Defending Harsh Sentences for Spammers

BMcWilliams writes "Russell McGuire, one of the government lawyers who prosecuted spammer Jeremy Jaynes, has published an article justifying the tough sentence recommended by a Virginia jury. He writes, 'the defense attorney argued that greed cuts both ways and the victims got what they deserved because they were trying to get rich quick. Needless to say, this did not go over well with the jury.' Still, the eye-popping 9-year sentence has even some ardent anti-spammers wondering whether 'proportionality is becoming a completely forgotten concept.'"

Comments

first post?

[zzmejce]

And what is the defense attorney e-mail address?

Re:first post?

[pmagsa]

Have you checked eBay? You might find it there. I found some email databases on sale at MercadoLibre (eBay company for Latin America). Take a look a my comment here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=128998&cid=107 64051

Re:first post?

[julesh]

Please do not take any action against these people. Criminals have a right to legal representation. Would you murder a lawyer who represented a murderer? Didn't think so. Why would you therefore spam a lawyer who represented a spammer?

Proprotionality

[sqlrob]

So, how much did it work out *per spam*? A couple of seconds, if that? If "it takes a second" to hit delete, then that's a reasonable sentence for each spam.

Re:Proprotionality

[cbogart]

Seems like the courts could come up with some estimate of costs imposed by spamming -- how many hours do how many people spend "hitting delete" or installing and maintaining spam filters; what's the cost of the bandwidth needed to carry it nationwide. Then figure out what proportion of that this spammer was responsible for, and you have an estimate of how much value he stole from people.

Re:Proprotionality

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's that.. around 11 days/one million spam messages sent... gives 31 million spams == one year in jail. 31*9 ~= 280 million spams.

Re:Proprotionality

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider for a moment the financial costs imposed on the spam victims and the infrastructure providers the spam traversed on its way to those "greedy" spam recipients. It's not uncommon for criminals to go to prison for extended periods for stealing cars, defrauding banks, shoplifting, etc. Given that this spammer probably sopped up millions of dollars worth of resources, I don't find the sentence very stiff at all. The only difference between Jaynes and a bank robber is that he didn't use a gun in his crime.

Cheers,

Re:Proprotionality

[sqlrob]

And 280 Million is what, a year's worth of spam by the average spammer, if it's that low?

If they were doing this more than a year, they got off light.

Re:Proprotionality

[Zocalo]

Exactly my view! I'm a big fan of punishments for a crime being proportional to ammount the damage inflicted; let the punishment fit the crime, but not in a strict interpretation of an "eye for an eye". No one would bat an eye if someone got ten years for stealing a painting valued at $10m, so why should there be such a fuss when a spammer gets the same kind of sentence? If we assume the spammer sent a billion spams (a conservative estimate), that's a total cost of just $0.01 per spam. That's $0.01 to cover CPU time, network bandwith costs, the loss of time taken to hit delete, plus a fraction of any one-off costs for anti-spam solutions, cleaning up any after any exploits that might be hitching a ride in those nice clickable URLs etc.

And let's not forget that there is a pretty fair chance that the owner of the painting (or whatever) stands a reasonable chance of recovering their property. With spam, any costs incurred are pretty much a write off, so it's not so much "theft of assets" as "destruction of assets", which is an entirely different, and more serious, class of crime.

Re:Proprotionality

[walt-sjc]

In my area, we had a guy that raped a 6 year old girl get 2 years, when it should have been life. Another guy that killed someone by running over him with a snowmobile (hit and run, leaving the guy he hit to freeze to death) got 6 months. A woman who wroute a couple bad checks and no prior history got 4 years.

There is a serious problem with sentancing. Criminals with serious offences are getting off light while more minor offences receive serious jail time. I have a problem with this.

In this particular case though, I feel the spammer received an appropriate sentence - maybe a little lighter that I would prefer, but better that the usual nothing.

Re:Proprotionality

[fatphil]

In that case, I propose the only suitable punishment -
death by 280 million paper cuts.

I've got an almost new ream of 120g/sm, and I'm prepared to share it.

FP.

Re:Proprotionality

[Jedi Alec]

erect a gallows and publicly hang 'em high

Must...not...make...viagra jokes

Re:Proprotionality

[hackstraw]

So, how much did it work out *per spam*? A couple of seconds, if that? If "it takes a second" to hit delete, then that's a reasonable sentence for each spam.

I hate to bust everybody's bubble, but this spammer really didn't get sentenced for spam, but rather for fraud. From TFA:

During my opening statement, I explained to the jury that sending spam by itself is not a crime, but when you masquerade your identity, you violate Virginia's law that took effect in July 2003. Spammers run afoul of the law when they use another's IP or domain address without authority or create a fictitious IP or domain address.

Also, what this guy was "selling" was some UPS work-from-home tracking bs where you were supposedly getting paid a good amount of money for sitting at home. This guy made some 8 or 9 million dollars from scamming people with this crap.

Anyway, my point is that he was not really convicted for spamming, but rather for being a greedy deceptive assmunch, and I think his sentence fits the crime.

Re:Proprotionality

[hackstraw]

Seems like the courts could come up with some estimate of costs imposed by spamming -- how many hours do how many people spend "hitting delete" or installing and maintaining spam filters; what's the cost of the bandwidth needed to carry it nationwide. Then figure out what proportion of that this spammer was responsible for, and you have an estimate of how much value he stole from people.

I'm sorry, but this idea make as much sense as the arbitrary method of assigning sentences that we have now.

1st, I'm dissapointed in the /. crowd for thinking that this guy was convicted of "spamming". He wasn't. Its basically a specific form of fraud which is clearly explained in the bolded 1st paragraph of the article.

Sentences for crime and many of the "crimes" themselves are arbitrary. I don't want to get philosophical here, but there simply really isn't a right or a wrong, its only popular opinion (thanks 12 Monkeys :).

I know of someone that was found guilty of stealing abour $40,000 from her employer. It was a cut and dry case, because she was responsible for collecting payments at a doctor's office, and she just told the people to leave the "Payable to" field blank, and she would stamp it, but instead she just put her name on it. A pretty easy paper trail for the crime. Anyway, she got 6 months in jail and has to do pay $50 a month in restitution. To me that is not a punishment at all, and if I were in a similar situation, I would take 6 months in jail and a $50 payment for a $40,000 interest free loan. Maybe, but what I'm getting at is the punishment would not be a deterant for doing this, now my silly sense of morals would probably prevail.

Look at the drug laws and punishments. In 10 states in our country, possession of marijuana in personal quanities is not a crime at all, and only has a fine associated with it like speeding. In the other 40 states, its a misdimeaner from about 30 days to 1 year of jail time.

Look at the differences between different drugs. Especially powder vs rock (crack) cocaine. That makes no sense whatsoever (except its pretty effective in controlling poor uneducated inner city people).

