Slashdot Mirror
Meet Millionaire Spammer Jeremy Jaynes
prostoalex writes "Associated Press profiles Jeremy Jaynes, charged with sending out unsolicited e-mail messages, who just got a 9-year jail term recommendation from the state jury. With the help of 16 'high-speed' lines (Associated Press probably meant T1s) Jaynes would send out 10 million e-mails a day. His best month in terms of gross income netted him $750,000. Acccording to the article, 'In a typical month, prosecutors said during the trial, Jaynes might receive 10,000 to 17,000 credit card orders, thus making money on perhaps only one of every 30,000 e-mails he sent out. But he earned $40 a pop, and the undertaking was so vast that Jaynes could still pull in $400,000 to $750,000 a month, while spending perhaps $50,000 on bandwidth and other overhead, McGuire said. "When you're marketing to the world, there are enough idiots out there" who will be suckered in, McGuire said in an interview.'"
I've actually gotten more spam since this winner was arrest. And anyways, he didn't do too bad money-wise, $750k a month is better than I think 99.9% of this entire world's population. And to think... only 9 years in jail. I'd do it too. Get out of jail at age 29, still young enough to marry, have kids... and I'd be able to drive a Porsche. Or 3.
This article will just encourage people to make a living spamming with that much potential money.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
I wish I could pull in between $30,000 and $750,000 per month while keeping my spending below $50,000 (per month).
The significance of this case is that it applies a fairly harsh penalty for spamming. Of course it won't eliminate spam, but it will probably (hopefully) make spammers more aware of the consequences.
Imagine if you can work 1 year without getting caught
Imagine if you could work your whole life without getting caught. Because that was the situation before this verdict. Of course there are still strong financial incentives to spam, but with verdicts like this one, the incentives become weaker.
Don't you hate meta-sigs?
"The significance of this case is that it applies a fairly harsh penalty for spamming."
It was mainly due to the fact that the scum was peddling fraudulent "products". He conned a shitload of people with his MMF schemes and other frauds.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Don't deserve to keep their money. This guy should be commended for teaching the idiots of the world a valuable lesson. I'm sure he did all this in the name of public service.
My sig would have been a lot cooler if
Like you, I hate spam. I widh it never came my way, and thanx to some filters and careful eMail use, I don't have much of a problem with it. Understandably I don't use my eMail as much as some extreme power users I have met, so I can imagine I don't expose myself as others who have greater problems than me. So, although I agree these people can be rather annoying, I do not think they should be jailed as a criminal.
Perhaps monatary fines, like 40% of their income would be fair? This money could be put into national programs to make our internet faster and modernize as many facets as possible. This would benefit all people who use the internet, for obvious reasons.
If the spammers try and lie about their income, they would of course be tried criminaly, etc for all business malpractices.
My point is, we as a society could profit form these people. Lets face the fact, at least in America, advertising always finds its way into every media medium, and the Internet is no different. For better or worse, if we live in a consumerist society, as we do, we will be exposed to advertising. How else will they let us know what we want to buy?
eMail is not a right. The Internet is not a right. Why pay to jail these people. They haven't hurt anyone, and really are running an innovative business, as far as marketing is innovative. No matter what, a spammer taken off the Net today will be replaced by another yesterday. It's a battle you cannot win. The current solution is not creative or well considered. Let's tax it and invest it in ourselves.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Remember, though, lots of people aren't smart enough to set up good filters or even to ignore spam. (most people use IE).
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Ah yes, Slashdot, the site that automatically mods rape jokes +5 funny.
Rove didn't send his junk mail with postage due.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I do not think they should be jailed as a criminal.
PLease read through the "Information about spam" llnks on this website, written at least eight years ago when spam was much less of a problem yet still as relevant today, and see you can still justify that statement:
http://spam.abuse.net/overview/
While that site also describes many peripheral issues involving content, the fact is, regardless of content, spam is theft of Internet services.
Lets face the fact, at least in America, advertising always finds its way into every media medium, and the Internet is no different.
That's what banner ads on websites are. People pay the website owners to put those ads on their sites. Spam is different.
Tag lost or not installed.
So you're telling me that you think you could teach the same poeple that would actually buy a P3N|S P(_)MP how to properly set up a good email filter? Tell you what.. you try that, I'll start up a spamming business, we'll see who is succesfull. I'm not trying to be an ass, just trying to be realistic.
These people *are* evil. They steal vast quantities of money in very small increments.
My point is, we as a society could profit form these people.
Maybe by selling them for medical experimentation?
eMail is not a right. The Internet is not a right.
