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."
Couldn't we just force them to use a mail client that gets a neverending stream of the same spam they sent? Try to find that all important meeting e-mail in the midst of all the Vi@gra@ ads...
I was led to this place, a place I can't understand. A place that demands my belief just as strongly as my disbelie
One of my general bitches about Fed/State/Local laws is that the goverment fines vermin and keeps the money for itself.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Honestly though, since the law took effect on Jan 1, the amount of spam I have recieved has almost doubled. It must be thanks to the part that supercedes state laws for spam.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
No longer a libertarian when you're pissed off, eh, Eric?
When everyone's done with them, they can get medical attention.
If they're still alive.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
First we legitimize the government's "right" to regulate our internet based communication, then we applaud them when they push for jail time based on the content of your communication.
Real bright folks, aren't we.
I dislike spam as much as anyone, but the can-spam act has done little more than set legal precident for the government regulating internet based communications based on content, legitimized entire classes of spam (that are no less irritating) as "protected" from regulation (again based on content).
I never thought I'd see the day when geeks would cheer at the idea of a government censor, but I guess I was wrong. Now that the floodgates are open, I'm sure that we can expect future laws to regulate the sending of email containing "terrorism related" subjects such as communications protocols, encryption techniques, security implementations, and basic networking technology. Of course, those who are employed by "authorized" companies will be exempted from these regulations, as only they will have the "legitimate purposes" and "need to know" to be allowed such "dangerous" communication.
Read, L
A big part of the sentences guidelines is, what is the relative harm? "Hang 'em all", while satisifying, is not realistic. How would you rank the damage done by the various things spammers do? What would you tell the federal government on the relative seriousness of various aspects of spamming?
Consider:
Joe Jobbing
Using viruses to hijack other people's computers
Attacking anti-spam websites
Using spam to sell viagra vs. using it to defraud people out of thousands of dollars
I don't work with the internet on a technical level, but there are many, many people here who do. And rather than griping about spammers or the law, it would be great if this article and discussion could actually provoke some intelligent public comment. If we want the technical community to be taken seriously in the policy world, we need to give them our input when it's asked for.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
I suggest we apply the Sharia-law on these cockroaches.
I like it. Give them a dial-up account they must use to contact their laywer and parole officer by signing a GIF loaded from a HTML e-mail and sending it back. Failure to keep in touch means a violation and time. It'll give them an idea that spam wastes time, effort and resources. Be sure the daily download is buried in SPAM on dial-up with all the GIF's that have to be loaded. It would be best for the officers to dink with the subject line to make it spammy.
The truth shall set you free!
The best ad yet as to why to get an account and turn on sigs, the contents of your post, and the contents of your sig provide interesting insights into the human psyche.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
That myth isn't all bad, it keeps people out of prison. There's good reason why the prison system doesn't try to dispel that myth.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Umm, every transfer or distribution of money costs money. if you try to distribute $1m to 1000 people, each will get about (say) $950 after the costs of actually distributing the money are factored in. when government keeps fines, etc, this is revenue that they get to keep *instead of* raising taxes. So, if we listened to you, net taxes would be higher, as we'd lose out on the stupid anduseless distribution costs of first getting the fine money to the people, and then re-collecting it from the people in terms of taxes.
Why "mod down?" not only does the poster show lame logic that I have addressed before, but his proposed solution hardly calls for "justice"--rather, it rewards those with information. I can't see any use in that whatsoever. We want public faith and participation in choosing leaders and making community policy--not in filling out forms to collect what most would agree is owed equally to all victims, not just the most able.
State prisons are where you find inmate rape. Just because movies say it's true doesn't mean it's so! Unfortunately despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, people still believe everything they see in the cinema. Sad really.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Let the punishment fit the crime. If Gilbert and Sullivan (sound's like a lawfirm nowadays, doesn't it?) came up with a verse to describe the plight of spammers it would be something along the lines of spending a few years reading unsolicited manuscripts at a trash-novel publishing house.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
No, this law will be revised when an unintended victim is prosecuted for committing a crime that falls within the parameters of the law, but was never intended to be the target criminal.
I am Lord Snowbeam. Heed my call!
Why not? People who commit other forms of computer cracking (and that is the correct description of spammers' practices of filter evasion and relay hijacking) go to prison. People who commit fraud in other communications media go to prison. Why should not spammers, who routinely do both of the above, get the same punishment?
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Excelent point. I see no reason why these people should be sent to prision where they'll eat, sleep, and watch TV on my dime.
No, there are much better options.
1.) Community service -- 1 hour per message
2.) Ban from all computing resources -- 1 day per message
3.) Fine -- $1 per message
That should do it.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
It's amazing how much vehemence against spammers is shown in the posts above. "Let's castrate them" "I hope they get raped for years on end." Yet, whenever there's an attempt to do anything to stem the tide of illegal file sharing or other content theft, the same federal government is portrayed as a bunch of out-of-control jackbooted monsters. The contrast is amazing to me.
Nothing is going to take any affect until they incorporate at least some of these items into the CAN SPAM law
Of course these last two items also mean that the ISPs will enforce that no customer can run any kind of service on their computers. This will kill dyndns.org and others as a viable business. Nothing in here requires them to do this, but the marketing engine will. Everyone that they knock off the system is a risk mitigation at the minimum and a potential revenure generator if they sign up for static IP business accounts (that typically can run services).
No matter how you figure it, spammers will be the death of the publicly available internet.
Thats why it is a firing squad, 4 blanks that don't kill, and one real bullet that does.
According to most of the references I've found, it's the other way round. One person gets a blank, everyone else gets live rounds (sometimes everyone gets live rounds and there are no blanks). The idea is that even though an experienced shooter can tell the difference, there are psychological reasons not to pay attention or to believe that you truly drew the blank round. Also, no one person can stop the execution by failing to fire.
Execution by firing squad
Firing Squad Protocol
Death by firing squad
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?