Also, the government is not very good at estimating losses. The estimates of losses from drug use (between 50 and 100 billion a year, depending on which week the question is asked) were based on calling a few people in North Carolina and asking them: 1) do you smoke pot? 2) how much money do you make? Being that a majority of the people that smoke pot are under 30, including many students, one can easily see that these people are going to be at the bottom of most pay scales.

Re:Proprotionality

[Ironsides]

You're forgetting that these guys were also using the spam to sell products that would not do what they claimed they would do. As I undrstand it, they were spamming people to scam them out of money. The nine years isn't just for the spamming, but for selling, as the prosecutor liked to put it, "snake oil".

Re:Proprotionality

[mconeone]

Maybe the first two people had good lawyers, while the third did not.

Re:Proprotionality

[DM9290]

" In my area, we had a guy that raped a 6 year old girl get 2 years,"

Just curious.

Was it actually rape (which involves penetration) or was the indictment listed as "sexual assault"?

Up here everything from touching someones clothed breast to violent sodomy with a police baton is called sexual assault. There is no crime of "rape". Consequently as a result the word "rape" is frequently misapplied to practically any unlawful sexual act no matter what allegidly took place.

The only point I'm making is that I see accurate descriptions of unlawful acts being thrown away in favour of the more cynical (but more popular) fear mongering. It is certainly unjust (to the victim as well as the perp) to report that a non-rape sexual assault is a rape.

No doubt some "Law and Order" types would argue they are the same thing. The same people who call copyright infringement "piracy".

"proportionality" does not compare leaving people to die to writing bad cheques. It compares 1 instance of leaving someone to die with other instances of leaving someone to die. 1 rape with another rape. Presumably in your jurisdiction, writing bad cheques is taken to be a more serious offence than rape or leaving the victims of your driving accident to die.

This is the fault of law makers (who legislate minimum/maximum sentences) rather than the judiciary who compare like crimes with like crimes.

Just putting blaim where it belongs.

If law makers legislated a mandatory death sentence for writing bad cheques, it would not cause the punishment for rape to increase or decrease.

It would not be a failure of the justice system. It would be a failure of the political system.

Zoo mentality

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't need to be said that you can get off with a lighter sentence for killing someone. This just goes to show that we're too quick to lock people in cages these days. Why not have them give back to the community or something constructive?

Re:Zoo mentality

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Why not have them give back to the community or something constructive?

That's a great idea. He can spend his prison time (the portion not reserved for butt-rape) being a manual spam filter for someone. 12 hours a day forced to read through spam after spam and sort them into categories. The data can then be sent to spam filtering companies for... I don't know, fun, I guess. The helping-society part of this is a little flimsy. But the fun part is random ones are picked and checked for accuracy by a guard, and if he miscategorized it, he gets punched in the face. And I'm okay with it if that happens when he did it right, too.

Re:Zoo mentality

[Moraelin]

I don't know, it seems to me like it's justified nevertheless.

1. Although I find it an inherently cold and heartless thought, we put a price in dollars on a human life all the time. Compare the losses caused by a spammer to that, and it's quite easy to end up higher than the cost of a life.

No, I'm not talking "but a second to delete a spam message costs nothing!" Even then, time is ultimately money. (E.g., you pay over $1000 for a faster computer, yes, to save time. And how many of those upgrades are ultimately just to be able to run an even slower antivirus, spyware killer, etc? That's money costs inflicted by the spammers upon society.)

I'm also talking lots of other effects, such as the cost incurred to companies and individuals to maintain all those spam filters. The IT costs of preventing and cleaning with viruses that exist only to install spam zombies. Costs incurred to ISP's and companies just to deal with the bandwidth and storage used up by spam _and_ all those viruses trying to install spam zombies. Costs related to false positives. (E.g., a missed business opportunity because an email from a legitimate business partner was filtered out.)

Plus the insidious cost of having a valuable communication resource plundered and turned into a worthless wasteland. Whereas we all used to gladly read and answer emails from strangers (e.g., questions about my walkthrough for a game, some yes, including attached pics of where they got lost), nowadays an email from a stranger is most likely to be junked without reading. Doubly so if it contains an attachment of any kind.

I also used to freely give my email address to everyone. Nowadays if someone did that, you'd call them an idiot clueless (l)user. Nowadays if you must enter an email address, it's some black hole account just supposed to be a garbage bin for spam.

All this is not just business opportunities, but literal pollution of a valuable resource, and it affects hundreds of millions of people. Even if you put a 1$ price on that resource for each user affected, you easily end up with a monumental loss that those spammers caused to society.

Yes, higher than what we currently price one life at. Cynical, but true.

2. My favourite example: I think of it not in dollars, but in seconds. A murderer has shortened someone's life by, say, 20 years. And we can execute him for that.

Now let's look at spam. Let's say 100,000,000 users receive spam. Let's also say each user is only robbed of 1 minute per day dealing with spam, installing and updating spam filters, de-installing spam zombies, etc. (Just spending an hour on that software every 2 months, already uses up that 1 minute per day quota. So not unrealistic.)

That means in just 2 months, those users have been robbed of 100,000,000 hours out of their lives! That's 4166667 days! Or more than 100,000 YEARS!

So we can execute someone for stealing 20 years out of someone's life, but you think 9 years in prison is too much for robbing 100,000+ years from us all? Seems to me like it's equivalent to more than 5000 murders. People have been hanged tried as war criminals and mass-murderers for far less than that.

So au contraire, I think the fucktard got off disproportionately lightly. If there was justice and keeping the punishment proportional, a spammer would need to die a thousand deaths. (Which, unfortunately, is impossible anyway.)

Re:Zoo mentality

[VistaBoy]

I really hate the recent common mentality that it's tolerable for convicts to be "butt-raped" in prison as a punishment. Especially when our President constantly mentions that our military freed Iraq from "rape rooms." Why are people tolerating rape as a punishment for crimes? Why is the public not only allowing, but ENCOURAGING a loophole around the Eighth Amendment?

Re:Zoo mentality

[Richard Aday]

I completly agree with you. I see no reason why we need to fill our prisons with criminals who did not commit rape/robbery/murder (or any other violent act). At most I would jail him for a year and make him do 2 years worth of community service. But with that jail time would come a warning that if he did it again, it would be 5 years.

A lot of you argue that the time taken away from deleting spam adds up to hundreds of thousands of years. Someone even went far enough to say that it's more time taken away then the time taken away from someone who was murdered. Time is a number, constant. It will always go on, but the time you have should be invaluable. A few seconds a day is nothing compared to 20 years of your life gone. I'm sure everyone here wastes a few seconds a day doing something that serves no purpose.

Re:Zoo mentality

[pe1rxq]

A sentence should for rehabilitation, not revenge.
In 9 years (especially in a US prisson) they will not be rehabilitated, they will be angry, pissed off, without a future. They won't fit into society and be good citicens, much more likely they will have been pushed over the edge mentally and commit far worse crimes.

