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."

10 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Want Public Faith and Participation? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If they want public faith in these iniatives and participation in tracking down spammers, how about fining the spammers and turning a portion of the procedes over to the victims? I'd be all over that in a heartbeat. If you don't sign on, you get zip, otherwise it'd be about 0.05 cents for each of us, know what I mean?

    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
  2. Where is the Death Penalty? by stretch0611 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!!!
  3. Re:Interesting proposals by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Forget prison. What we need to do is give each recepient of a spam by them a thumbtack, and then let them form a big line in some public place like an stadium, and stab the spammer exactly once, in an arm or a leg or the torso.

    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?
  4. Wow, nice precident... by qtp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  5. Don't gripe, comment! by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This seems to be a golden opportunity for the /. community. This is a call for public comments on how to punish spam offenders, and many people on this board know first hand the various techniques that are used.

    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.
  6. Re:Well I say... by ad0gg · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Too bad its mostly a myth about getting pounded in the ass in prison. Everything is supervised including showers. They even seperate the gay prisoners from the straight prisoners due to violence against gay prisoners.

    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?

  7. Re:Want Public Faith ... MOD DOWN by mumblestheclown · · Score: 3, Interesting
    One of my general bitches about Fed/State/Local laws is that the goverment fines vermin and keeps the money for itself.

    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.

  8. Re:Well I say... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Sigh...federal prisons are not of the "pound-me-in-the-ass" type. If you misbehave in a federal prison you will very quickly find yourself isolated from all human contact for 23 hours a day. The feds do not tolerate shenanigans like this.

    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!
  9. Re:Well I say... by TGK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  10. Double standard? by SuperDry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.