 2
BTW, there are no jobs stuffing envelopes.
That's not true.
I know people who have stuffed envelopes, at home, for perfectly legitimate businesses such as medical equipment manufacturers and universities. Pay ranged from 1-2 cents to 15 cents per envelope, depending on how many items went into each envelope. For one person, this meant an hourly rate of anywhere from $15 to $30, but she was a particularly efficient envelope-stuffer. I assume that people who weren't efficient would drop out of the business.
So, yes, there are legitimate jobs stuffing envelopes, and, no, you probably won't find them in the classified ads.
It's just one more freedom, after all...
by
RiffRafff
·
· Score: 1
> I don't think freedom of speech covers speech with fake identity.
Actually, it does. Many of our founding fathers wrote under pseudonyms, as do many (most) political activists under oppressive governments.
It wouldn't really be "FREE speech" otherwise, would it?
As an aside, when the anti-spamming bill was voted on by the House, out of four hundred and some odd votes, only ONE vote was cast against it on the grounds of freedom of speech (among other things). ONE VOTE. And that was cast by the only representative with libertarian leanings, Ron Paul.
I don't know about you, but when I see all the republicrats agreeing so wholeheartedly on something like this, it makes me nervous...
-- "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Re:Also From Ananova - Man Survives On Water And S
by
porky_pig_jr
·
· Score: 1
Why, this is a perfect scientific explanation. A temporal lobe which is controlled paraphyschic activity has been activated, you see? From there it follows that your body converts sun light into calories. Still don't understand? Oh well... neither do I.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
memfrob
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, try again. I voluntarily agree to read my inbox every day as well. E-mail was designed to encourage discussion and I voluntarily go to hotmail to read my messages.
I voluntarily read hotmail. Spam messages are part of hotmail
No, no, you're just not getting it.
Slashdot is like a bulletin board on a sidewalk. You can't complain if you walk up to it and read the messages posted that they wasted your time/resources. You chose to seek them out and read them.
Hotmail spam is like someone taking every one of those individual messages and sending them, postage-due, in sealed envelopes, to your mailbox. You can't tell what they are without paying for them and opening them (downloading them), and once you find out they are spam, you're stuck with them, and the charges for accepting them.
-- The Wizard utters the word 'frobnoid!' and cackles gleefully
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
Darchmare
·
· Score: 2
---
I don't agree with Singer, but I did want to point out that this argument is not ridiculous -- or at least that professional ethicists take this argument quite seriously.
---
Perhaps the argument wasn't so ridiculous (although it strikes me as the result of a middle-class guilt complex more than any real altruism), but the fact that someone was spending time posting on Slashdot chastising people who simply prefer not to support resource theft.
Real altruism comes with actually doing things for other people, not pointing out how selfish others are so that others are reminded of how superior your ethics are. I respect those who help others day in and out far more than those who prefer to sit around and talk about it.
While giving to others is great (and a good thing to strive for), I have no sympathy for anyone who thinks they deserve charity from others. It's the people who don't have any choice in their station in life (particularly children) who deserve the most help.
I just get annoyed at blowhards, trying to impose their ideal society on the rest of the world. All we're trying to do is avoid a little spam. If he has a problem with the wasted time, perhaps he should be pissed at spammers - without them, we wouldn't have to filter it out.
- Jeff A. Campbell
--
- Jeff
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
pallex
·
· Score: 1
You should have checked to see if you`d missed the point.
'Unsolicited Commercial Email' not "Spam"
by
Martin+Spamer
·
· Score: 1
Guys,
I like to encourage the use of the terms 'Unsolicited Commercial Email' or Junk Email instead of 'Spam' and it's derivatives.
My family surname is Spamer and you can appreciate the unrestricted use of the expression Spam causes me (and my Brother who both work in IT/Internet industry) considerable problems.
Re:'Unsolicited Commercial Email' not "Spam"
by
Martin+Spamer
·
· Score: 1
My family surname is Spamer and you can appreciate the unrestricted use of the expression Spam causes me (and my Brother who both work in IT/Internet industry) considerable problems.
I don't doubt, there will be some irritating "witty" follow up comments to illustrate this point.
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
IngramJames
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, try again. I voluntarily agree to read my inbox every day as well. E-mail was designed to encourage discussion and I voluntarily go to hotmail to read my messages.
I voluntarily read hotmail. Spam messages are part of hotmail.
The definitive argument about this, as far as I'm concerned is this.. let's paint a picture in which all spam is ALLOWED and PROTECTED under freedom of speech, as the poster appears to support.
I have a new political theory - all countries should be run by the people with the longest hair and the nicest pants. I want to share this theory with everyone. SO I email everyone on a 2 million email address list.
The only problem is, everyone ELSE with a half-baked idea or scheme or a business that needs more customers will ALSO do this.
If spamming was an acceptable way to spread news and adverts and ideas, and everyone who wanted to did it, there would, quite simply, be no possible way to detect the tiny fraction of email that WASN'T spam in your inbox every day.
It's not JUST the fact that the spammer makes the ISP (and their customers) pay for the advertising. It's also VOLUME - give everyone in the world a way to communicate with everyone else, with no way of deciding what you do or do not want to read, and all you'll do is render the medium useless.
An accurate analagy would be if you could mail a million letters for free, and the recipient and the service that delivers the letter pay. Then extend the example to allow everyone in the world to send you anything they want through the mail, you'll pay for it, and when you try to locate that letter from your parents you're expected... well, good luck. It's been dealyed and maybe lost because there was too much other stuff in the sack. ---------------------------
-- 'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
I think we can now all relax in the satisfaction one might feel after throwing out one beer bottle while cleaning up after a 200-person new year's eve party. =)
Seriously, eventhough it's just a drop in the bucket, it is a great thing to read about when this happens.
now, if i could only get this damn local radio station's exec's thrown in jail for having an incompetent IT staff who can't get me off their mailing list.
- Dixieland
Re:Is spam *really* that bad?
by
Helge+Hafting
·
· Score: 1
You have the right to free _speech_. You have no right to _email_!
According to the article, I find it odd
that Los Angeles convicts should
be required to pay a fine in British
Sterling.
-- Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Re:jailed for scamming, not spamming
by
Nehemiah+S.
·
· Score: 1
Well, ideally I wouldn't have to pay for their health care. At the very least, they have higher insurance premiums, and at worst they wouldn't qualify for coverage under the same plans as I do.
The main difference, however, is that I have to pay taxes, whereas I can go without health care insurance without being beaten up by government thugs.