Re:Zoo mentality

[Sai Babu]

AC writes, "have them give back to the community or something constructive"

1)because forced labor is cruel and unusual punishment
2)because prisoner labor competes with people trying to earn a living
3)because stinkin spammers should rot in jail with no worldly contact other than spam email

Re:Zoo mentality

[Tackhead]

> In 9 years (especially in a US prisson) they will not be rehabilitated, they will be angry, pissed off, without a future. They won't fit into society and be good citicens, much more likely they will have been pushed over the edge mentally and commit far worse crimes.

So we're in agreement. Kill them.

(I'm in a gentle mood today, and suggest suffocation by weighing down their rib cages with pallets of a certain trademarked potted meat product. My motivation isn't revenge, it's the pay-per-view revenue as they wheeze out their last words as the CO2 panic sets in and the cameramen zoom in on a 3-pane view of their eyes bugging out, and fingers and toes wiggling in frantic panicked futility.)

Re:Zoo mentality

[CountBrass]

I call bullshit.

Whilst I agree 9 years for a first offence of spamming (assuming no fraud/attempted fraud) is over the top.

However, a sentence serves 4 purposes: First and foremost it's about punishment. Second it's about convincing the victims and society they've been punished: so they don't feel the need to take the law into their own hands, and so that they can move on. Thirdly it's about proecting society: both the individuals and the collective group. And fourth, by a big margin, it's about rehabilitation.

Re:Zoo mentality

[3terrabyte]

Not to mention the huge conservative Christian community that helped Bush into office because of their fear (or possibly valid religious beliefs) against Gay Marriage.

The same homophobic people will then turn around and chuckle at the thought of men raping men in prison. It's got to stop. That is not the punishment that judges hand out, but it is definately one that gets handed out in all serious prisons.

Re:Zoo mentality

[canajin56]

Here here! I actually talked to somebody who said that all punishment is wrong. I asked "So if somebody murdered your entire family, you wouldn't even want them locked up?" "No, I would want to help them, because they obviously are not well." "But what about the other people he could kill. Putting him in jail would prevent that" "So we should sacrifice his freedom for the supposed safety of some hypothetical person? That's not justice"

As for your first comment, there was fraud involved. Above and beyond the forged headers, they were selling $39.95 "FedEx Refund Processors". "Make $75 an hour working from home" and all that. That is why his lawyer made the comment about how it was the victims fault for being greedy.

Re:Zoo mentality

[bleckywelcky]

Here's an easy solution: Don't commit a crime and you won't go to jail.

And your statement "The same homophobic people will then turn around and chuckle at the thought of men raping men in prison" is an invalid stereotype/generalization. Perhaps the only reason you said this is because you feel this way.

Re:Zoo mentality

[Xenographic]

Why is rehab so unimportant?

Do we *want* them comitting more crimes when their sentences end?

When I think of the importance of rehab, I don't think "oh, those poor little criminals, won't someone help them," I think "oh crap, what are we going to do with them when they get out?"

Re:Zoo mentality

[Pxtl]

Mod parent up, I've often felt that "corporate jail time" would be a better answer to corporate crime than the modern approach of short-term fines. It would also make the shareholders partially accountable for the actions of the companies they buy into (no dividends) - as they should be: by appointing the CEO and providing funds, they are complicit in the crimes of the company proportionally to the amount invested.

Of course, this is different in the cases of Enron-style financial fraud where the company's victim _is_ its investors - but in the cases of violating human rights/safety/environmental regulations a "corporate house arrest" policy would seem very appropriate.

And as for the first point - I think that people need to stay very focussed on the purpose of the justice system. That is not currently happening - short terms for violent criminals, and punishment for crimes of theft/fraud/financial crimes are not proportional to the magnitude of the crime (white-collar financial crime exceeds the total monetary cost of street crime). If someone steals my car from the driveway they can go away for years, but if someone steals my pension they'll likely get off with a slap on the wrist, never mind the orders of magnitude in difference in the crime.

The other problem is the prison system - there are three types of prison life:
1: hell. You're the bottom of a totem pole in a violent state prison. Abuse, rape, and AIDS are a way of life.
2: residence. You're in low-security townhouse system that doesn't really do anything to punish you - you just have to get up early and do a few odd jobs.
3: thug. The guards would rather not deal with you, and you pretty much get free reign to do what you want.

Now, the problem is that we seem to apply the wrong lifestyles to the wrong criminals. The worst, most violent career criminals live high on the hog - a highschool bully but with shankings and anal pillagings.

The milder drug-offenders and non-violent sex offenders are still sent to Hell. Those people should be in psychiatric wards to be reconditioned.

Meanwhile, many of the top-end white-collar criminals, even if they've stolen more than every thug in New York, get off in a country club... or even house arrest.

I wonder where they send spammers? Club Fed probably - but at least its a long sentence in Club Fed.

My solution: make use of the country's massive supply of idle psychology majors working joe-jobs 'cause they can't find work in the field. Retrain them as guards and get their hands dirty in the prison system.

Re:Zoo mentality

[Rev.LoveJoy]

I agree with your assertion that this comparison is fallacious. However, I question that the motivation behind making an example of one spammer is convenience.

We had a medium, email, used by millions of people for meaningful discourse. Over time, a very small percentage of users (spammers) have all but trashed email for all users. We are using the legal system to make this small handful of individuals pay for their pollution. These few dozen persons have ruined a medium used by hundreds of millions the world over.

Does this punishment fit their crime? Absolutely.

Cheers,
-- RLJ

Re:Zoo mentality

[Profane MuthaFucka]

So, by your logic, the way to make sure that any punishment at all is acceptable is to make sure that it happens to everyone?

OK, Death Penalty for every offense, including speeding tickets! It's not cruel, because they don't suffer. It's not unusual, because it happens millions of times a year.

This is the kind of "compassionate conservatism" that we can all look forward to. I can't wait.

Contribute to ridiclulous levels of spam

[Shnizzzle]

and go to jail for nine years. Drive a car drunk, sell crack, or commit rape and serve far less (or even any) time. I love this country.

Re:Contribute to ridiclulous levels of spam

[onion2k]

Just goes to show the punishment for drunk driving, selling crack and rape are too lenient, not that the punishment for spam is too harsh.

Re:Contribute to ridiclulous levels of spam

[Zoop]

sell crack [...] and serve far less (or even any) time

Unlike smoking crack, this crime actually had victims. Real, honest to jebus money-losing victims.

(Admittedly, very stupid victims who would probably have given up money for magic beans.)

Re:Contribute to ridiclulous levels of spam

[Grax]

I just question that jail/prison is an appropriate punishment. It isn't that I feel prison is too harsh. It is just that it is very expensive (to the taxpayer) and it keeps criminals in the company of other criminals, which I feel is not an environment conducive to learning to act in a non-criminal manner.

