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.

19 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. good move by Coneasfast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:good move by tdemark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not that I think 9 years is too long or too short, it's that I think it's not in line with other punishments.

      You could commit a murder and probably get a similar sentence, if not shorter.

      It really says something about society when you can get a harsher penalty for sending spam than you could for premeditated homicide.

      - Tony

    2. Re:good move by Coneasfast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excellent Example! I hate that damn physical spam WalMart, Safeway and Best Buy send me infinately more than I hate email spam, because it's much easier to set up a email filter.

      Once those physical-mail spammers go to jail, I'll support this guy going to jail.


      this is completely different and a bad analogy, it cost these stores money to send it out, and they don't send out in massive bulk quantities, once a week from safeway? who cares.

      dozens of penis enlargement emails a day? now that's a big deal.

      First they came for the spammers, but I wasn't a spammer, so I did nothing
      Then they came for the copyrighted music theives, but commercial music sucks, so I didn't care
      [cut]


      you know how ridiculous you sound? spamming has NOTHING to with free speech, it's all about advertising, go read the first amendment, i'm not even american and i know enough about it.

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    3. Re:good move by JavaLord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      9 years too long? i don't think so

      Consider the fact that here in New Jersey, a Rapist gets out in 3 years with good behavior. (They don't even call it rape here, it's 'sexual assault')

      His crime was not a violent one, he shouldn't go to jail for 9 years. He should have to pay an insane fine, and be barred from going online for 10-20 years and give him 10 years probation. If he violates any of this, throw him in jail.

      It's silly to throw someone in jail in a country where we already have an overcrowded jail system.

      This man was simply a victim of being made an example of. There is no doubt that he should be punished, but 9 years in jail for a crime that just annoyed victims is a bit much. I'd much rather see rapists and murders get 20-40 years and let people like this get probation and fines. It's a waste of resources to lock someone like this up.

    4. Re:good move by Best+ID+Ever! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Once those physical-mail spammers go to jail, I'll support this guy going to jail.

      How many of those WalMart flyers advertise fraudulent products?

    5. Re:good move by LabRat007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. A few years back our neighbor's 13 year old daughter and several of her friends were molested. The offender was sentenced to 15 years and served 3.

      What the hell kind of world do we live in if a child raping bastard gets a potentially lighter sentence then a spammer?

      I don't get it.

      --
      "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
    6. Re:good move by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I agree. I hate SPAM as much as the next guy but it makes me nervous when non-violent, especially computer related crimes, start having hefty sentences. A good deal of the outcome of trial has to do with previous cases.

      If a prosecutor in the future can link Joe Spammer and Tom Bittorent user somehow and Joe spammer got 9 years, what do you think Tom's chances are?

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    7. Re:good move by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wal-Mart is paying the entire expense of delivering those advertisements. That is not the case for spam. ISPs and recipients end up bearing the vast majority of the burden for spam.

      A better analogy would be if Wal-Mart sent hundreds of thousands of those ads out and sent them C.O.D.That would be a felonious act, as sending something C.O.D. without the permission of the recipient is considered mail fraud. This is no different except that it is being done electronically, and at a vastly larger scale than would be practical via postal mail, hence doing vastly more damage.

      But the actions of spammers are worse than that. To be comparable, as people start asking the post office to refuse delivery of C.O.D. junk mail, Wal-Mart would have to start taking steps to conceal the nature of the C.O.D. mail to get it through anyway. That would make it mail fraud -and- harassment. Not to mention that it would also be mail fraud if those penis enlargement things don't really work, but that's a separate issue.

      If you ask me, nine years is getting off really easy. This guy -had- to know that what he was doing was morally and ethically wrong and caused direct financial harm to hundreds of thousands of people. He did so with malice aforethought. He was barely getting by upon strict interpretation of the letter of laws whose intent was clearly to make such activity illegal. The laws changed so that the letter of the law matched the intent. He ignored them and got nailed.

      I say make an example of him. Let him spend a few years behind bars thinking about what he has done, and make his release conditional upon him spending several additional years gathering evidence against other spammers to help haul them into jail as well. It's time to take back the people's internet from those who would destroy it in the name of advertising. I know that getting ad messages shoved in my face isn't the reason -I- pay an ISP for internet service, and I'd wager the same goes for everybody this guy spammed.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:good move by sakshale · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It really says something about society when you can get a harsher penalty for sending spam than you could for premeditated homicide.
      I suspect that society would be better off if it used community service and financial penalties instead of jail time for nonviolent crimes. As much as I dislike SPAM and SPAMMERS, nine years in jail just doesn't feel correct to me.
      --
      For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.
  2. What makes this guy different? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I didn't RTFA. For the benefit of cretins like me, would someone explain what was special about his case that warranted that sentence? Why is he headed to prison when so many other spammers aren't?

    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?
  3. Spammer Sentenced to 9 Years in Jail by chrisnewbie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Damn that's long He should have killed someone or rob a bank, they would have sentenced him for less

  4. Now, spamming is a Bad Thing... by Illissius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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.
  5. Thoughts... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Thoughts... by siliconjunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keep in mind that this guy was not just "being a mass annoyance", he was defrauding 10,000 to 17,000 individuals a month selling a "FedEx refund processor" that promised $75-an-hour work but did little more than give buyers access to a Web site of delinquent FedEx accounts.

      This guy made $750K per month defrauding people with his sham product, so before you say "wow! 9 for just spamming, realize that spoofing email headers was just his mechanism for delivering his con game to millions of people per day in order to take advantage of that "sucker born every minute" that falls for get rich quick schemes that require them to send $30 to "find out how they can get rich quick with FedEx refunds".

      I don't feel sorry for this criminal. Considering the guy will be out in 3 years with good behavior, I think the punishment is a fine fit for the crimes this man commited.

      Then again, my /. sig (usually) points to a SpamVampire script designed to run up spammer's bandwidth bills, so I suppose you may want to take everything I say with a grain of salt, as I really don't like spammers.

  6. Not "Unfortunately " by alephnull42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. Woohoo! by thed00d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  8. Deterrence by jfengel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. Isn't This Too Much? by Caraig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."