Neh
-- ... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be where the eye of his telescope has already been
I think walt-sjc just destroyed spam....
by
fm6
·
· Score: 2
ALL ISP's need to block outgoing port 25 from cablemodems / DSL / dialups. Require users to use the ISP's mail servers. Exceptions can be made for "powerusers" who sign a contract. (this can happen NOW and could drastically reduce spam today.)
ISP's need to install rate limiters / spam detection on the mail servers (this can also happen today.)
Are these your ideas, or have they been floating around? I'm not being sarcastic. These strategies don't seem to have come up before, but the more I think about them, the more I see the basis for a very effective anti-spam effort.
Most ISPs are profoundly anti-spam, at least on paper. But what effect does that have? Spammers have plenty of time to generate thousands of messages before somebody notifies the ISP and they lose the account. If they're a serious commerical spammer, they just move on to another ISP. If they're victims of some scam ("For only $99.99, I can show you how to make big bucks on the Internet!"), they're soon replaced by another sucker.
Now, suppose your ISP had a port 25 filter, and you had to pay a deposit (refundable after 1 spam-free year) to bypass it. The professionals are going to be a lot more selective. And the get-rich-quick suckers (and judging from the spam I get, they account for about 90%) are simply going to disappear.
The same applies to rate limiters, but the deposits would have to be a lot higher.
The best part about this approach is that it places no limitation on content. Nobody can claim censorship. Which, incidentally, is not any nicer coming from an ISP than from the government.
All we need to do is get existing anti-spam organizations (my persoal favorite is SpamCop) to change their agitation from "Please punish your spamsters" to "Please make your spam policies proactive instead of retroactive."
Comments?
__________________
Re:I guess it's too hard to read the fscking headl
by
KjetilK
·
· Score: 2
C'mon, take yourself out of your shoes as submitter of this story and check out
the Slashdot home page.
OK. You know, given previous posts on/., I was pretty sure they were going to post this story, so I rushed too much. I was karma whoring, okay? Everybody does this!;-) Seriously, I'm going to take your critizism into account. Besides, I'm up to 50 now, so why should I be karma whoring anymore?:-)
pam logo, headline about spammers, saying they were
"jailed for two years after sending 50 e-mails." That's about as accurate as saying
they were "jailed for two years after eating at Denny's that morning" —
both are factually true, but neither shows any cause and effect: they were jailed
for two years because they were running a scam, not because they spammed
people.
OK, but it a bit more relevant than that. Quite a lot of my spam, and that's several a day,
are of the same nature, I'm pretty sure you would see a majority of spammers locked up.
Not that I like jails.
I don't like getting
spammed, but for people around here to applaud jailtime for someone just because
having to delete a few emails is an inconvenience, while bemoaning all these
other "freedoms" that they supposedly have taken away from them all the time,
well it just seems pretty hypocritical.
You have obviously not beern spammed very hard. At least you haven't seen spammers destroy communities that are easy to spam because they have to be open, that you have built with years of effort. It's not about deleting a few e-mails anymore, I have very reliable filters that can do that. If spammers have their way, they will make e-mail useless for everyone within a few years, that's what I'm fighting.
I mean, my parents have a very low net profile, contrary to me, but for them, the signal to noise ratio is allready approaching the level where e-mail is just about useless, and all they get is American spam, scams, porn, MLM, and so on.
-- Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather see them stuffed into their own personal cans of 'spam' tx, but I guess jail will do for now.
No Comment.
The article reads like they got jailed for running sniffer bots for email addresses, not for actually sending the spam.
Wouldn't the true reason they went to jail be becuase of the Scam and not the Spam? Has anyone gone to jail for purely spam?
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
Carousel is a lie!
They got jailed for *FRAUD* not for spamming.
NO ONE can eat SPAM every day for longer than a week...it's just not natural. Then again, maybe spammers aren't natural either. I'll leave that question to the philosophers
You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB
These two guys weren't jailed for spamming. They were jailed for duping people out of their money. I'm still waiting for a *real* spamming conviction.
Reading the article, they are jailed for fraud, not for spamming.
Big deal.
People get jailed for that all the time.
I want to see people jailed just for sending spam.
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
According to the article, they pleaded guilty to fraud charges. Article says: They then sent a mass e-mailing, asking recipients for a £24 "processing fee" in exchange for a chance to work at home stuffing envelopes.
Hrmm....
I'm a firm believer in the notion of a hands off policy about the Internet from the government. This is a new territory, not contained within the bounds of any one nation, yet governments attempt to enforce their will on it.
This is a case where the veracity of the Internet communities request for autonomy is really called into question. Can we have it both ways? Can we call in the cops when needed, but kick them out as soon as we are done with them?
I think this seems good on the surface, but has set a dangerous precendent about how much interference we are willing to allow by a national government. However, the question would remain, how would the Internet police itself and enforce judgement, without the help of nations?
This might be the most deceptively dangerous action in the Internet in the past few years, IMHO.
"Moving through the masses like a fish through water." syrup
Death to spammers!
The only difference was that they ran it via email solicitation rather than by the more conventional classified ad route.
BTW, there are no jobs stuffing envelopes. Pitney-Bowes makes very nice envelope stuffing machines, which operate very efficiently in the >$.01 range.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Well, this is a start, I suppose, but this is really the right way to go about it.
# wrote sig.txt, 23 lines, 31337 chars
Spam Laws in the US, Europe, and beyond
According to this page, Washington law sets the following as penalties for spam:
Full text of the law is available.
The plea agreements require the men to reveal to the internet providers how they accomplished their scheme.
Here we go, everybody get ready for a constant battering of emails from large internet providers claiming faster service and lower rates. Thanks for adding another powerful weapon to the world of spamming
I think they should have been orderd to keep their mouths shut.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Just like Jim Bakker didn't go to jail for being married to a woman with no fasion sense. That's just peripheral information.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Doesn't seem like too much of a mystery to me... I sincerely hope they didn't get out of much jail time in turn for explaining how to use spammer software!
The real mystery is how they managed to trick 12,000 people out of almost $350,000 with such a pathetic scam.
Why are Americans being fined in pounds, anyway?
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Nothing about 50 million emails would give any "internet provider" more than a tiny blip on the radar. These observations about "almost brought the largest internet providers to a standstill" are untrue. If the providers made the argument in court, in order to convict, I can understand it. But it cannot be true.
- In a knowledge based industry your main asset will always be people -
XML causes global warming.
I have an idea: Lets find out what jail these guys are at and all get together to send these guys a package conataining 1 can of spam, and 1 $24 offer to make money stamping license plates!