Of course I haven't come up with a fitting alternative. Fines can not be administered fairly to criminals in different financial tiers and public flogging is generally not approved of.

Side note: after thinking about it, I don't like the idea of taking away a felon's voting rights. Suppose that eating were made a felony. The fix for something that stupid would be to vote the jokers that passed it out of office. But no one could vote them out of office since they would all be felons.

Re:Contribute to ridiclulous levels of spam

[oconnorcjo]

and go to jail for nine years. Drive a car drunk, sell crack, or commit rape and serve far less (or even any) time. I love this country.

The defense lawyer did a REALLY shabby job. He said "they acted like shitheads only because they were trying to get rich fast"

So yes they got a harsh sentence but if I was a jurror you can bet that would have pushed my "for maximum punishment" trigger finger too.

If a rapist had the defense of "I raped her because I knew it would feel so fucking good" you can be assured they would get the death penalty (in a death penalty state).

While a harsh sentence, I feel no pitty for the defendants. Spam is/should be illegal and those that try to make it a bussiness model should pay dearly for thier actions (which includes paying for a good lawyer).

Re:Contribute to ridiclulous levels of spam

[Hatta]

Just goes to show the punishment for drunk driving, selling crack and rape are too lenient, not that the punishment for spam is too harsh.

the USA already incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other nation in the world because of sentencing practices harsher than any other industrialized country. If prison actually prevented crime we should have a low crime rate, but no, we have more crime than any develpoed nation.

Re:Contribute to ridiclulous levels of spam

[ratamacue]

Nobody is claiming that drugs don't cause health problems, even death. What I claim is that (1) selling or using drugs is an act of non-aggression, and (2) an act of non-aggression cannot logically be "more evil" than an act of aggression.

Of course, the drug laws you support are the same ones that give rise to black markets and the violent crime that comes with them. Haven't you ever read about alcohol prohibition? Al Capone? The murder rate skyrocketed when alcohol was banned. When prohibition was finally repealed, the murder rate came right back down to the previous level.

Thanks for supporting violent crime.

considering...

[kalpol]

the amount and cost of the bandwidth they stole, nine years is about right.

Two Wrongs...

[dorward]

Well maybe the victims did deserve everything they got, but two wrongs do not make a right in America. (Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba)

Re:Two Wrongs...

[sharok]

Now that is brilliant. Must be the secret to the impunity of the American government.
After all, they Never Do Any Wrong (TM) - on US soil at least. When cameras are present. Or the journalist cannot be "kidnapped".

Punishment fitting the crime?

[BobSutan]

Proportionality be damned. They're out for blood and need to make an example of him. What I have been wondering is why spammers even need to spend time in jail. Wouldn't a large fine be in order and serve the same purpose? Do we really need more non-violent criminals crowding up our jails and costing taxpayers even more money?

Re:Punishment fitting the crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Fines don't work. When you are a professional scammer and thief, this is just the cost of doing business. Its just like thugs that work certain neighborhoods have to pay a percentage to the local mob boss.

And there are no debtors prisons in the US. If he moves his operations overseas, while still maintaining a residence in the US, the money is more or less untouchable...he'll just declare bankruptcy and move to a state that doesn't allow forclosure of primary home and vehicle for bankruptcy and drive a Hummer to his quarterbillion house and be out of reach of the authorities.

Prison sentences are the only way to go. The guy knew it was wrong and choose to do so anyways. For that, jail time is appropriate. 9 years in jail? Maybe over the line, but then again, he knew the risks...if I was told if I spit on a sidewalk I'd go to prison for life, I'd be sure not to spit on the sidewalk (or be prepared to take the consequences for doing so).

Re:Punishment fitting the crime?

[sqlrob]

Fines can work very well, if done right.

If it's say 3-4 times what came in because of the the activity, it's more than a cost of business.

Re:Punishment fitting the crime?

[Knunov]

"Wouldn't a large fine be in order and serve the same purpose?"

The problem with large fines is that people have a habit of simply not paying them. Declare bankruptcy, start working under the table, go on with life.

I think jail time is key, though 9 years is excessive. Fines would be good, but make them not so stiff to the point that a person can't pay them, but stiff enough to make it hurt.

10 years of mandatory audits by the IRS would be cool, too.

Re:Punishment fitting the crime?

[gfxguy]

Not if you only get caught 10% of the time.

Fix other sentences, not these

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, spamming is not comparable to rape. It is white collar crime. However, the solution is not to go all powder puff on these people. If a rapist convicted at the same time as a spammer will get out of prison earlier than the spammer, guess what. The spammer is not in for too long, the rapist is not in for long enough.

When you can serve longer for spamming

[Tim C]

Than you can for rape, or causing death by dangerous driving, etc, then there's something wrong with the justice system.

Re:When you can serve longer for spamming

[Tim C]

There needs to be harsh punishment

No there doesn't. There needs to be just, fitting punishment.

Re:When you can serve longer for spamming

[Kombat]

When you can serve longer for spamming than you can for rape, or causing death by dangerous driving, etc, then there's something wrong with the justice system.

First of all, it wasn't just a cut-and-dried spamming cause. The guy was committing fraud. Think of it as a fraud case, not a spam case.

And second of all, there exists such a thing as "mitigating circumstances." There is not some absolute, gradient scale of crime/punishment proportionality whereby each successively worse crime automatically warrants punishments of correspondingly increasing severity. Genuine repentence, age, prior record, victim impact, motive, intent, and more can and should all be taken into account when determining sentencing. Would you prefer a completely "zero-tolerance" system where a punishment is simply automatically looked up in a book at sentencing time? Where your kid, getting pulled over and caught with 5 grams of weed on the floor in the back seat of your car (that his friend accidentally dropped when he was back there, unbeknownst to your son), gets the same punishment as a lifetime, habitual heroin dealer? Let's use some common sense here, people.

Re:When you can serve longer for spamming

[CountBrass]

Have you heard the expression: "you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb"?

Translating this into modern terms: You've just crash into another car whilst drink driving. The other driver has just got of his car and is standing in front of your car yelling at you. A conviction for drink driving will see you in jail for 10 years. The punishment for causing death by dangerous driving (the worst you'd get as long as they can't prove it was deliberate) is 10 years in jail: but there's a chance, with no witnesses left alive, that you'd get away with it. Did I mention he's standing in front of your car and your engine is still running?

It isn't some silly liberal sentimentality that says the punishment should fit the crime, and this isn't the only argument for it: it's just the one most appropriate to refute your absurd assertions.

Re:When you can serve longer for spamming

[pclminion]

You're absolutely right. The typical sentences for rape and negligent homicide are far too short.

Spam equivalent to rape?

[brandonY]

Rape is usually about 5-20 years, isn't it? I agree that 9 years is a little extreme for spamming.

