Slashdot Mirror
Spammer Sentenced to 9 Years in Jail
Iphtashu Fitz writes "Jeremy Jaynes of Raleigh, NC now has the dubious honor of being the first spammer sentenced to jail for the felony of spamming. Virginia judge Thomas Horne sentenced Jaynes to 9 years in prison based on a jury recommendation after he was convicted of sending out 10 million e-mails a day. Jaynes, who sent out much of his spam using the name "Gaven Stubberfield", has held a position on the SpamHaus Registry of Known Spam Operations for a long time.
Unfortunately the sentence has been postponed while the case is being appealed." Commentary on the sentence available at Forbes as well.
Defense attorney David Oblon argued in court that nine years was far too long given that Jaynes was charged as an out-of-state resident with violating a Virginia law that had taken effect just two weeks before. "We have no doubt that we will win on appeal," Oblon said outside court.
9 years too long? i don't think so. on what grounds would they win? did the people who bought penis enlargement pills give good feedback? when the law takes effect has no merit, he was sending 10 mil emails a day. just multiply that by 2 weeks.
He also has said the law is an unconstitutional infringement of free speech.
ok, let me come to your house, stuff hundreds of flyers a day at your front door, then say it's an unconstitutional infringement on free speech if i get stopped.
the article didn't mention what type of spam he was sending (but at 10mil/day, my guess is every kind).
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
Unfortunately the sentence has been postponed while the case is being appealed.
Um, I know we hate spammers, but isn't that how the system is supposed to work so that people have every chance possible to prove their innocence?
Still, the temptation to make a ironic Viagra spam joke here is pretty strong.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Damn that's long He should have killed someone or rob a bank, they would have sentenced him for less
...but 9 years in jail is just a little bit extreme, don't you think? A big fine would be more appropriate, imho.
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
What - do you think Kevin Mitnick started a gang while he was in there?
No offense to residents of our correctional institutions, but I doubt most of them are in there because they went postal on their mailserver.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I know this is NOT going to be a popular opinion here on slashdot... but...
9 years! That's an awful long time if you think about it. Especially for doing something that's pretty much being a mass annoyance.
I can understand going to jail for doing something fraudulent. Maybe that was the case with this fellow, even though no mention of fraud was mentioned in the article, and seemingly he wasn't charged with that either.
Some aspects of emailing deserve jailtime. Sending phony ads to phish people, yes. Using exploited computers to send spam, definately. But aren't there crimes for those already?
Also, consider the fact that it will cost roughly $50,000 / year to keep this guy in jail. That amounts to 450,000 dollars just to keep this guy from spamming us.
Taxpayers of Virginia, is keeping this guy off the street really worth that much to you? Taxpayers of any other state, would you really want to adopt laws like this?
One more thing about criminalizing spam that makes me uncomfortable is the whole free speech thing. Sure, it's speech that most of the time we don't want to hear, but if I send mass emails from my own machines without breaking into anything and without defrauding anyone, should I go to jail for this? After all, it seems nowadays that it's in style to characterize any speech that doesn't agree with American policy as terrorist-sympathizing. Does spam count as free speech too?
By all means, slashdotters let me know any rational arguments you can think of for criminalizing spam that doesn't include other forms of crime already.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Unfortunately the sentence has been postponed while the case is being appealed."
Not "Unfortunately" - the right to appeal is a Good Thing (TM).
The right not to be punished while the case is under appeal is also a Good Thing (TM)
Not confused enough? http://translate.google.com/translate?u=www.slashdot.jp&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=ja&tl=en
If he gets 9yrs in the pokey, hopefully other spammers will sit back and say "oh, uh.. maybe I should find another revenue source.."
Maybe not, though, because to a lot of spammers, anything you didn't opt out of meant that you opted in. Bastards.
I hate spam. It's really abnoxious.
But 9 years in prison for it? You could easily spend less time than that for a violent felony.
And if, as might be the case, the sentence was due not to sending mail, but due to using open relays / forging headers... We already have laws against fraud and the like.
I despise spammers, but this guy's going to spend 3,287 days behind bars. For annoying people.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
I was really hoping for the death penalty on this conviction, but ya take what you can get.
Seriously though, this guy will probably be out in 2 years, maybe 3. I think a more applicable punishment is removing these people from using electronic means. Like what the FBI and Secret Service used to do the "hacker" community. Take away their right to use a computer. Jail time or no, thats what is really going to stop these people from sending out spam.
Just my 2 cents.
http://www.accelerateglobalwarming.com
I can't give you a rational argument for criminalizing spam that you don't already know, but I can explain the sentence a bit.
I suspect that the real reason for the stiff sentence in this case is deterrence. He's being punished not just for his sins, but for the sins of everybody else who spams, to let them know that the law is real and that there will be serious punishment for getting caught.
Everybody who continued to spam after the law was put in effect wasn't merely being annoying: he was deliberately and consciously doing something illegal. Whether it should be illegal or not, he was flouting a law designed to reduce vast quantities of annoyance, as well as forcing people to spend large amounts of money and time fighting that annoyance.
