Slashdot Mirror


Virginia Spammers Go To Jail, And Pay For It

An anonymous reader writes "A Virginia appeals court has upheld the first felony conviction under a state anti-spam law. In the process, the court also suggested that spam recipients might be able to sue spammers for money damages. According to the court, taxing a person's servers with unwanted e-mails is a form of trespass, little different than intruding on their land or making unwanted use of their private property. Perhaps because of this decision, spammers will soon find themselves on the receiving end of a million dollar class action suit."

24 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. ObNelson by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ha-ha!

    1. Re:ObNelson by tritonman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not that I'm on the side of the spammers, but saying that sending an unwanted email is the same thing as trespassing on someone's private property is just ludicrous. So what's next? In Texas, where you can shoot someone for trespassing, can you now shoot anyone who sends you an email that you didn't want? Does this include your cousing who keeps sending you those stupid chain letters???

    2. Re:ObNelson by Wornstrom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if they arent making money spamming, wtf are they doing spamming?

  2. Good, now adapt this to Regular Mail by MBC1977 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is great, because personally, I'm tired of advertisements I don't want (i.e Viagra, GetRichQuick,

    other assorted unwanted ads. Now if we could adapt this law to work on the physical mailbox, I

    would not have keep throwing away junk mail and other stupid stuff, like how many DISH Network offers

    does one really need, much less use.

    I realise it may they be trying to make a living, but not at the expense of my peace of mind.

    Regards,

    MBC1977,

    (US Marine, College Student, and Good Guy!)

    --
    Regards,

    MBC1977,
  3. Oh, come on! by tygerstripes · · Score: 4, Insightful
    a form of trespass, little different than intruding on their land or making unwanted use of their private property.
    Look, I'm all for spammers getting ass-raped by rhinos or whatever, but to suggest that emailing someone is equivalent to trespass??!? Just how out-of-touch and confused does the state have to get with technology before they're sat down in an electric chair in front of a monitor, with a sticky on its side saying "Learn"?

    This is a totally spurious comparison. Firstly it is the confluence of internet/SM protocols, not the spammer, that puts the email on your server - although in the vast majority of these cases, you can believe that the recipient doesn't own the server at all. In those cases, the analogy would be more like "little different than sending them lots of junkmail which, when they feel like it, they can go down to the local post office to collect and bin".

    For those who do own their mail servers - corporations, freelancers or other particularly tooled-up individuals - it's like dumping a shit-load of mail on their doorstep - again, through the postal service, which is an impartial, autonomous service that we deeply value!!

    This spam is in no way infringing the rights or security of its recipients. It is a minor inconvenience, as is any form of junk mail, and when requested to desist it is illegal, just as is unsolicited junkmail when you so request (at least, in the UK). As such, yes, it should be punished. Is it entirely necessary, however, to confuse and inflame the issue with such shitty, uninformed, unqualified comparisons? And this from a court? Shit, they're supposed to be more responsible with language than anyone else in the country - what the hell does this guy think he's doing??

    --
    Meta will eat itself
    1. Re:Oh, come on! by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Take a look at it again. The biggest filter on prosecutablity is that you have to forge the headers you can send out spam all day every day as long as you are honest about where it's coming from. If you lie about where it's coming from, it's fraud and prosecutable. Check the laws again, you can put no return address on an envelope and it's fine, but if you put somebody else's address on it it's mail fraud. This is no different.

    2. Re:Oh, come on! by finity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this is just one of many examples of how the current set of US laws is unfit to deal with issues in cyberspace. Right now, we adopt laws to fit the crime, and come up with (often poor) analogies to make them fit. I'm glad some spammers got busted; spam is anoying and, truly, if someone throws out enough spam, it can act as a form of denial of service. At the same time, though, we need to come up with a new way to govern cyberspace. One where the penalties fit the crime, and one that can move much more quickly than the US judicial system.

    3. Re:Oh, come on! by AaronLawrence · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe trespass is a bad analog, BUT it can be much worse than a minor inconvenience. Companies have had to shut down email addresses (like sales@wherever) because they are overwhelmed with spam. Like 1000 or more spams per day. Having to close and redirect one of your major customer contact methods isn't minor inconvenience.