The problem with our society is that we can't figure out a better way to punish people than to put them in jail for a decade or so and let them think about what they did. We're not quakers, for the love of God. Why can't we just:

1.) Take all the money paid to him for spamming,
2.) Fine the companies that paid him to spam, give as much of that money back to the gullible suckers as we can, and
3.) Give him 50 lashes and tell him he's not allowed to use email for 5 years.

Re:Spam equivalent to rape?

[jesser]

Rape is usually about 5-20 years, isn't it? I agree that 9 years is a little extreme for spamming.

9 years would be an extremely high sentence for spamming one person. Conversely, 5-20 years would be an extremely low sentence for raping hundreds of thousands of people.

Re:Spam equivalent to rape?

[Kombat]

I agree that 9 years is a little extreme for spamming.

The sentence wasn't just for spamming. Think of it as a fraud case, not a spam case. The guy was sending his own fraudulent emails, taking peoples' money, and not delivering.

Why can't we just:

1.) Take all the money paid to him for spamming,

Because much of it may be already spent on things you can't get back (traveling, gambling, fancy hotel rooms, meals, liquor), or hidden away in offshore accounts. You can never conclusively determine exactly how much money he scammed off of people.

2.) Fine the companies that paid him to spam,

Because as I said, he wasn't spamming for anyone but himself. He was spamming his own porno websites, and his own fraudulent "get rich quick" scams.

3.) Give him 50 lashes and tell him he's not allowed to use email for 5 years.

Think of him in the same league as the Enron/Worldcom/Tyco/Bre-X execs that defrauded shareholders out of millions of dollars. He's not some little two-bit spammer, he's a fraudster, seeking to routinely rip-off unsuspecting consumers. 9 years is what he deserves, and I hope he serves every last day of it in some federal, PMITA-prison, with no parole.

Re:Spam equivalent to rape?

[lightspawn]

Rape is usually about 5-20 years, isn't it? I agree that 9 years is a little extreme for spamming.

You're comparing apples and PCs. 5-20 years is for _ONE_ count of rape, not (say) 25 million.

What would be a typical sentence for 25 million counts of rape? Compare that to 9 years.

Also consider

[koi88]

Last week my neighbour's brat rang my door bell then ran away.
I demand at least 5 years in prison as it's not the first time he did that and I'm not the only victim.

Should have been more

[geoffspear]

The spammers in this case comitted many counts of fraud. If they'd been charged with that (which probably would have been a tougher case to make than proving they'd sent emails that hid their identity), they probably would have gotten a much longer sentence. Everyone, the spammers included, should be happy that the prosecuters decided to make an example of them for spamming instead of putting together a solid fraud case with a few thousand consecutive sentences.

9 years in Folsom, or minimum security?

[davejenkins]

1. Is this nine years in Supermax/leavenworth breaking rocks, or is it nine years in white-collar minimum security for dysfunctional mob accountants?

2. Certainly the criminals can get out earlier with good behaviour.

3. Porportionality, and the excess thereof, is the entire basis behind "prison" as a concept: we try to make that destination deplorable enough to try and discourage certain behaviours that society deems as "crimes".

4. These bozos made the mistake of committing a crime where the jurors themselves were also victims (indirectly). Stupid. Very, very stupid.

Re:9 years in Folsom, or minimum security?

[regen]

2. Certainly the criminals can get out earlier with good behaviour.

Nope. This is VA, where we have a truth in sentencing law. For any crime committed after Jan. 1st, 1995 there is no parole, no time off for good behavior.

No new laws

[Monoman]

This a good example of why we probably don't need new laws. If they committed fraud then convict them of fraud, regardless of the mechanism. If they went phishing and stole money right out of accounts, then charge them accordingly. The sentences would then be more in line with expectations. However, one could argue that sentences are too short becuase they obviously aren't deterring enough. :-)

IANAL: Why do people think the different methods of committing a crime require different laws? Is murder by using a knife versus a crowbar defined and treated differently in the law books?

Re:No new laws

[Idarubicin]

This a good example of why we probably don't need new laws. If they committed fraud then convict them of fraud, regardless of the mechanism. If they went phishing and stole money right out of accounts, then charge them accordingly.

On the other hand, there is a school of thought that the act of sending the spam--in and of itself, regardless of whether it is fraudulent or not--is also destructive to society. It makes email a less valuable tool for everyone.

Telemarketers have restrictions on who they can call and when, so that our telephones aren't rendered useless by a barrage of marketing. They can be fined heavily for not following the rules, even if their practices are entirely honest. In that case, new law was required to regulate telemarketing, because existing law didn't cover the new technology. The same goes for junk faxes. With those, my time and other resources are wasted at relatively low cost to the advertiser. New law was required, because old law didn't cover the abuse of the new technology.

Similarly, spam wasn't regulated within the old framework. New law was required to address it. (If one believes that spam is detrimental to society and should be addressed in law at all.)

Poor defence

[wiggys]

I'm sorry but I don't hate spammers because they want to get rich quick. The desire to get rich quick is a natural, healthy and legal one!

I hate spammers because they are lying, thieving scamming criminal bastards.

They hijack computers to send out millions of junk messages to millions of people. They do this to be anonymous and therefore unaccountable, and they use other people's bandwidth to send out their junk.

Some spammers send out pornographic email knowing damn well thousands of kids will end up with it in their inboxes, and they include spurious text in the messages to try to evade spam filters.

I would wager than 99% of all products they advertise via spam are fake or illegal. Anyone stupid or ignorant enough to buy anything from one of these criminals is simply encouraging them to annoy more and more people.

It's not about getting-rich-quick that I have the problem with, it's the way they go about it.

Why not fraud

[Pedrito]

It was pretty clear from the article that these guys were also guilty of fraud. They had a 30% chargeback rate and from the description of what was involved in the chargebacks, I'm surprised 30% were that persistent.

I'm curious why fraud charges weren't stacked on top of all this.

I'm not complaining. 9 years for spamming. I just hope this guy isn't the last. I really want to see them go after as many of these guys as they can. Going after 1 isn't much of a deterrant. Going after dozens could be. It's not like there are as many big-time spammers as there are file sharers. You don't have to get that many convictions to start scaring them.

Yes, "proportionality" is long dead

[MattW]

Wasn't it obvious? People get charged with jaywalking, conspiracy to jaywalk, purchase of running shoes with intent to jaywalk, reckless jaywalking, disregarding traffic signals with intent to jaywalk, and end up pleading down to "just" a year.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them." - Ayn Rand

Not that spammers don't deserve jail time, but realize that we're quickly approaching a stage where everyone is guilty of something.

So, what were they actually guilty of?

[advocate_one]

Spamming, or fraud. IIRC, they were actually found guilty of committing fraud. The fact that they spammed peoples mailboxes to find "easy marks" is by the by... Fraud is Fraud... and it carries a hefty punishment.

