Slashdot Mirror
Spammer Sentencing Guidelines
actaeon169 writes "The Register is reporting that the Feds are seeking public comment on a proposal to amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to deal with those convicted of violating the law set forth in the CAN-SPAM act. Here is what the Feds have to say."
Why do the sentencing guidelines matter? The law is so poorly written as to be unenforceable.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
How about "drawn and quartered" as a fitting punishment?
-
"Vengeance is fine," sayeth the Lord.
Why go after the spammers (ie. the bulk emailing services). It's like shooting the messenger; instead, go after the advertisers of such spam emails, since their whereabouts are easier to track down than anonymous spammers.
One proposal is a formula that would sentence deceptive spammers to more time in prison for each e-mail address spammed. Considering that spammers can get thousands of addresses in one swoop, that should put most spammers in prison for a long, long time.
The problem is that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines limit judges to a narrow ranges of sentences a court can choose from when punishing violators of federal criminal law. The guidelines work off of a point system that sets a starting value for a particular crime, and then adds or subtracts points for specific aggravating or mitigating circumstances. A convicted kidnapper, for example, starts off with 24 sentencing points which is about 5-6 years in prison.
The question is how many points should spamming get, and how many "bonus" points should spammers get for aggravated offences. These could be things like using sophisticated means to harvest email addresses or commiting more serious crimes, like identity theft or fraud, as well as spamming.
>>esr>>
They can still spam from wheelchairs; I think you ought to go for the knuckles.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Even though I was not that unlucky, I agree with you on this point.
Soljenitsyne once wrote that "Civilizations are as evolved as their prisons are"
Having such prison is a symptom, laughing at this is another.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Bonus points should be given for:
- Using harvesting software.
- Not providing means to opt out.
- Using stealth email address verifiers.
- Forging headers, etc, etc.
- Using spam as an ends to break other criminal laws.
I also feel that ISPs should take some of the heat, if not criminal, at least financially, if it can be proved they had knowledge of the operation, or are blatantly spam friendly. Sure most spammers are off shore, but lots operations start off at US ISPs before they get smart, or are forced offshore.
One last thought. I swear I get more spam now than I did before the law went into effect. Anyone else have this feeling?
Having a bookmark to Google does not make you an expert on everything.
Lemme get this straight :
You are modded +1 interesting for proposing to torture convicts ?
My father spent 5 years in a Goulag for writing poetry, he'd be sorry to know the occidental mentality is not any better than the one that he fought behind the iron curtain.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Why don't we do something similar to what was done to Alex in A Clockwork Orange. We can strap them down, keep their eyelids open, and force them to watch Gigli every day until they are "rehabilitated." Then again, maybe castration and breaking kneecaps is more humane.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Now that I think about it, you're right, I don't want my taxes to go towards keeping them locked up.
Execute them firing squad style.
As much fun as it is to vent and say "death to spammers" or even "one year in prison for every 100 spammed addresses", we have to be realistic. Prison is for hardcore criminals... eg: murderers, rapists, etc. and not for someone like spammers.
/. crowd, federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison is not the answer here. I'm not sure what the answer is, but that isn't it.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, and would surely love to vent my fury on those doing the spamming. However, and this opinion probably won't be popular with the
- c -
You are allowed to deliver any public speech, but not if you do it through a loudhailer at 3am in the morning. Content is not the issue, delivery is. And that's how most spam laws (should) work.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Spammers are people and some of them have a family and kids, too.
Sure, but spam generates a lot of emotion, frustration, and hatred because of the unrepentant nature of the crime. If you deal with spammers at all they tend to be self-righteous and have an attitude of "I'm doing nothing wrong and I'll never be punished", even as they steal resources and damage reputations.
Spammers shouldn't be killed, tortured, raped, or any of the other things many posters here are suggesting (and those suggestions are mostly joking) - but those kinds of sentiments are a natural reaction on the part of those who are victimized with no recourse. Spammers need to go to jail and make reparations.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
The law needs to recognize a blindingly obvious point -- anti-spam filters are a form of computer security, and the use of filter evasion techniques is therefore a form of computer cracking. Thus, filter evasion is criminal in and of itself, and each additional enhancement to the filter evasion technique should map to a corresponding enhancement of the sentence.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Everything that has ever been funny has also been painful to someone else at least once.
"I slipped on the ice in front of the girl I was trying to impress! Hahaha!":
"My mother slipped on some ice and broke her neck. Insensitive jerk!"
"I walked around with my fly down all day. Hahaha!":
"I walked into a client meeting with my fly unzipped and got fired. Insensitive jerk!"
"Boy, was I embarassed! Hahaha!":
"I spent 15 years in therapy for the same thing. Insensitive jerk!"
To be blunt, it's the height of arrogance to assume that the particulars of a situation always map to something similar that happened to you. Your negative experience doesn't mean that noone else is allowed to make jokes about a similar situation.
I feel bad for you dad, seriously. That's awful, and he has my sympathy. That has no bearing whatsoever on the joke you were replying to.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Despite how emotional I can get about spam and spammers. I think a reasonable sentence would be maybe a year in prison but then have your computer use suspended for 5-10 years. That would hopefully at least get rid of some of the spam for a while.
There are a whole lot of reasons for that, but one of the largest is that:
Illegally sharing media annoys a large, amoral (and sometimes immoral) company that relies upon those it is attacking for it's very popularity and survival.
Spamming is an example of a large, amoral (or immoral) company going out of it's way to pester millions of people, in support of another amoral (or immoral) company that survives by preying on the stupid or uninformed.
In other words, in the eyes of most thinking people:
Government making the peoples' lives better at the expense of the corporations, good.
Government making the corporations' lives better at the expense of the people, bad.
Andrew Fastow, Enron's CFO and chief crook, is finally going to jail. He just pled guilty and got a 10 year sentence and a $24 million fine. That's just the beginning. He has more charges hanging over him (over a thousand years worth), and he has to fully cooperate with prosecutors or face even more jail time. (So Fastow gives up Skilling and Lay. The big question is whether they give up Bush.)
I have the same gut feeling as you do, but prison is the wrong answer, at least for the first offense. Second offense, sure, they haven't learned squat. But reserve prison on the first offense for violent crimes.
What I want is for them to wear that electronic ankle bracelet and be denied all internet access. Let them have a computer, but no internet hookup. Let them use a computer at work, as long as there is no internet access.
See, I don't want to pay taxes to hold people in prison if they can hold down a job and pay restitution, or at least I don't want to support them in prison. I want them toiling away at some menial job, paying taxes, paying restitution. I'd just as soon force them to take whatever the current equivalent of antabuse is, I don't want them drinking or smoking, that wastes money that could go to restitution. I want them circulating between work and home, nowhere else, no parties, no visiting friends, no fun. Let themexplain to their friends why the friends have to come see them. Let their kids understand that daddy is a screwup and an asshole and can't go to school plays and weekend movies. I want them to do that for a year first offense, 5 years second offense. Or if the first offense is nasty enough, straight to prison, but only for exceptional cases. And the second offense, prison should be a likely result, but not mandatory.
I resent paying for prisons to guard nonviolent prisoners. But if ankle bracelets don't teach them a thing, then prison is fine.
Infuriate left and right