Ok, so they got nailed for fraud, and not for the spam itself.
I sitll beleive that the 69,000pounds (about 120,000$USD) plus 2 years isn't an adequate sentence.
I thing the spammers should be sentenced to manually compose a personalized excuse email to every one of the 12,000 who bought their spam plus, of course, refund of the extorted money).
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Spam costs real money to the ISPs that become unintentional spam victims, the free mail domains that spammers forge return addresses from, the victims who purchase commercial software from people not smart enough to set up a mail server to not be an open relay, and the sysadmins that have to constantly refine their spam filters from spammers continual spam filter dodging techniques.
As long as spammers do not get sent to jail for their acitons, they will continue to spam. These people could care less if they make 10,000,000 people angry, as long as they get a few thousand dollars by scamming ignorant internet users.
The only way to make the internet a place where people feel safe putting their east-to-remeber email address on a web page, in a usenet posting, or in the whois data for a domain is to make spamming a crime, and to prosecute spammers to the fullest extent of the law.
BTW, I have written some pretty effective anti-spamming software here. Note that this software only runs on Linux/Unix machines. Windows users can use sneakemail.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
2 down, 150,000 to go.
________
---
Even the headline of the damn article says that they were jailed over the scam, not for spamming.
Let's see, in the past couple of days, we've had the Sprint TOS that "makes porn-viewing illegal!!!" which didn't, the Apple "suit against FreeType!!!" that wasn't, and now this totally misleading article. Everytime I think Slashdot's sunk to a new low, they go the extra mile. Way to go, Hemos!
Cheers,
Yeah, just fraud. And the people they defrauded were stupid, too. (I'm going to pay money for an opportunity to work at home... waitaminute.)
My dream is to secede from the Earth. Build a gigantic space station, or a Niven ring. And in my country -- of course I'm the benevolent dictator, what the freak did you expect -- spamming would be illegal, under the category of "abuse of community resources," which on an isolated space station would be a pretty serious crime...
...punishable by deportation to Earth.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Unfortunately, there ARE jobs stuffing envelopes. Stop by your local temp agency and ask them. My girlfriend is currently making $7 an hour stuffing envelopes during christmas break (from college). Fun stuff from what it sounds.... or something.... :-)
Justin Dubs
Well, I can already hear the Libertarian contingent of slashdot crying out in protest now, about how it is these people's God Given Right to send 500,000 emails all around the world at the press of a button. After all, this is legitimate enterpreuerial activity, is it not?
Let's have a look at some of the spam I get daily. "MAKE MONEY FAST!! - LEGITIMATE HOME INCOME OPPORTUNITY!". "Are you READY - For a 10 INCH PENIS??". "Re: The information you requested".
Every single person involved, anywhere along the line, in this shit reaching my mailbox should be summarily executed without trial. No questions asked, no tears shed. Maybe make them do a few years hard labour first, fine - as long as their eventual fate is to be put up against a wall and shot repeatedly in the torso and genitalia, I don't care.
Write a letter to your congressman, and Fuhrer Bush, and tell them you want action NOW on getting the death penalty written into spam propagation laws. It's the humane thing to do.
en
Most spammers just use poorly configured email systems (or email systems running VERY outdated software) in random contries around the world. Many of these systems don't log or validate connections so it makes things VERY difficult to deal with.
Several things have to change before the spam problem will go away.
- ALL ISP's need to block outgoing port 25 from cablemodems / DSL / dialups. Require users to use the ISP's mail servers. Exceptions can be made for "powerusers" who sign a contract. (this can happen NOW and could drastically reduce spam today.)
- ISP's need to install rate limiters / spam detection on the mail servers (this can also happen today.)
- Get everyone to upgrade to secure DNS and authenticated SMTP for server to server transactions. (This will take a couple years.)
It's not hard, but it may take pressure from congress to force ISP's to enact these measures. ISP's are unwilling to do things themselves as they are too busy making money off spammers, and they are lazy. Make the ISP's liable for SPAM and THEN they will act.Penguins love Salmon, but hate the taste of SPAM. The Linux Pimp
--It's Pimptastic!--
I think it's absolutely rediculous that people are actually being thrown in jail for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech. I vaguely recall hearing that it costs the government somewhere around $35,000/yr to keep someone in jail. I damn sure don't want my hard earned dollars going towards this travesty of freedom. Our prisons are crowded enough as they are, shouldn't we be spending our tax dollars putting real criminals behind bars. You anti-spam people are so adamant about doing "whatever it takes" to prevent spam, but it gets to the point where the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Perhaps you should take a step back from your crusade for a moment and think again about the way our country is today when a spammer gets locked up and the rapists, murderers and drug users out there are roaming around, free to prey on our children and loved ones.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
sorry about that bold tag. I was pretty pissed when I wrote that and I should have proofread it.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
OK, perhaps I should have posted what I posted in news.admin.net-abuse.email:
I'll nevertheless insist that what is relevant in this context is that they were spammers, and that they advertized their scam by mass e-mail.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Yes, but does the Constitution give the right for you to use my resources to communicate your message? Does this mean that if I am a book binder, that every book I print has to have a section somewhere that you are allowed to scribble whatever you want to in? So that my means of data transport is supporting your message?
Translation: When my mail server, including my bandwidth that I bought and my diskspace to cache your mail, is in subjugation to your spam email, I don't think it is any longer in the purview of Constitutional protection.
Consider instead putting up a website (where you pay for your own diskspace and bandwidth) and then putting listings to your website into popular search engines, even putting info into newsgroups intended for the purpose. But don't try to use my resources to push your message.
_lpp
There are scams, schemes, and all kinds of other ways to make money on the Internet. Many people feel that spam is the best way to go, as they can reach millions of people (as it was shown in the article mentioned here). If e-tailers were smart (and there are some out there), they would be able to increase their sales and reduce their advertising expenses at the same time by just offering referral programs to their customers. Word of mouth advertising has been around since the dawn of commerce, and will never go away.
I have to disagree, I stuffed many an envelope when I was a poor student back in '94-'95. Of course, that wasn't my only job duty and I wasn't Working From Home. Nonetheless....
I even asked the boss once, why I (I was working alone) was stuffing envelopes by hand when there are machines that do the same thing. He said something about how people were more likely to open an envelope that had been stamped by a human (actual physical stamp, applied less than perfectly aligned).