Re:One word: deterrent

[Ubergrendle]

The concept that harsh punishments act as a more effective deterrent than 'strong chance of being caught' with a minor fine has been disproven time and again. You'll learn this in any 101 Psychology or Criminal Law or Sociology course pretty much.

As much as I hate spam, I would much rather see the man bankrupted, or seriously fined than server ANY jail time. At no point has my quality of life or personal safety ever been threatened by spam. Incarceration should be an option of last resort.

I find it funny that most slashdotters will cry foul at ~any~ type of fine for file trading or uncapping their modems or for warddriving, and then scream for violent dismemberment of someone who sends unsolicited e-mails.

The relevance of greed going both ways

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

I have no complaints about spammers selling dodgy things to gullible individuals. The only thing I complain about is them causing hassle to non-gullible individuals in the process. So I don't see the relevance of that argument.

Has anybody else noticed...

[bmcmurphy]

a significant reduction in the SPAM they're receiving? At our organization (2500+ employees) the number of SPAMS went down by about 1/3 the day after this sentencing, and has stayed down ever since. Coincidence?

I still have a question..

[thegoogler]

What about chat and message boards spamming... What about chat and message boards spamming... What about chat and message boards spamming... What about chat and message boards spamming... What about chat and message boards spamming... What about chat and message boards spamming... (sorry if this wasnt funny, feel free to mod down)

Real solution

[RandoX]

He should just send an apology email for each spam. That would certainly cut down on the problem.

Wasting other people's resources

[Alwin Henseler]

Spammers deserve a solid punishment, IMHO. They waste people's time, one of the most precious things people have. Maybe just a few seconds per mail, but multiplied by millions (at least, maybe hundreds of millions).

They waste network bandwidth, most of which is paid by others. Server capacity is wasted with spam-filtering. Admins, developers & home users have to waste time on writing/deploying anti-spam software.

They make e-mail, a very useful internet resource, a lot less useful, and I view that as a form of vandalism.

Much of their work is done by breaking into other people's computers (zombie networks), which in itself is illegal in many places. Not to speak of other uses (DDoS attacks etc.) spammers may have for zombie networks they control.

Users don't want spam, there are laws against this, and even in the face of all this, spammers continue with their business on a massive scale. So sorry, but they deserve every punishment they get.

punishment

[r00t]

Damn right, but americans are too squeamish to
deliver 50 lashes.

Fines are unfair. They are nothing to the wealthy,
and the poor simply won't -- can't -- pay.

Jail is unfair. For the poor, it is free food and
housing. Oddly, the rich (see Martha Stewart) seem
to get off pretty easy too. The rich don't have
employment to worry about either.

It's always the middle class that suffers the most
from our current forms of punishment.

At least with lashes, you have to be one of a few
perverts to enjoy the punishment.

BTW, the rapist is kind of special. One could just
remove the offending body parts.

Re:punishment

[Idarubicin]

Fines are unfair. They are nothing to the wealthy, and the poor simply won't -- can't -- pay.

You could scale the fines to be proportional to income. The idea is that the same offense should result in the same approximate level of pain. Norway does this; occasionally it results in a wealthy individual receiving a ten thousand dollar speeding ticket.

Community service might be an appropriate substitute. An hour is an hour to everyone.

And I say yes! 9+ years is appropriate

[erroneus]

People keep running the comparison to violent crimes. So let's keep doing that and show what I think about it and how they compare.

Murder and rape are rarely, if ever, premeditated. When they are, the sentence is WAY beyond 9 years. Crimes of passion are handled in a much lighter way in most cases... as they should be.

Spamming and fraud are not crimes of passion -- they are more than simply premediated, they are planned to very small details. While committing the offense, they continue to show contempt by attempting to evade the people trying to stop them. This is a HUGE lack of respect for other people and for their property. A hefty fine and/or a short time in jail isn't going to teach the man some respect... but someone named Bubba that he might share his cell with might be able to do that over time.

Will he be in for 9? I doubt it... it's a state conviction... he'll be out in 3 or less. But he'll also belong to the state on parole for the remaining time... waiting, watching for him to do it again... and if he does, *SLAM!* -- deep shit.

Re:One word: deterrent

[gspeare]

I'd rather see the economic incentives for spam eliminated; as long as they exist, so will spam.

OTOH, knowing that this guy won't be spamming for 9 years is not a terrible thing. I agree that the degree of this crime is lower than many others, but the magnitude seems extremely higher. We should be comparing his sentence to that of a mass murderer or serial rapist.

Punishment sufficient to deter

[Alien54]

It appears that asking nicely and saying 'pretty please' does not get their attention enough to make them stop. Nor do 100Kbuck fines.

Added extra brownie points: Those nine years in prison are without a computer.

I can imagine the finger spasms now.

This is an issue of KNOWINGLY being unethical

[Theovon]

I realize our justice system all about law and completely devoid of ethics, but sometimes the jurys are allowed to inject some sanity. Spammers are FULLY AWARE that they're intruding on millions of people who won't want to be intruded upon. They shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

But then the legal system responds to citizen unrest and develops laws which try to restrict what spammers can do.

NOW, the spammer is flagrantly violating both ethics and the law. They're filling your inbox with thousands of unwanted emails, stealing half the available handwidth in the fastest networks, and costing people inordinate amounts of money, just so the spammer can scam 0.01% of his email recipients. AND THEY KNOW IT.

I think people should be hanged for such flagrant disregard for everyone else on the planet. 9 years in prison? He got off light.

Re:And I say yes! 9+ years is appropriate

[Steve B]

Will he be in for 9?

Yep. The Commonwealth of Virginny doesn't do parole.

Re:Like you need to ask

[Steve B]

I hate spammers as much as anyone but is this really who we want filling up our federal prisons?

Yes, I want people who premeditate and execute attacks on millions of people's private property to fill up our prisons. (I'd prefer Abu Ghirab, but prison will do.) Make room by letting out the people convicted of victimless "crimes" (e.g. drug posession).

Some math.......

[Fantasio]

With 10 seconds spent downloading and removing each spam message, a spammer having sent one billion messages will have imposed 300 years of wasted time and irritation to his victims. Compared to that, nine years is a very light sentence !

This IS balanced

[Tx]

I see a lot of people saying things like "you do more time for rape and muder, so these sentences are disproportional". But the purpose of the criminal justice system is to try and make people comply with the law, not just to punish them for breaking it. Increasing the sentences for already serious crimes like rape and murder won't significantly affect the likelihood of people comitting those crimes, because of the nature of the crimes. On the other hand, if a crime like spamming is seen as a high-profit, low risk option (slap on the wrist and a fine), the law will be widely broken. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to impose hefty jailtime sentences to make sure spamming is not seen as a low-risk crime. Just my 2 cents.

