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."
I don't see the word 'castration' in there anywhere.
Lock them away for life in a federal "Pound-Me-In-The-Ass" prison.
Why do the sentencing guidelines matter? The law is so poorly written as to be unenforceable.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
I wonder which kneecap to shatter first...
"Punishable By Death"
;)
That oughta put some fear into them...
libertarianswag.com
Make them use the products they push. Each and every one...
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
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
...how long will it be before the definition of spam is extended to include not just email, but any electronic medium?
/. any time soon? :)
What I'm getting at is, will they be prosecuting people who troll on
These sigs are more interesting tha
Is it only me who thinks that calling the law CAN-SPAM seems fairly inappropriate? I'd have more faith in one called CANT-SPAM. La di da,
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.
That's an easy one...
Once a spammer is found guilty they're put into a work camp. In this work camp they're seated at a computer with a red and a green button.
On the screen will flash up an email. They're then forced to choose spam or not spam.
Hesitation will result in a cattle prod to the privates.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
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!!!
From now on, each spammer convicted is required to eat one slice of spam for each email that he/she has ever sent. And eat nothing else.
Let's see that slice multiplied by 200 million or so and see how the spammer likes it.
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
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
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.
It would seem the uncivilized chaps over at this government office haven't yet gotten something called email. That or they're deathly afraid of getting mailbombed by spammers.
Regardless, they need snail mail, AKA a written letter for public input. Since the statistical odds are that many here have forgotten how to implement this outdated technology, I have a how to:
Write your email, explaining why the death penalty for spammers is warranted.
Instead of sending your email, print it out on your printer.
Remove printed email from printer and ask an older colleague for something called an "envelope".
Insert statement of reasoning for the death penalty for spammers into the envelope. Crumpling does not work as well as folding it 3 evenly spaced times perpindicular to the vertical axis of the paper. Make sure you seal envelope after inserting letter, avoid temptation to use duct tape to make sure it doesn't fall out.
Print an envelope in your printer with the envelope feed slot. If you can't find one of those you'll have to hand print the address on the envelope.
At the top left corner of the side without the flap write your name on the first line. Write your street address on the second line. On the third line write your city followed immeadiately by a comma. Follow this with the two letter acronym for your state or residence and then your zip code.
In the middle of the same flap of the envelope put the following in the same format.
United States Sentencing Commission
One Columbus Circle, NE. Suite 2-500
Washington, DC 20002-8002
Attention: Public Affairs
Then travel to a post office, you can locate one off the Internet by going here. At this post office give the person your letter and explain you want to buy a "stamp". This will cost you 39 cents. Pu this at the top right corner of the envelope on the same side as the writing. The people at the post office will then take care of delivery. Pop3 not available.
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 -
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.
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.
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.
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?