Email is one use of my property, which it is my right to control. Spamming is not a free-speech issue, it's a property rights issue.
They haven't hurt anyone,
Try telling any ISP that's had to clean up after them that spammers haven't hurt anyone.
Why pay to jail these people.
Because capital punishment for spamming probably can't get sufficient public support.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Then I think, 'Oh, wait. Human beings. Guh.' And I get depressed. Because I'm one of them, which makes me just as vulnerable to some new scam that has a bit more intelligence behind it...
You must think in Russian.
Is this supposed to be funny?
If he had been using paper junk mail, then he would have had to pay to send out his garbage, rather than stealing the resources of others.
Spammers actually have used "save the trees" as a justification in the past. They try to distract attention away from the fact that what they do is theft, period.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
That is a nonsensical argument. If it were conducted via normal paper-based mail, the volume wouldn't be anywhere near as high.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I'm not scoffing, but think of the postage. Assuming that he could get by with the minimum first class postage, to send out ten million pieces of junk mail a day, would cost him over a hundred million dollars per month, in postage alone. I know the mail system is closed on Sundays, but I'm assuming that he sent spam on Sundays and no one can stop him from putting mail in the box on Sunday (except the vast number of pieces). Also he might be able to get some bulk mail discount, I don't really know how that works, but it would still be a lot. Now add to that paper, envelopes, printing and the resources to stuff and post. On his best month he made $700,000. He'd go broke in a heart beat trying to do that by regular mail.
"When you're marketing to the world, there are enough idiots out there"
Those "idiots" often being trusting elderly people who don't know any better,perhaps your mother, your father, your grandmother.
OK, I'm scratching my head on this one. Bush is President. A spammer just got 9 years in prison for spamming. So I guess the answer is yes?
9 years for spam in VIRGINIA the birthplace of the Tax FREE Televangelical Money Church? The home of the 700 Club and Jerry Falwell? The prosecutor should rot in fucking hell forever.
It's called a "pink contract", a business contract with the clauses that normally forbid business like spamming carefully left out. They're quite common for struggling ISP's, which normally make sure the bandwidth is paid for up front. agis.net did this for quite some time with Cyberpromo, until the crackers took their routers down and kept them down until Cyberpromo went offline. But it took almost 2 years to get people worked up enough that the crackers would do this.
Hey, I'm all for putting the perpetrators of fraud behind bars, but sure wish they would go after the big fish.
I guess the lesson here is that it's better commit fraud publicly on a massive scale -- and have friends in high places -- then it is to commit fraud quietly from your back bedroom.
And PT Barnum's top competitor said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
I've pretty much lost hope for the species.
Is that why in your sig you're promoting a "free flat screen" to those suckers? Or were you trying to maximize the irony of the whole situation?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Well, you Danish are a beautiful people. However, In the Good ol' "Yew Es a' Aye", we call it the "justice" system for a reason. The historical backing reaching all the way to our present justice system does not believe in punishment for rehabilitation or even to act as a deterrent for crime (although many in this country argue that strong sentencing deters crime, this is complete bunk and there is absolutely NO evidence to support such a theory).
;-)
No, the reason for our criminal punishment system in the US has always been and still is compensation for the victim and/or victim's families, and as a plain simple punishment to those who have done wrong. As you so aptly put, "An eye for an eye", is just the way most people see things here. American's LOVE justice! They love to hate criminals, and they love to punish them. That is, until they find through the varying circumstances of life that they are all of sudden on the other side of the criminal fence, be it a speeding ticket or a drunken bar fight. Why THEN, you've never seen such righteous indignation at the brutal inequality of our laws.
You're way may well be a better way of dealing with crime, but trust me, things are not changing around here anytime soon.
Some rough assumptions below to show how effective filtering will be. You assume that everyone will have that type of filter. Here are my assumptions for now. Assume that 20% have no filter, could be high, could be low. Another 50% have an inefficient filter, removes 50%. Another 20% have 95% efficiency. And the last 10% has 99.99% efficiency. Rough guesses and large margin of error. With those assumptions, out of 10000 emails, 4601 get through. People using filters are probably (an assumption, but reasonable) more likely not to waste their money
This brings you to the fool and his money ratio (how many emails that get through it takes to get one to send money) Hard to say with any accuracy, but the lead-in stated 30000 emails, assuming all got through. Maybe the fool and money ratio is closer to 20000 emails. So he would have to send closer to 50000 emails to get 1 money response due to filters.