HARSH? He earned 24MILLION $ by spamming!

[JollyFinn]

Thats correct, he made millions with it so probably send billions of spams.
Now other reason is that he will probably sit in a prison HALF the sentence,
and non violent can get out with good behavior at that time.

This is probably a little off topic but...

[StressGuy]

I've often thought that the basic concept of a time based prison sentance was flawed. Other than opportunity for parole, there's really no incentive for rehabilitation with this system. I just breaks down to managing the prison population until it's time to release them back into society.

What if, instead of a time based prison system, we could incorporate a level based system? The further within the system you go, the less priveledges you would have. Instead of years within the system, it would be levels within the system that you must earn your way out of in order to be released. This would also have the effect of causing similar types of criminals to be populated together. The very top level could be something like a "half way house" that would replace the concept of parole. To ultimately earn your freedom, you'd have to have demonstrated your ability to function as a law abiding citizen.

White collar criminals, like our spammer, could also have thier assets taken while they are in prison to make restitution for monetary damages.

The idea needs development I realize, but I think it would emphasize rehabilitation more than a time based system would.

Punishment seems fair...

[mykepredko]

Personally, I would think that the 9 year jail time is "proportional" punishment for a number of reasons:

1. How much time was spent deleting the emails that this guy sent - say it takes a cent an email, everytime he sends out 10M emails, this costs the economy $100,000. So taking that into acount, we can probably say that $50-$100 M is lost to the economy each year.

2. How much has been spent on Spam filters, installation and upgrades? How many billions of dollars per year are spent by businesses, individuals and governments? Let's be conservative and say $100M per year.

3. How much bandwidth has been stolen, proxies illegally set up? What is the cost to individuals, businesses, government - again being conservative let's say $50M per year.

4. I won't even guess at the amount of money that this guy's clients have taken from (dumb) people that respond to the emails.

So, looking at this from this prospective, this guy is a kingpin in a minimum $200M per year scam. It could probably be argued that this guy's contribution to the problem could cost society $200M per year. What do you think is an appropriate punishment for a crime of this magnitude?

Fines for this type of behavior don't work; the spammer will just declare bankrupcy after moving his money to a protected location.

The comparison to the time given to a rapist or murderer is not reasonable. I would expect that the spammer is going to end up in a minimum-security institution. Where a rapist or murderer will end up in a maximum security prison or better. On leaving prison, a rapist/murderer is normally required to register where they are living and will be regularly interviewed by police when there is a crime that is similar in nature to theirs - they can never leave this behind them.

The spammer, if he does change his ways, can lead a new life after prison with it just being remembered as a mistake that he didn't fully understand the consequences to - but at least he try to destroy somebody's life (as a violent criminal would have to live with).

myke

Raping in prison

[Firethorn]

I have to agree with this. You can successfully argue that a convict is better off in Abu Graib than some american prisons. From what I've heard, it seems that the higher ups, not having any experience running a prison, used reservists who were civilian guards. I noted that the highest ranking individual charged was one. I think it indicates a major problem with our civilian prison system.

Consider-You have problems in american prisons with:
1. Rape
2. Murder
3. Beatings/assaults
4. Drugs

One such problem, but google's overwhelmed

This isn't just spam!

[kalirion]

Everybody is arguing if 9 years is an appropriate punishment for spam. But remember, these guys are con-men! They were tricking people into giving them money for non-existent/faulty products! It's just like the Nigerian 419 scam, only it netted more people but for less money per victim.

To repeat, 9 year sentence isn't just for spam, but for conning thousands of naive morons out of their money. The jury wouldn't have awarded the same punishment to spam coming from a legitimate online dating service, so don't lump all spam together.

Typical "Justice"

[Anonymous Coward]

As an ex con who did my share of months in ohios system, this really is nothing new. I spent time inside with a rapist that was sentenced to 3 years (with a prior felony record) and a man that was extorting a catholic priest (the priest supposedly molested his girlfriend) that got 6 years for that.....

So a violent rape gets 3, but extortion (not even with a threat of violence) gets 6....

There is no proportionality in sentencing, there is too much leeway...and they are entirely too ready to lock individuals up, where they can go to criminal college, because let me tell you, prison is nothing but an educational system for crime...

I did not know anything about the criminal lifestyle before going in, now I could (not going to) make crack, and meth, and more importantly how to sell them......without committing the same mistakes that the others made.

The "treatment" that is offered, is a joke, I committed my crime in the heat of passion, under a ton of stress and had a blackout (from bipolar disorder was manic)--no therapy, just give me drugs to make me calm....

Others sold their happy pills.....for cigarettes....it was so noisy that i kept em--have to sleep someway...

And when you get out it is almost impossible to obtain employment. But child support is still going at the rate that you had ordered and earned before you went in so i owe over 10 grand to them--they can garnish up to 65% of net....so what do you do if you cant earn a living with good pay to begin with, and they take out 65% of what you would bring home--my checks right now are less than 150 a week....

The life of crime is looking better and better, I simply cannot make it trying to stay straight.........

Re:One word: deterrent

[sribe]

The concept that harsh punishments act as a more effective deterrent than 'strong chance of being caught' with a minor fine has been disproven time and again. You'll learn this in any 101 Psychology or Criminal Law or Sociology course pretty much.

Depends on how you define "deterrent". It's true that longer terms do not tend to reduce the rate at which criminals reoffend after release. But they do keep criminals from committing crimes for longer periods of time, what with being locked up and all ;-)

This guy will not be spamming as long as he's locked up, and that's good enough for me. If he were merely fined, you can bet that within a year he would be running a major spam operation again.

Have you ever been to jail?

[glrotate]

I spent about a week and a half in the county lockup once until they realized I was innocent and let me go. Believe you me there is no such thing as a country club jail. Being incarcerated sucks. After about 3 days of solitary confinement (all new arrivals are held seprately until they classify your security risk) and you're ready to kill yourself. After a week your ready to freak out. I can't imagine doing serious time, anything more than a few months and your brain would just be mush.

My take now is to give people an appropriate number of lashes in the city square and let em go.

Investment, deterence, sentancing, proportionality

[Toby The Economist]

Crime is detered when criminals believe the chances are they will be caught.

This requires long term investment in the police forces.

Crime is not detered by heavy sentancing since if the criminal believes the chances are he will not be caught, the sentance is irrelevent.

Heavy sentancing however can be enacted instantly, by act of law, unlike long term investment in police forces (which is also, of course, expensive and has little immediate effect).

Over the decades, there has been a general failure to invest in police forces because of the cost and lack of immediacy and, due to the consequencial lack of decrease in crime, a general turning towards increasingly heavy sentancing.

This does not work. It also gradually leads to penalities become entirely disproportional to offence, leading to institutionalized injustice.

Such is the current state of affairs.

--
Toby

What everyone seems to miss...