--
MailOne
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
For those who haven't seen it yet, this is a great resource for reporting spam.
http://www.spamcop.net
The problem is that if I send 10,000 emails or more via 1 ISP you have used a lot of the resources of that ISP. You have basicly made them support you free speach. Which you do not have the right to do. Similarly if you send a letter to the editor of a newspaper he does not have to print it. So while SPAM may cost you or me as end users a few seconds of time in the case of an ISP it may tie up a mail server for hours, during which time other emails are being delayed.
The other thing is that just because we are arresting spamers (And in this case it appears that fraud was what they were arrested for) it does not mean that we are not also hunting down Murderers and Rapists.
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
CLANK. Lock
"uh, hi."
"Hi, you gotta' be my new cell mate."
"Well, yes. What are you in for?"
"Simple Assualt, but I didn't do it. What're you in fer?"
"Spamming."
"Huh?
"Spamming, you know, sending out large volumes of unsolicited e-mail from my computer."
"Uh-huh. Say, yer hands are soft, kinda' like a girl."
"Uh, gee, umm, thanks, er....."
"And yer kinda pertty, too, how long you in fer."
Tune in tomorrow for the exciting day 2 of SpamGuyInJail.com. In tomorrows episode we find out if SpamGuyInJail picks up the soap or just leaves it on the shower floor.
-egg and Bacon
-Egg, sausage and bacon
-Egg and Spam
-Spam, egg, sausage and spam
-Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Baked Beans, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
Talk about slanting a story. They were put away for the scam, not the spam.
That aside, advocating putting people in prison for annoying business practices doesn't exactly jive well with having liberal free speech rights attitudes. If they've got the right to mail me advertising crap via snail then they damn well should have the right to do so via email. Whether I like getting the stuff or not.
It would be nice to see some sort of "party line" attitude when it comes to these Internet Free Speech Issues... but I don't think it'll ever happen.
They where not jailed for spam. clearly slashdot put that in the headlines because they knew it would get people excited.
Spam has been ruled as protected as free speech.
Get over it.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, and I'm not sure if this is bad or good. I want free speech protected, and if we make spam illegal what next?
besides, I would rather get spam, than the damn dead tree ads I get in the mail.
What I would like to know is did they get more time because the used a computer in this crime, then they would have if they used the Postal service?
I think as a community we need to be watching out for sentences that are substantial longer for a crime committed on a computer then a simialar crime without one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
excuse me if I don't like to see goats.cx links all over my site, and links to pictures of penises.
--
Free Mac Mini
But of course to build a Niven ring you would have to clean out the solar system, to include the Oort cloud. And so there would be no Earth to send them to but you could toss them into Sol. In any case sign me up. I'll send you my resume.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
... or slashdot might slashdot slashduh... :)
(but they'd like it, id' bring their hits up over 5/day)
"Ummmm..."
I sit across a very thin wall from the Pitney-Bowes machine you are referring too. It's a sweet machine but it has two problems that create human jobs stuffing envelopes: 1) It costs a half million bucks 2) It has major trouble doing fancy "non-standard" things that humans can do easily (like putting a card inside a folded letter).
Another thing keeping these machines out of normal office space is that it's about 25 feet long and runs at 90 decibles.
-B
Not that I'm a Xian or anything, but isn't the lowest frozen level of Hell (according to Dante) the place where commiters of fraud go? (Personally I agree with you, but wanted to stir the pot a bit.)
/."
"I'm not a bitch, I just play one on
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
If spam is such a nice thing, why do most spammers fake their headers, their from address and obfuscate the url on the body? Why do spammers connect to internet with accounts they got with fake ID:s. Why do they abuse open relays to hide the real origin of the mail?
I don't think freedom of speech covers speech with fake identity.
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
The only point spammers are making is "I am an inconsiderate bastard, and the cost of my advertising campaign will be yours entirely". They sure get the point across, but for the reasons outlined above, it's not protected speech under the first amendment.
Ok, people REALLY need to start READING the articles before they "reply" to them. These people were jailed for running a scam that made them £288,000 (if my math is right, which it usualy isn't). The only way spam relates is that's how they ran the scam. That and probably a form of virus attached to the e-mail to propogate the spam to more people. There are no first amendment issues. From the article, "The men pleaded guilty to fraud charges..."
what i'm curious about, is if this was in Los Angeles, why are all the amounts in pounds(£) and not dollars($)?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I take no responsibility for any spelling mistakes in the above post.
Your right to free speech does not imply I have a responsibility to listen, or to pay for your speaking. "free speech" as an argument for spam fails for two reasons:
1) it forces me to hear what you have to say. You have every right to say it. You have no right to force it on me if I don't want it.
2) you use my resources to force me to see it. You want to say something? put up a system and pay for it. When you start forcing me to spend my money, for your spam, you're making me pay for your virtual printing press -- and there's no constitutional right making me pay for your babbling.
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome = When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell
A lead article from their "Science" section:
MAN SURVIVES 0N 'WATER AND SUN FOR YEAR'
(Original here.)
Excerpts:
A retired mechanical engineer in India claims to have lived off boiled water and the sun for the last 364 days.
Hira Ratan Manek is trying to prove that the human body can turn into a photovoltaic cell and convert the rays of the sun into energy.
(Snip. . .)
In The Times of India Mr Manek explained that, to become a "solar cooker", you start by looking straight into the rising morning sun for only a few seconds. Slowly you increase the time to minutes reaching up to 30 to 35 minutes.
(snip. . .)
Neuro-physician Sudhir Shah, who has been monitoring Mr Manek's health with a team of doctors, said: "We believe that this is a chronic case of adaptation syndrome where the body reduces its demand for energy after 16 to 30 days of fasting. This is done by downing the regulation of receptors."
Mr Shah does not rule out the possibility that the temporal lobe in the human brain, which is believed to control parapsychic activity like the sixth sense, may have been activated due to this process.
The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
Yes, you can make $1 per envelope stuffed. Just take out a classified ad that says "Make money stuffing envelopes at home! Send $1 for information to P.O. Box 1234" Collect the dollar from every sucker you hook, and send them a copy of this set of instructions. It's not even fraud! ;)
*Checks Inbox*
Apparently I could win $10,000,000 by emailing a reply to six friends, I can work from home in the real estate business making $200,000 a year AND for each time I forward this message 5 cents will be donated to a poor English boy without lungs.
Seriously, putting two spammers in jail is a good first step, but until all those bastards are rotting behind bars and worrying about dropping the soap, the world will continue to be annoyed.
Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?