So I agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime (and you're hardly the only one to say that here on Slashdot.) Nor am I a huge fan of "making an example" of somebody; it seems a violation of the eighth amendment forbidding "cruel and unusual punishment".
With a bit of luck this is the harshest sentence ever to be handed down. That "luck" would be a bunch of spammers say, "Whoa, we've got to get out of this business". It won't be enough, but if it results in half as much spam I'll be half as annoyed, and I won't be crying any particular tears for this guy while it happens.
Or they may just move offshore, or use zombies, or hide better, etc. Hell, to avoid this law you need only move out of Virginia. But I suspect that at least a few spammers will decide that it's not profitable enough to risk jail now that jail is a very real possibility, and that's a few billion fewer spams we'll receive.
While 9 years might be a little harsh, I'm sick and tired of the spam problem, and he should be punished. If he actually goes to jail, I think it might make others think twice. Spamming pretty much equals theft in my eyes (as in bandwidth and time). What really made this article real for me is that I received an email from Gaven Stubberfield not a few days ago.
Let's put it this way. What if I stole $0.01 from a bank? Do I deserve 9 years in jail? Now let's say I did it 1,000,000x ($10,000). Now do I deserve 9 years in jail?
This guy did not send a couple emails. He sent 10,000,000 emails a DAY. Do you know how much that can cost companies? It translates into real money lost. Try talking to any sysadmin that's had to deal with this.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Granted, we all hate spammers. We hate what they do, we hate the way they zombify unsecured gateways, we hate they way they thumb their nose at everyone, we hate what they try to sell, we hate that they try to scam millions a day. We all would love to see every spammer get harsh penalties.
But, really... nine years?
Isn't that a bit much? He won't be serving all that time, of course, but it's a lot of time for spamming.
Wouldn't a better punishment be somethign vaguely like what they did to Mitnick? Forbid the guy from holding any sort of computer-related occupation for ten years. No computer for more than recreational purposes -- oh, heck, he doesn't need to play HL2, no computer at all. No opportunity to spam, and he'll have to make it or break it in a real job (for values of 'real job' which do not include 'IT jobs.') If he's smart, he can do office clerk work, maybe work his way up to office manager (he just can't work anywhere where the office manager also has to manage the computer system.) If he can't hack that, he goes into fastfood or retail. And if he absolutely can't make a living doing something other than spamming... ladies and gentlemen, we have here a dysfunctional human being.
Compared to Mitnick, he'll still be getting off easy. But it makes a lot more sense than nine years in jail. And the taxpayers aren't paying for his stay in the slam.
And if you want to get really creative, have him subscribed to every junk mail list in existence... with no opt-out.
I don't know, it just seems like nine years is ridiculous when we don't even put away physically violent felons for that long.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
Are sentences like this really necessary in a civilised, non-barbaric society? i mean locking someone up for 9 years for this sort of offence? Its very easy to say "oh hes a bastard throw away the key" or "don't do the crime if you cant do the time" but in reality this mans life is about to be ruined. Maybe im a weak person, but i certainly couldnt take 9 years in jail, i'd want to hang myself, even forgetting the behind bars aspect, hes probably going to be in the same place as some real bastards and some raping and beating is probably on the books too, isn't that essentially the same as corporal punishment? are we really that sick as a society?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
But then again, they don't cost the almighty corporations any money, so it's a much lesser offense.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
He should have to compensate folks. There's no easy way at this point to do fair repayment to everyone he harmed, but he could at least have his wages heavily garnished for a nice, long time, and use it for tax reduction. Or use it to pay for going after other spammers. Or buying spam firewalls for ISPs. Whatever. He should *pay*, and it he should pay *society* somehow. Not just be out of circulation.
As for rapists and murderers getting off easily, that needs to be dealt with as well. I'm not willing to just throw up my hands and watch every criminal walk. Send 'em all (with the spammers) to Austin. We apparently don't have enough money for new roads (all the tax abatements for new business, I guess). Put 'em to work building roads. Not enough money for guards? I bet I could come up with a set of volunteers to help with that...
I suspect the penalty for committing ten million murders per day is still, in fact, higher.
I believe the precedent for anyone who manages ten million murders is to call them Emperor and do whatever they say. For 10 million a day I think you'd get your own fanatical priests and a bunch of temples.
I realize that prison may not be much of a deterrent of crime of any kind, but I'd wager that if you just fined spammers or gave them a few years that there'd be absolutely no decline in the number of spammers flooding our e-mail with crap.
It [the spam problem] continues because it is so easy and cheap to get away with -- and till now, there's no punishment.
Add publicly announced huge fines and long jail terms to the mix and at maybe a few would-be spammers would at least think twice before taking part.
Total lack of perspective shown by that sentence. Nine years is an outrageously long sentence for sending unsolicited e-mail. Assuming he paid for his Net access (and therefore his traffic).....this sentence for his non-violent crime resulting in no direct financial loss to the intended recipient is extreme. I hate spam, too.....but I like justice, too...and this wasn't justice as I understand it.
Only boring people are ever bored.