      Anyone with such an address that has to be listed for public contact suffers from spam, and they can't use aggressive filters because they can't afford to lose customer email.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    4. Re:Oh, come on! by tinkerghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RICO actually sounds good. Using fraud (fraudulent addressing) to run a business should come under racketeering laws. Siezing all his property & assets as 'profits derived from a racket' should be a nice dis-incentive for spamming.

    5. Re:Oh, come on! by GreyPoopon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The biggest filter on prosecutablity is that you have to forge the headers you can send out spam all day every day as long as you are honest about where it's coming from.


      Agreed. This is what REALLY makes me wonder how stupid the defense attorney thinks people are. From the article:

      "You purchase an e-mail address list, alter the transmission information in the header of your e-mail to avoid retaliation, and on Easter morning send out a three-word e-mail to thousands of people: 'Christ is risen!' You have committed a felony in Virginia," Wolf said.
      As a Christian, I find this appalling. It's a blatant attempt to appeal to religious sentiment, but it really backfires. First, if you are altering the information in the header to avoid retaliation, this means that you know up front you are sending your message to people who don't want to receive it. You certainly aren't going to win any converts that way. Second, you are sending the email at what ultimately boils down to shared expense with the recipient, so you are asking me to help pay for messages that I don't want to receive. Frankly, I'm insulted by his statement. Even as a Christian, I don't want to be receiving mass mailings from people I don't know, regardless of whether it is intended to be uplifting.


      Wolf goes on to say that this is will be a shadow over free speech. I really don't see how. I'm not free to go to a business and tack up notices and advertisements without permission. And since it was being deposited on the mail servers of an ISP, this is exactly what the defendant was doing.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    6. Re:Oh, come on! by apendrag0n3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speaking as someone who runs mail servers for multiple domains (yes, I work for an ISP), let me just say that I, for one, think the comparison is apt and accurate. Maintaining a server environment where our paying customers are not inundated with the 80,000+ spam messages a day that we end up filtering out at our mail gateway takes MUCH time and money (both for personnel and equipment/software).

      You may see this individual as merely taking advantage of a situation - "the confluence of internet/SM protocols, not the spammer, that puts the email on your server" - but I certainly do not. That would be like saying that the bank robber is not guilty because it was Smith & Wesson that built the firearm, and the gun dealer that sold it to him (legally), and the cab driver that drove him to the bank (unknowingly) all allowed him to rob this bank, so therefore he is not guilty of it. That is a confluence of EVENTS that leads to the same end. Criminal trespass and robbery.

  4. Re:Appropriate Response by Fordiman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Judge Wolf: (this law is too broad because) "You purchase an e-mail address list, alter the transmission information in the header of your e-mail to avoid retaliation, and on Easter morning send out a three-word e-mail to thousands of people: 'Christ is risen!' You have committed a felony in Virginia,"

    Well, yeah. Religious spam is still spam, you hick.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  5. Wow, now the taxpayers of Virginia have to pay for by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    their upkeep. Keeping a prisoner isn't cheap either, and really, is prison the answer? Prisons are already overcrowded, not to mention a breeding ground for HIV. While I hate spammers, I don't think they deserved to be shived or deserve to contract some horrible disease(which puts a further burden on the already overburdened health care system) because they spammed.

    Garnishing their wages for the rest of their lives and a significant period of house arrest either without an internet connection or with a heavily monitored connection(with restrictions on the services they can use) are both cheaper and more humane without letting the spammer go off scott free.

  6. Jailing spammers by massysett · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I really see no point in jailing spammers. Sure, I hate spam, but come on, is it worth spending tens of thousands of dollars a year of public money to house and feed a spammer? It would be better to impose monetary penalties, or to take measures to ensure the perpetrators won't spam again. Put them under court supervision.

    Jailing people is expensive, and it should be reserved for persons who are a danger to the safety of others. Jailing a spammer is a waste of money--those tens of thousands of dollars would be better spent on funding technological anti-spam measures.