Now, I could've been less venomous about it, and I probably wouldn't have even posted if not for the other two SNAFUs that I mentioned, but after getting ready to post on the subject until realizing the true nature of it, I decided to post anyway. No ill will meant toward you, just a carryover of my annoyance from the other stories. (FWIW, I was going to express disappointment. I don't like getting spammed, but for people around here to applaud jailtime for someone just because having to delete a few emails is an inconvenience, while bemoaning all these other "freedoms" that they supposedly have taken away from them all the time, well it just seems pretty hypocritical.)
Cheers,
Two spammers in the slammer, gettin' to know real market penetration with Bubba.
All is right with the world.
Spam is not free speech. Hasn't been for 30 years. Now go away, troll, or I shall feed you a second time ;-)
The only way to prevent spam is for the formation of a group that tracks down emails/phone numbers and kills these people. ;)
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
that my tax dollars are going to feed these spammers and clothe them (in prison uniforms) and heat their cells, etc.
I think we ought to at least recoup the costs.
How many of you out there would pay for membership to the site:
"Live webcam: hot teenage spammer jailbirds getting their asses raped day and night."
sounds like a winner to me.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That's an AWFUL idea! My last apartment had asshole neighbors, and the circuit, any circuit I hooked it to, would blow every time I ran the microwave. The phone wires were in such bad shape that I was lucky to get connected to my ISP at all. Risking arrest just to move away from that dump? Even the Democrats aren't that dumb. (Well, maybe in Palm Beach.)
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I'd definitely buy into this if I could type a taunt on a web page and have it displayed on one of those LCD banners outside their cell for them to read. Or perhaps a mechanical vegetable catapult that you could use to pelt them with rotting vegetables. That'd be worth a few bucks a month to me...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's driving me crazy (not really, but it's annoying).
In the story (and I think that's an overly generous term for it) just below this one the Slashdot consensus and unconcealed editorial bias was that society was hoplessly totalitarian oppression and the only solution was super-extra-libertarian quasi-anarchist Freedom.
Now, everyone is cheering for people being jailed (actual jail, no rights at all, hellish violent existence) for sending email. Of course the story is incorrect, but both the posters and the editorial commentary approve of jail for the spammers based on the misinformation.
So to sum up, we should have rights to own guns and sell Nazi stuff on Yahoo, but we should be locked up for sending lots of email.
OR
The idea that a company would voluntarily* censor the sale of racist knick-knacks on a computer system is an ominous sign that "1984" is near, but a government putting real people in real jails for sending annoying email is a step in the right direction.
Could someone explain this to me. I think I'm behind some firewall that blocks the Slashdot groupthink brainwaves.
*This was due to government pressure from France not from the US, the country Yahoo does business in.
Let's convince the gov't to work on Sam Khuri for a while. I mean, he IS in contempt of court sending out more Benchmark Print Supply spam, even if he's stripping the company name off the emails these days.
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
Actually, I think it's meaningless in terms of spam control. They were jailed for fraud, not for spam, if I understand the article correctly. What is of more concern to me and is entirely unaddressed by this so-called "first step" is the 12,000+ fools who sent money to spammers. That the spammers were fraudulent in this case is beside the point -- the key issue is that so many people are so willing to prove the spammers "correct" (I won't say "right" because that could imply a moral judgement that I certainly wouldn't agree with).
The only "good first step" of relevance will have nothing to do with law, and everything to do with technology. And I don't mean filters or other patchwork currently in use; I mean real developments that make spam impossible to begin with, rather than trying to minimize its impact. A pre-authorization token mail system would be a "good first step."
No Laughing Allowed!
In addition to have a witty domain name <g>, it also contains information on existing state laws which can be used to sue a spammer in court.
Share and enjoy.
"We repeat, the right of a mailer stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
The language from that ruling is actually suitable for unmodified application to spam.
If nobody ever re-invented the wheel, we'd all be pushing around flintstones cars, wouldn't we?
You're a merciful one. I'd deport 'em to the sun. (And I wouldn't waste a spacecraft or a spacesuit on 'em either ;-)
Perhaps you should ask for your money back? I'm sure the Slashdot crew would be more than happy to give you a refund of the subscription fees they've asked you for...
Of course, you may also consider not coming here any longer, if it's so bad. You've been complaining about the quality of Slashdot for some time now.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
Because Ananova is a British site. In Los Angeles courtrooms, actual fines are generally levied in cocaine and / or film options.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Wheeeee! Let's all hold hands and dance in the Sugar Fairy Gumdrop Land where the golden rule is "If you can't say something nice about somebody, don't say anything at all," and we can pretend that everything's just A-OK! Gosh darn those complainers!
Smiles on, children!
Cheers,
Hey, if you ever hear of such a spammer-elimination group forming up, let me know! I'll work cheap, and I'll have the kind of job efficiency you can only get from someone who truly, fully, absolutely loves their job. I'll even work overtime free! The only caveat: I need to choose my own methods. No mamby-pamby death by lethal injection here - claw hammer to the forehead sounds about right. Now there's a career I can truly aspire to excel in! :)
"So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
---
I believe strongly in the First Amendment right of free speech and I believe that all speech, be it good or bad, should be protected.
---
I'm a big proponent of the First Amendment (I voted libertarian this time around and support the EFF), but this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.
Spam is analogous to someone running up to you, telling you something, and taking a few cents from your pocket each time without your permission.
Who do you think pays for all of that bandwidth, server space, administrative time, etc? The spammer? Nope. Your ISP does - and then pass on the cost to you. And what if a spammer uses the same ISP as you do? You pay for that too, as many spammers split without paying their bill or utilize a ton of bandwidth before leaving. Multiply this by the thousands of spammers out there, and it's obviously a big problem.
It's not free speech. It's theft.
Also remember that free speech doesn't give you the right to enter someone's property to spout off at them, which is exactly what spam entails. Just as a theater owner can boot you out of his establishment, don't tell me that I have to put up with (and pay for) someone else's speech in my own mailbox.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
Since 80+ percent of the spam I receive comes from uu.net customers (like this should surprise anyone) and since their abuse department does nothing, i have been forwarding all uu.net sourced spam to hostmaster, webmaster, sales, info, and fraud, advising them that i was in California, and to stop aiding and abbetting spammers.
I actually got a nasty email from a sales person last week, complaing that they didn't want to see the spam. (sorry, on a different machine or i would post the full comment for everyones ammusement)
If everyone starts forwarding their uu.net spam back to their sales and info people, i would think that this might actually make them reconsider their position. According to spamhaus, they are currently sheltering at least 15 different spam companies. make them sleep in their own #$@%^& and see if it helps.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
Your argument is flawed. While I agree that spam is a bad thing, the fact that they obfuscate their origins has nothing to do with their intentions.