[Presence1]

... is that this is not just unsolicited email, it is FRAUD.

If he was just sending unsolicited email advertising a real product that actually worked, then 9 years would indeed be too harsh. Creating an annoyance, even to many people, should not be punished more harshly than some murders and rapes.

But, he deliberately worked to deceive people in order to steal their money by selling a product that didn't work and that he knew didn't work. This is theft, and when done on such a grand scale ($400K - $700K per month), deserves to be so harshly punished. It could be argued that this is too light, considering the several year sentences typical for car theft.

I'd also be inclined to punish him for stupidity. Having raked in several million dollars in a few months, he should have been long gone sunning himself on a beach in Brazil under a new identity, not sitting around waiting to be busted.

One Second Per Spam Is Too Generous

[Captain Chad]

AOL alone deletes approximately 2 billion spam messages each day (reference here), and has won a lawsuit against a company that single-handedly sent a billion. Nine years is approximately 284 million seconds, so I suspect we are talking small fractions of a second per spam message.

Exemplary, but no quant justification

[redelm]

For once, I read the article. The whole thing. And I didn't really see anything that explained why 9 years was good, or that 9 months was too little, or that 19 would have been better. It mostly seemed to be the DA boasting and explaining why the prosecution was needed.

I don't have a problem with the prosecution. It was fraud, on several levels. Nor do I have a problem with the punishment. AFAIK exemplary sentences _are_ allowed, even under US law. One major purpose of the entire justice system is deterrence. Punishment is too late, and must not be a licence.

Deterence

[coyote-san]

Bullshit. Prison as "rehabilitation" is a relatively recent concept and still unproven. For that matter prison itself is a relatively recent concept - through most of human history somebody who commited a serious crime was either executed or enslaved. There was no third choice.

Historically, punishment has been done for two reasons simultaneously. The first is to end the cycle of revenge - if you kill my brother I'll kill you and your cousin will kill me and .... The state comes in and says it, alone, can revenge serious crimes. It sounds brutal but it's actually a stablizing factor as long as the criminal justice system is trusted.

The second reason is to act as a big cautionary tale to others thinking of doing the same thing. Money (fines) is just money and suitable for small crimes (misdemeanors), but serious prison time will make others think twice about what they're doing.

Is spamming really a serious crime? I haven't RTFA but I haven't seen spam from a legitimate but clueless company in years. Everything I see is a form of fraud. Some of it is just this side of legal (a "genuinue faux imitation Rolex" is not advertised as a real Rolex), most of it is not. We lock up the guy who hustles hundreds of people on the street corner, so damn straight we can lock up the guy who's hustling millions of people online.

Re:Deterence

[Ironsides]

through most of human history somebody who commited a serious crime was either executed or enslaved. There was no third choice.

Actually, the ancient greeks had fines as a punishment. One of Socrates possible punishments that was mentioned in the plays was a fine. Assuming that he plead guilty I think. So there is a third, Fining.

"proportionality" is, of course, relative

[cinemabaroque]

in china they execute white collar criminals because they feel the distributed social harm of ripping off several thousand people is greater than stealing a purse from a single person on the street.

Sacrificial Lamb

[enigma44]

This guy is just a sacrificial lamb to send a message loud and clear to other spammers. I suppose time will tell if it has any effect. Many of these folks are offshore so it may make no difference unless we get serious about going after the ones offshoring. I'll be interested to see if the sentence stands on appeal or if it gets reduced or thrown out entirely. Personally,I want to see them get tougher on spyware. That stuff is evil. I know spam causes productivity issues and clogs ISP's but some of the latest spyware stuff I've had to endure has been just plain vicious. Anyhow, I'm sure if Jaynes goes to jail he won't be teaching computer classes. Has anyone seen Spam Roast? http://www.spamroast.com/ Kind of a funny little mocking site with someone writing replies to their spams. Good for a laugh or two.

SHUT UP, SPAMMER

[robogun]

Are we actually to believe your boss makes 100 million people wait through meetings. NO. JUST YOU AND YOU ARE GETTING PAID FOR YUOR TIME. What he is talking about is the collective drain by spammers on society.

ONE SINGLE SPAMMER IN PURSUIT OF $200-$300 COSTS UPWARD OF $100,000 IN LOST TIME AND PRODUCTIVITY.

Life is finite, and I do not need to waste even one second to hear your pitches for third-world vigra or lame-ass fake rolex watches.

this may be due to the unusual nature of spam

[bombastinator]

There may have been a revenge factor involved. When one picks a jury to try a crime the defense tries very hard to, among other things, make sure that the actual crime victims are not on the jury. Because of the pervasive natureof spam this may not have been possible unless one found the last 12 people in the US who simply do not use the internet. Was this tried to a jury and were the jury members internet users? It might have had a major effect on the trial.

$400,000 to $700,000 in scams per month.

[Stephen Samuel]

Quick calcs: If you presume that he sends 10,000,000 spams/day at an average cost to the user of 0.1 seconds (since most now get caught in filters), and presume that he did this for about a year.
That comes to about 11 person-years.

Then you figure in how much money he made from his spamming scams... According to the courts, he was taking in $400K-$700K/month. Much of that was essentially money for SCAMS. Even if you presume $10% net profit, that's still about $50K/month. or 1/2Million/year. If you want to amortize that down to $50K/year, a 9 year sentence for a year's worth of spamming isn't too bad.

Then you should consider the people that he scammed. He scammed probably in the range of a million people -- many of them people who were desparate foe some sort of income to begin with. For many of the most desperate it was money that they could ill afford -- so that he could live the high life.

He cost a lot of people time and money -- time that we'll never get back. He didn't just victimize AOL. he essentially victimized the entire country. There is no way to charge him proportional to what he cost us worldwide. If anything 9 years is actually a little thin on that. However, I think it may be enough to make other spammers think twice about what they're doing, so I'd be happy to let it stand.

Spamming is a very serious crime

[bwalzer]

There was once a time in my part of the world when copper suddenly became very valuable. This created a bit of a hysteria, people in the country had their copper washtubs disappear more or less overnight. People would throw a chain around a telephone cable, attach the chain to a truck and just drive. People with hacksaws would climb down into man holes and cut away all the cables flush with the walls. Things got kind of desperate, telco employees who did not do something like park the truck near the manhole would sometimes encounter law enforcement types with drawn weapons on their way out of the manhole.

In their pursuit of beer money, the copper thieves damaged a lot of valuable infrastructure. An armed response to the theft of a few dollars of copper seems disproportionate but as a society we had become desperate. A few hundred telephone subscribers out of service for 6 hours is not all that bad a deal. The problem was that if the informal copper recycling biz had continued to increase in popularity there would soon be no phone service anywhere. Spammers are a lot like the copper thieves. If we do not deter spammers somehow, email and most any other sort of computer mediated communications is dead. It's as simple as that...