    1. Re:Jailing spammers by nocloo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a good deterence for future spammers to know that they will end up in jail if they break the laws. There're hundreds millions of dollars spent already on spam fighting and the fight will continue until we find a solution to this problem.
      So you are telling that the recipient of the mass mail should bear the cost, while the spammers can do it with impunity and get away with it ? Or simply take the monetary damage as a cost of doing business.
      This is a great precedence and hopefully a few more spammers will end up in jail and getting their asses ramped so they can think a bit before joining the venture. I'm all for jailing them and take all theirs assets away to fund more spam fighting initiatives.

  7. Too long. by bo0ork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nine years in prison for spamming is too much. Heck, two years is too much as well. You can get off easier than that for killing people.

    --
    Does everything include nothing?
    1. Re:Too long. by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nine years in prison for spamming is too much. Heck, two years is too much as well. You can get off easier than that for killing people.

      For murdering, that's not true. If you're refering to manslaughter, there's a reason you don't go to jail as long; you didn't intentially kill the other person.

    2. Re:Too long. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nine years is far too little, if comparable wrong should be meted out to him.

      By spamming millions of people, he's undoubtably wasted far more than nine man-years of the lives of others in his fraudulent schemes, one stolen minute at a time.

      I seriously think an execution is probably fair punishment, if punishment is what you're after.

      However, since I believe justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation are far more important than punishment, and should always be the true goal of law enforcement, nine years is OK with me for the first widely publicized case.

      Next time, we shouldn't be so lenient.

  8. Re:Appropriate Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The appropriate response to Judge Wolf would be that Christ told us to visit those in jail, not to keep them out in the first place. Break the law, go to jail *is* part of Christ's message.

  9. It is NOT postal mail by dereference · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For those who do own their mail servers - corporations, freelancers or other particularly tooled-up individuals - it's like dumping a shit-load of mail on their doorstep - again, through the postal service, which is an impartial, autonomous service that we deeply value!!

    Joke? Troll? This is a terribly misguided analogy, as I shall demostrate by haiku:

    We pay for bandwidth
    consumed by inbound e-mail
    but don't pay postage

    Big difference. This is why junk faxes are illegal; they use toner, paper, and they tie up the phone line. There are actual real expenses involved with receiving spam. we need more bandwidth and bigger servers. And yes, in cases where end customers are involved, the expenses are passed on to them as well, even though it's not their servers or bandwidth.

  10. Re:Appropriate Response by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When a normal, rational, ethical and moral person's thought process gets to the to avoid retaliation part, we tend to reconsider the prudence of engaging in the activity we are thinking about, The Sociopathic personality tends to think about ways of increasing the avoidence punishment. Unfortunately I guess we now have a clue as to Judge Wolf's basic thought processes, it's not normal and even worse it's not sociopathic, she's actually like Nixon, a pragmatist who'll allway argue the ends justify the means.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  11. America has the largest prison population globally by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For approximately the last 15 years, the United States has been engaged in the largest imprisonment program ever attempted by a democratic society.

    That was back in the early 90's when the US prison population was around 900,000. In the time since then, the prison population has more than doubled again to nearly 2.2 Million prisoners. To put that into perspective, there is currently only about 1.4 million people on active duty in the US military.

    We condemn China for their practices involving prison slave labor, yet we conduct those same practices ourselves... Slavery is back in America, and it's mostly for the poor black people again. Meanwhile, every time we have an article discussing incarceration on Slashdot, we get a bazillion prison bitch jokes that fly in the face of the 8th amendment of the US Constitution. You people KNOW their rights are being violated and you don't care.

    "Oh dear they're annoying me with spam. Fuck the 1st Amendment, send them to the salt mines!!" Land of the Free indeed...

    First They Came for the Jews

    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.

    Pastor Martin Niemoller
  12. Re:Why does everyone hate spam so much by greywords · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "million dollar issue" isn't directly related to the end users, it's related to the ISPs. When 66-75% of all e-mail through their servers is spam(article), more than two thirds of the processor/bandwith capacity used is wasted. In order to keep the remaining one third (or lower) running at the speed they want users to experience, they have to pay for at least three times the computational capacity that they would otherwise have to. This cost, of course, gets passed on to the consumer.

  13. Are you a spammer or what? by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It costs my company several thousand dollars a year to deal with spam. As the IT Manager, I know.

    Both here and at home it takes bandwidth, time, and system resources to deal with. All without my permission. Since my time is my most valuable commodity, it's worse than trespass; it's theft of my life.