Slashdot Mirror


Virginia Arrests Man For Spamming

volpe writes "According to this Yahoo news story, Virginia arrested a North Carolina man for spamming in violation of a new state law. He was arrested Thursday afternoon in Raleigh, NC. The story is pretty fresh, so the news details are still pretty thin."

11 of 475 comments (clear)

  1. Man arrested for spamming by unixfan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it's great that something is being done about spamming, though I don't think it's a criminal but a civil offense.

  2. Wording is confusing by metlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although based in North Carolina, Virginia is asserting jurisdiction over Jaynes because he sent messages through computers located in the state.

    So does this mean that any spam passing through any of VA's pipe or VA is liable to be punished?

    Or did he send spam to someone at VA? The article is not very clear on that, but it seems likely.

    But if its merely because it passed through VA, then whoa! Infinite coolness.

  3. federal case? by tokengeekgrrl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:

    "Although based in North Carolina, Virginia is asserting jurisdiction over Jaynes because he sent messages through computers located in the state.

    Roughly 50 percent of the world's Internet traffic passes through Virginia, home to big Internet companies like Time Warner Inc.'s (NYSE:TWX - news) American Online unit and MCI (Other OTC:WCOEQ - news)."

    So that means he can be charged in federal court, too, since his crime involves multiple states, doesn't it? Or does it have to be shown that his email crossed into multiple states in order to take it to federal court? I would like to see more spammers be tried in federal court because the financial penalties are more significant and injurous than in many states. I would think a case could be made for the intent to damage people in multiple states just by accessing Virginia given its backbone status.

    Of course, having a spammer charged in multiple states would be fine, too, just as long as it sticks and he pays for his crime in a way that deters him and others like him (I know, small chance of that).

    - tokengeekgrrl

    1. Re:federal case? by johnnyb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, this week the Supreme Court basically said that the 1st amendment could be thrown out the Window. The new campaign finance reform law (i.e. - the incumbent protection act) was upheld. Campaigners can't run ads for the 30 days leading up to an election.

  4. Hijacked computer? by eggoeater · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm just waiting for the follow up story on how it was a worm on his computer sending out the spam and he had no idea.
    I'd be pissed if my mom got arrested under this law because she didn't have her computer patched and got some spam-worm.
    -Steve

  5. Penalties maybe a little too harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Our Jail Systems are definately overcrowded, and to alleviate the problem some violent criminals are getting released early, too early.

    This law will just compound the problem. Does sending spam justify PRISON TIME, i don't think so. They should just put them under house arrest or major community services AND revoke all internet access.

    Let the punishment fit the crime.

  6. Re:Sic Semper Spammeris by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I hate spam as much as the rest you, but, something strikes me weird.

    I thought that interstate commerce could not be interfered with by states...that only the Feds could do this. The line in the article saying so much traffic goes through Virginia....Well, if this guy was sending email trying to sell a product....wouldn't this Virginia law violate the 'freedom' of interstate commerce?

    I like to see spam killed, but, wondering if this is a loophole until closed by Fed. law in the US?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  7. Re:Sic Semper Spammeris by BTWR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're like the ACLU guys who defend NAMBLA. They whine that "these guys should be allowed to have their website which specifically states ways to lure young boys to you and has detailed tips on sex acts with them." Now, I'm ok with Nazis marching with their hate speech as long as it's not actively threatening (note: I'm Jewish), but when someone like these NAMBLA guys are actively promoting harm to people, and these spammers who are also causing finite damage (albeit at a much different level - I'm not saying Mortgage spam is just as bad as rape-tips), then they don't deserve these freedoms.

  8. Kilgore's Election Gambit by waldoj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It appears, based on the article, that this was the product of work by Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore. I'm pleased that he's enforcing the law, but by way of background, I should point out why he's choosing to enforce this particular law at this particular time.

    Our governor, Mark Warner, is a millionaire hundreds of times over, having made his fortune in tech in Northern Virginia. He got elected on the strength of his business and tech expertise. His term is up in two years, and, under Virginia law, he can't run for reelection. So the race is on between Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine and Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, the presumed Democratic and Republican nominees.

    As is often the case with vice-anythings, Kaine is forced to live under the shadow of Gov. Warner for the time being, while Kilgore is under the shadow of nobody. Kilgore tends to spend most of his time ensuring that people aren't having sex (he's working to keep Virginia's ridiculous bedroom laws on the books; sex outside of marriage is illegal, oral sex is illegal, homosexuality is illegal, etc.) and attempting to keep from getting indicted for his role in the recent Republican wiretapping scandal, something that has just been revealed in the past week.

    So, Kilgore gets a twofer with this prosecution. Not only is this yet another thing that he can tout on the campaign trail ("Kaine? Tech? Hell, I brought two spammers back from Carolina, hog-tied and all!"), but he's no doubt hoping that this will overshadow, at least for a few precious days, some of the accusations against him for wiretapping charges.

    Again, I'm glad to see this law enforced. Virginia's law is badly-written, in the sense that it must be enforced by Commonwealth's Attorneys, and few of them have the slightest concept of how to or desire to do so. It's good that our Attorney General is willing to take the lead in cracking down.

    -Waldo Jaquith

  9. Perspective by maximilln · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion with many people but, whether you like it or not, it's the sane opinion.

    I hate spam as much as the next guy. Spam is like being harassed by a horsefly when you just want to sit in the boat and go fishing. Spam is a terrible nuisance. That said I don't want to see this guy go to prison unless he was spamming for unsavory things like ridiculously immoral pr0n or predatory pyramid schemes. I just want him, and other people like him, to STOP SENDING SPAM.

    At the same time I realize that while it would be nice to let the punishment fit the crime that's not the way our judicial system works. There are no alternative punishments like ensuring that this guy can't own a computer or be associated with marketing organizations. It would be impossible to prevent him from somehow getting back into the same business of spamming people to make money. Our judicial system provides for parole but, unless someone's watching this guy 24-7-365, he'll always be able to get back into the spam market. Aside from a horribly expensive parole system the only thing that we can do with spammers is put them in prison and hope that they don't start running spam rings from the inside (movie: Blood in Blood out).

    I just don't know where it all goes anymore.

    --
    +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  10. Somethings wrong here by spiritraveller · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Unconstitutional - Dormant Commerce Clause. If a state can't regulate the type of mudflaps used by 18-wheelers on its own freeways, it doesn't make sense that it could prosecute someone who might not even know they were sending email through the state.

    If that's not an interference with interstate commerce, I don't know what is.

    2. Mens rea - Knowledge/intent of the crime. Most crimes (other than traffic violations) require at least that the accused knew he was doing the facts that make up the crime (not that it IS a crime, only the underlying facts). Here, the crime requires that the email pass through Virginia. How is he supposed to know whether a particular email he sends is passing through Virginia? Even if he is sending it to AOL, he doesn't necessarily know that AOL is in Virginia.

    Yet another conflict between fighting spam and preserving our rights.