Man Arrested for 'Spam Rage'

Mirkon writes "We've all gotten frustrated at some point with spam. Perhaps we've even been motivated to send nasty, threatening messages back to the spammers, just to vent some frustration. Wired reports that 44-year-old computer programmer Charles Booker did just that, and 'now faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.'"

Comments

Re:Well he DID commit a crime

[Total_Wimp]

Yeah, but it was a very minor crime. It's the equivilant to me yelling, "I'll tear off your head and shit down your neck if you ever come near my wife again!" if I caught you kissing her at the bar.

1. I was provoked
2. There's no real evidence I have the strength to tear off your head so it's probably not serious
3. I make no actual agressive moves toward you

It's just blustery anger, the guy doesn't deserver, and probably won't get, jail time.

TW

Re:Removing Internet Access From Schools

[BJZQ8]

Internet access in schools needs one thing...supervision. It is a remarkable tool for schools that don't have the resources or staff to do some of these things...the school district I work for is in a rural part of Illinois, and we don't have much access to the newest this and flashiest that...but with the internet, we are able to give kids access to more than we could ever hope to afford...I use a combination of filters that have reduced popups and crap on the internet to a manageable level on the supervision side. The biggest thing that I have found is not to use commercial solutions like Surfcontrol/Surfpatrol/Cyberpatrol/whateveryouwant tocallit...they are much more show than go. I use a product known as Dansguardian, which is a modified Squidguard. Block popups entirely, and block various vulgar words...while at the same time making exceptions for words like "cancer." Filter it to a negligible level...heck, just constrain your allowable domains to a few known research pages...but sheesh, don't get rid of it entirely! These kids are going into the century where they will be academically helpless without the ability to use a computer effectively to solve problems.

Re:Here's the real question

[FyRE666]

Very true. In fact, I fail to see how "companies" who send pornography to my 11 year old niece cannot be charged as peodophiles? Actually a lot of the content appears to be peodophilic in nature, which would almost certainly strengthen the cases against them.

Maybe some of the "professional victims" who make a living from suing city councils after slipping on a banana peel, or getting fat by eating too much etc, could address this new market?