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."

Comments

Want Public Faith and Participation?

[ackthpt]

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.

Wow, nice precident...

[qtp]

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.

Don't gripe, comment!

[FuzzyDaddy]

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.