Vigorous political protest in an oppresive regime also requires anonynimity, and that is arguably a Good Thing(tm), which would also likely require faking headers and connecting with fake IDs and using open relays.
...of the new year. Finally, something I can cheer about.
You know what burns me up? I can live with the email spam, whatever you delete it. But I got a fax machine a while back and the damn fax spammers have ran three rolls of transfer paper out already (at $25 a roll). I didn't buy a fourth. It is nuts, I can't even leave my fax machine turned on.
apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)
I'm not denying that spam is annoying at best and unethical or immoral at worst. I don't know anyone who pays per byte per Internet access so it's not costing me anything at all. Most of the spam I get is under 10k so even if I did pay per MB for my access, the cost would be negligible. I'm not trying to say spam is good at all, I just think that it's a relatively minor nuisance considering all of the other things wrong with the world today. It seems like a lot of the slashbots have started this crusade to stop all spammers at any cost, even if that means wasting government resources and what few empty beds we have in our nation's jails. Even as we speak, there are literally, millions of people with swollen stomachs in the final stages of starvation. War torn countries have children who'se parents have been killed wandering the streets looking for food or a warm bed to sleep in, and you people don't seem to care about that because it doesn't directly affect you. It doesn't take 30 seconds to delete victims of genocide or ethnic cleansings from your inbox, so obviously what you can't see from the comfort of your living room doesn't matter. It's this attitude that will eventually lead to the end of humanity if we don't do something to stop it. I think it's a good idea to get involved in what you believe is right, but damn is it really worth it to harass all the spammers.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
It is good to hear spammers were arrested. I as saded it wasn't for spamming but at least they won't be sending any more e-mails for awhile and hopefully this will at least stop the fraudulent spammers which is probably most of them. Now we just need to get ISP's and E-mail providers to tighten security to prevent spam. I think the net and citizens need to police themselves and the majority of Internet users should agree on a rules regarding spam and submit it congress.
Besides the fact that there very annoying, they cost people money. Bandwidth, higher load on mail servers, time (which is money), buying/testing/developing anti-spam apps.
Plus, do you know how many veru important E-Mails I have lost becuase of spam spikes. Suddently. out of know where I get 500 messages (99.7% spam) Pushing all of my good email and needed email into the trash can.
I hope they start jailing them more, that should start causing it to taper off.
"In other news today, 17 'spammers' where crusified, 45 more are scheduled this week' ...
until (succeed) try { again(); }
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
- "The plea agreements require the men to reveal to the internet providers how they accomplished their scheme."
Now, is it just me, or do I know see the real problem here -- clueless sysadmins at the ISPs! How could they not know what harvesting software is... jeez!-- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -A.Einstein
Stop Prisoner Rape has more information along the lines of what you're looking for. I don't think you'll find it as pleasing as you hope, though.
-1, Offtopic and bang goes some Karma, never to be recovered, but prisoner rape is less funny than you might imagine.
--
Xenu loves you!
"1) it forces me to hear what you have to say. You have every right to say it. You have no right to force it on me if I don't want it.
2) you use my resources to force me to see it."The same criteria would apply to your previous post. I did not ask to hear what you in particular have to say. In fact, when I click "read more" I am forced to read your post whether I want to or not. I may be interested in other posts, but perhaps I do not want to see yours. (Just an example as I have nothing against you personally)
Furthermore, your post is wasting bandwidth, my CPU time, and about 10k or space in my browser cache. You are using MY resources to further your own post.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
I do have a plain paper fax, and the number is unlisted. What costs me so much money is the film paper, or the "ink". A roll is only good for a hundred pages or so, and the spammers go through that in a month. They find the number buy doing "cold calls". Surely you have answered your phone at some point to be greeted by the beep of a fax machine? Accident? I think not. Then they sell the numbers they find to other fax spammers, and before you know it you are getting a hundred pages of fax spam a month.
apt-get install redhat please god - Me (take it easy, I love Debian)
it's no mistery at all. people just fall for 'get rich quickly' schemes all the time. ever heard of 'nigerian gold' scam. absolutely ridiculous story - yet some people got tricked by it as well.
---
I don't know anyone who pays per byte per Internet access so it's not costing me anything at all.
---
It doesn't matter. Most ISPs and email providers don't charge that way. They take the average bandwidth and resource consumption of all users combined and factor that into their rates. If each user used fewer resources, they wouldn't have to charge quite as much.
In the end, if one person uses up more bandwidth, either the other users are given less bandwidth to consume or they are charged for it with higher base level prices. Generally the latter.
Also, this isn't counting the fact that many ISPs need full time handlers to deal with the complaints, extra servers to deal with the load, and so on. Just because there isn't a section on your bill labeled "Cost due to spam" doesn't mean you're not paying for it.
---
It seems like a lot of the slashbots have started this crusade to stop all spammers at any cost, even if that means wasting government resources and what few empty beds we have in our nation's jails
---
I agree with you that prosecution should be a last resort, but to be honest with you I think spammers deserve the jail time more than most of those charged with petty offenses. No matter how small you believe it to be, what spammers do is no different than theft. Most of them are con men (securities fraud, pyramid schemes, etc) as well.
Either way, it's nice to see that you worry about government resources. So do I. But don't you think user resources are important as well? And remember, the government is there to hear our grievences - that's what they are paid for. But I'm certainly not being paid to hear about someone's "Make Money Fast" scheme. In fact, I pay for it.
---
Even as we speak, there are literally, millions of people with swollen stomachs in the final stages of starvation
---
This is a false argument, based on the assumption that if we don't delete spam or turn in spammers that suddenly the other ills of the world would receive more attention. That's a pretty dubious argument.
You can turn it around, though - if I didn't spend so much time "just pushing delete" I would have more time to spend volunteering time and money to charity. You could even say that the extra processor time spent processing incoming spam uses up electricity, which means more factories churn polluting smoke into the air.
See how silly that sounds?
---
It doesn't take 30 seconds to delete victims of genocide or ethnic cleansings from your inbox, so obviously what you can't see from the comfort of your living room doesn't matter
---
Are you a horrible person because you're spending time posting to Slashdot instead of, say, volunteering time at the United Way or flying relief missions in Bosnia? If you're going to take up so much time preaching this kind of ill logic, you should consider spending that time on something more meaningful (like devoting every single moment of your life sacrificing your own rights because others have it worse).
---
It's this attitude that will eventually lead to the end of humanity if we don't do something to stop it.