The key for stopping spammers really isn't better filters. It's getting the clueless users to use them. Out of those 4601 emails that got thru, 4500 were in the classes with no or weak filtering. Those people move to the 90% filtering rate, the total goes to 801 emails, a vast reduction. You attack the problem from the other end, those who use better filters already and use a perfect filter and the total drops down to 4500. Spam filtering in the basic user email programs may be the best way to combat spam. For those who want choices, different programs for power users. But in the end it comes down to the fool and money ratio. As long as those people have access to the internet, spammers will be able to find them and part them from their money.
Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
It would be a great day indeed when our only complaint about the American Justice Department is that it didn't prosecute spammers agressively.
Jeremy
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
9 years in prison for what amounts to shoddy dealings.
Who was killed by Jeremy? Who was maimed by Jeremy? Who was raped by Jeremy?
Sure, fraud isn't nice, but wouldn't a more effective punishment, and deterrent for others, be to simply take away everything he's bought and accrued?
All money? Gone. All property? Gone. Divide it up and spread it around his home state's health and education services.
Make him bankrupt and let him get back on his feet like any other poor person with the threat hanging over his head that if he does one more illegal thing to do with fraud or money, then into prison he goes for a couple of years.
Murder, Rape, Arson, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, Armed Robbery... Things that actually do people or property physical harm can get less time than this.
His sentence isn't justice, it's ego-driven revenge.
His name is Robert Paulsen...
The real worry, IMO is phishing.
My dad, the other day got a mail from earthlink, or so he thought, and was actually smart enough to call me. I asked him to forward it to me, and lo and behold, its a link to some computer in china (undoubtedly a r00ted box) with a conveniant form so that you can "update" your account information before you get kicked off the net, as the letter threatened, and I forwarded the mail to earthlink's abuse box.
Now, my dad ain't the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, and he did the right thing, but I could easily see elderly or even stupider folks falling for this. It looked authentic enough, and the address even came from earthlink.com (not net--which is a clue), and golly gee they copied earthlink's form to the tee (except that they also requested a SSN...ouch.)
And all they have to do is mine the net and send form emails that appear to be from comcast, or aol, or whomever the target seems to be connected with.
People often compare it to the war on drugs and they are right, to a point. So long as there's money, they'll always be those who try. However with drugs, people actively seek them out, they are willing to pay amazing amounts of money for them, and a single sale can result in a good amount of cash.
That's not the case with spam. People don't want it, in fact even most of those that buy from it hate it (they are just suckers). Also there aren't huge returns per spam, just a large volume of it.
So if the returns can be reduced and the penalites increased, it is likely the amount will decrease significantly. You'll never get rid of it, but you'll make it unattractive enough that it'll be fairly scarce.
If we want to really stop spam, putting spammers in jail is not the way to go. We really need to educate the poor suckers out there who actually buy this crap to stop. For example, I have been inundated with spams selling "Microsh*t" (asterisk added for family viewing) software. Am I led to believe that people have actually bought software from this guy thus encouraging him to continue spamming? Get some News coverage on it and tell people there are undercover piracy agents out there and that they shouldn't buy in case they are caught.
Likewise the good old v1@gra and c1alis or whatever. Does granny really understand that h@x0r speak and decide to buy dodgy fake drugs from an almost unreadable spam? I don't think so. For those things we need something like a 60 minutes expose that the oldies can watch and be shocked into not buying again.
Let get it into the news and out of our inboxes!
RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
That is to say, so okay, they caught HIM, but what about the [dozens of?] spam-friendly ISPs that accepted his 10-million-spams-per-day spew?? Who was it that sold him those 16 high-speed T1's, and thereafter immediately closed their eyes to what he was doing with them? That's what I want to know.
They're just as guilty as he is IMO.
I find the many moderated comments concerning the spammers imminent ass-rape to be offensive.
Nobody deserves to be sexually abused. If you find torture exciting or a 'fitting' punishment, then you're a sadist.
Another thing to note is that he's not going to get gangbanged. Spamming is a non-violent crime. He'll get sent to a low-medium security prison.He's rich and that means he's protected in prison. All he has to do is pay the big man (if there is one at the country-club prison he goes to) a $100,000 a year and his ass will be protected 24/7/365. If there is no big man, he can buy himself a bodyguard or five.
And he'll get parole in 4 years unless he really misbehaves in prison.
He'll probably spend the next 4 years bored and wondering exactly how many ho's he'll bang and how many lines of coke he'll do, once he gets out. He'll probably be able to purchase both sex and drugs doing his time behind bars.