---
*sigh*
The end of humanity, because we hold people accountable for their actions?
---
I think it's a good idea to get involved in what you believe is right, but damn is it really worth it to harass all the spammers.
---
Harass them? I just report them, and deal with those that are reported to me. Are you willing to extend your argument to those who are more visible in their theft? Should we stop harassing bank robbers because someone is starving in Africa? Come on. I'm not saying that spamming is of quite the same scale, but the principle (and morality) is about the same. People have no right to make someone pay for something they didn't ask for.
...and since you didn't mention it in your reply, I'm going to assume that you've rethought your freedom of speech argument.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
Hrm. Nope, it's probably better just to complain a lot over an extended period and yet never actually leave.
:>
I have to admit, though, your blatant sarcasm is sometimes amusing.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
It's not like everyone has a certain ammount of money/time that they're willing to put into any charitable cause, for which all causes compete. It's not a zero-sum equation.
If I'm willing to send $50 to the EFF, that doesn't mean that if the EFF wasn't there I'd send $50 to another charity. It means that the EFF supports a cause that interests me and that I wish to support.
That's all independent from starving children, or any other cause.
>..punishable by deportation to Earth.
damn, you're nice. I say just push 'em out the airlock
but then, I guess I'm a not so benevolent dictator, muahahahahaha!
Ananova is hardly worth quoting. They never provide citations for the sources of thier news. Truth, bullshit- who the hell knows?
Yes, you did. Unlike spam, my message was posted to /., a place built to encourage discussion. and you voluntarily went to /. and read the message. You agreed to read the message when you agreed to read /.
You voluntarily read /. -- the message was part of /. -- you agreed to it as part of /. nobody forced anything on you. you came and got it.
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome = When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell
Actually, I tried that scheme at one time,
basically, you took the same note they gave you, sent them 1 buck, went down to the local copy shop, got a thousand copies and envelopes, and send them out, and hopefully, get a dollar from each person,
but you have your cost of the copies, envelopes, and stamps (not to mention time).
So, you usually come out broke.
Whether its fake university diplomas, credit cards for losers with no chance of ever getting a real one, or D/Ling pr0n from Elbonia on the sly, I have NEVER encountered a UCE that offered something legit. The only legitamite spam I ever get is "opt in" stuff, like promos from Amazon.com
So I say all UCE spammers should rot in jail, because they're all con artists.
You give the mail, it gives the spammer and reports to their ISP.
Easy to use - and I received fewer spam mails after I constantly used it.
Two Worlds - One Sun [Spirit]
http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/breakingnews/199 9/12/21/emails1221_01.html
APB reported this on 12/21/1999.... Sentencing was set for April 24, 2000...
Could we please get some up to date news?
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
I voluntarily read hotmail. Spam messages are part of hotmail.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Let's not forget the sometimes dramatic amount of downtime they experience...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Read the article. They're being sent to jail for the SCAM for which they used SPAM to perpetuate. Secondly, when a spammer uses someone elses network or violates TOS's, going after them is NOT at all preventing their free speech. It's going after their misuse of networks or violation of agreements. Lastely, it's nice you can tell what's spam and what isn't and you can do that in 20 seconds a day. I get tons of spam daily. When I travel I have to dial long distance over slow lines to retrieve mail. When I get all the crap, I've not only had them use my storage, they've cost me REAL dollars sending their junk. That also has nothing to do with free speech. Restricting spam is NOT restricting free speech. It's like the FCC regulations on telemarketers... COMMERCIAL telemarketing is what has been restricted by regluation. Those who are charities, etc, are NOT restricted via 'do not call lists', etc. The constitution does NOT require that free speech force ME or others to PAY for their distribution of that speech. Much like free speech does not allow someone to come through my window to hand me their spam vs. sending it via email. An analogy to the old 'your constitutional right to punch me out stops just a hair before you connect', at which MY rights are violated. Their right to free speech SHOULD be that it extends to the point there it WOULD enter my mail server, but does not. AFter that, they are costing ME money and time, and the constitution does NOT guarantee that I must support, fund, nor acquiesce to their free speech. You've essentially convoluted the 1st amendment as have so many others. Using your theory again, it'd be like saying anything I or anyone else wanted to say would HAVE to be published in any newspaper, aired over any TV station, or read over any radio station I desired. To not do so, you are saying, is preventing free speech. To be kind, hogwash.
HellDesk: How can I help you?
Irate Customer: I received an e-mailing asking for a £24 "processing fee" in exchange for a chance to work at home stuffing envelopes! So naturally I sent 24 pounds to Shklovskiy and Shtok in Los Angeles!
HellDesk: Sir, the problem is in your brain. You must have gotten one of these substandard and shoddy brains.
Irate Customer: OK, so how do I replace this brain thingy?
HellDesk: Do you have a large butcher knife?
Again from the article:
I would be happier if the article said, "The suspects used a technique called spamming. Spamming is
This kind of description somehow feeds off of, and into the demonization of computer activity. I'm irritated by the wide-eyed naivete of 'found a way' in several ways. It's somehow similar to the way spammers never use the words spam or UCE in their websites; rather they refer to 'bulk e-mailing' or other ambiguous term.
I guess in a broader sense it's part of reporters' general failure to supply the context of what they report.
He's not arguing that spam is a nice thing. Spam is horrible and spammers are horrible. The question is, are we endorsing measures corrosive to our freedom in order to stamp out something horrible? I think drugs are horrible, but the war on drugs has done so much harm, both physical and moral, that it must be stopped. I think we'll all feel that way about the war on spam if the government earnestly wages such a war. Remember, freedom of speech is about horrible people saying horrible things.
I'm not arguing that spam is really protected speech in the constitutional sense. But I think that it's better to err on the side of free speech even in private contexts.
BTW, there are no jobs stuffing envelopes.
That's not true.
I know people who have stuffed envelopes, at home, for perfectly legitimate businesses such as medical equipment manufacturers and universities. Pay ranged from 1-2 cents to 15 cents per envelope, depending on how many items went into each envelope. For one person, this meant an hourly rate of anywhere from $15 to $30, but she was a particularly efficient envelope-stuffer. I assume that people who weren't efficient would drop out of the business.
So, yes, there are legitimate jobs stuffing envelopes, and, no, you probably won't find them in the classified ads.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
> I don't think freedom of speech covers speech with fake identity.
Actually, it does. Many of our founding fathers wrote under pseudonyms, as do many (most) political activists under oppressive governments.
It wouldn't really be "FREE speech" otherwise, would it?
As an aside, when the anti-spamming bill was voted on by the House, out of four hundred and some odd votes, only ONE vote was cast against it on the grounds of freedom of speech (among other things). ONE VOTE. And that was cast by the only representative with libertarian leanings, Ron Paul.
I don't know about you, but when I see all the republicrats agreeing so wholeheartedly on something like this, it makes me nervous...
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Why, this is a perfect scientific explanation. A temporal lobe which is controlled paraphyschic activity has been activated, you see? From there it follows that your body converts sun light into calories. Still don't understand? Oh well ... neither do I.
No, no, you're just not getting it.
Slashdot is like a bulletin board on a sidewalk. You can't complain if you walk up to it and read the messages posted that they wasted your time/resources. You chose to seek them out and read them.
Hotmail spam is like someone taking every one of those individual messages and sending them, postage-due, in sealed envelopes, to your mailbox. You can't tell what they are without paying for them and opening them (downloading them), and once you find out they are spam, you're stuck with them, and the charges for accepting them.
The Wizard utters the word 'frobnoid!' and cackles gleefully
---
I don't agree with Singer, but I did want to point out that this argument is not ridiculous -- or at least that professional ethicists take this argument quite seriously.
---
Perhaps the argument wasn't so ridiculous (although it strikes me as the result of a middle-class guilt complex more than any real altruism), but the fact that someone was spending time posting on Slashdot chastising people who simply prefer not to support resource theft.
Real altruism comes with actually doing things for other people, not pointing out how selfish others are so that others are reminded of how superior your ethics are. I respect those who help others day in and out far more than those who prefer to sit around and talk about it.
While giving to others is great (and a good thing to strive for), I have no sympathy for anyone who thinks they deserve charity from others. It's the people who don't have any choice in their station in life (particularly children) who deserve the most help.
I just get annoyed at blowhards, trying to impose their ideal society on the rest of the world. All we're trying to do is avoid a little spam. If he has a problem with the wasted time, perhaps he should be pissed at spammers - without them, we wouldn't have to filter it out.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- Jeff
You should have checked to see if you`d missed the point.
Guys, I like to encourage the use of the terms 'Unsolicited Commercial Email' or Junk Email instead of 'Spam' and it's derivatives. My family surname is Spamer and you can appreciate the unrestricted use of the expression Spam causes me (and my Brother who both work in IT/Internet industry) considerable problems.
Sorry, try again. I voluntarily agree to read my inbox every day as well. E-mail was designed to encourage discussion and I voluntarily go to hotmail to read my messages.
I voluntarily read hotmail. Spam messages are part of hotmail.
The definitive argument about this, as far as I'm concerned is this.. let's paint a picture in which all spam is ALLOWED and PROTECTED under freedom of speech, as the poster appears to support.
I have a new political theory - all countries should be run by the people with the longest hair and the nicest pants. I want to share this theory with everyone. SO I email everyone on a 2 million email address list.
The only problem is, everyone ELSE with a half-baked idea or scheme or a business that needs more customers will ALSO do this.
If spamming was an acceptable way to spread news and adverts and ideas, and everyone who wanted to did it, there would, quite simply, be no possible way to detect the tiny fraction of email that WASN'T spam in your inbox every day.
It's not JUST the fact that the spammer makes the ISP (and their customers) pay for the advertising. It's also VOLUME - give everyone in the world a way to communicate with everyone else, with no way of deciding what you do or do not want to read, and all you'll do is render the medium useless.
An accurate analagy would be if you could mail a million letters for free, and the recipient and the service that delivers the letter pay. Then extend the example to allow everyone in the world to send you anything they want through the mail, you'll pay for it, and when you try to locate that letter from your parents you're expected... well, good luck. It's been dealyed and maybe lost because there was too much other stuff in the sack.
---------------------------
'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
I agree completely, ahknight,
I think we can now all relax in the satisfaction one might feel after throwing out one beer bottle while cleaning up after a 200-person new year's eve party. =)
Seriously, eventhough it's just a drop in the bucket, it is a great thing to read about when this happens.
now, if i could only get this damn local radio station's exec's thrown in jail for having an incompetent IT staff who can't get me off their mailing list.
- Dixieland
You have the right to free _speech_. You have no right to _email_!
According to the article, I find it odd
that Los Angeles convicts should
be required to pay a fine in British
Sterling.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Well, ideally I wouldn't have to pay for their health care. At the very least, they have higher insurance premiums, and at worst they wouldn't qualify for coverage under the same plans as I do.
The main difference, however, is that I have to pay taxes, whereas I can go without health care insurance without being beaten up by government thugs.
Neh
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
Most ISPs are profoundly anti-spam, at least on paper. But what effect does that have? Spammers have plenty of time to generate thousands of messages before somebody notifies the ISP and they lose the account. If they're a serious commerical spammer, they just move on to another ISP. If they're victims of some scam ("For only $99.99, I can show you how to make big bucks on the Internet!"), they're soon replaced by another sucker.
Now, suppose your ISP had a port 25 filter, and you had to pay a deposit (refundable after 1 spam-free year) to bypass it. The professionals are going to be a lot more selective. And the get-rich-quick suckers (and judging from the spam I get, they account for about 90%) are simply going to disappear.
The same applies to rate limiters, but the deposits would have to be a lot higher.
The best part about this approach is that it places no limitation on content. Nobody can claim censorship. Which, incidentally, is not any nicer coming from an ISP than from the government.
All we need to do is get existing anti-spam organizations (my persoal favorite is SpamCop) to change their agitation from "Please punish your spamsters" to "Please make your spam policies proactive instead of retroactive."
Comments?
__________________
OK. You know, given previous posts on /., I was pretty sure they were going to post this story, so I rushed too much. I was karma whoring, okay? Everybody does this! ;-) Seriously, I'm going to take your critizism into account. Besides, I'm up to 50 now, so why should I be karma whoring anymore? :-)
OK, but it a bit more relevant than that. Quite a lot of my spam, and that's several a day, are of the same nature, I'm pretty sure you would see a majority of spammers locked up.
Not that I like jails.
You have obviously not beern spammed very hard. At least you haven't seen spammers destroy communities that are easy to spam because they have to be open, that you have built with years of effort. It's not about deleting a few e-mails anymore, I have very reliable filters that can do that. If spammers have their way, they will make e-mail useless for everyone within a few years, that's what I'm fighting.
I mean, my parents have a very low net profile, contrary to me, but for them, the signal to noise ratio is allready approaching the level where e-mail is just about useless, and all they get is American spam, scams, porn, MLM, and so on.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid