"Spam King" Pleads Guilty in U.S. Federal Court

Monty writes "It looks like 'Spam King' Adam Vitale has finally plead guilty to violation of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 in federal court in New York City. 'The indictment said that in less than a week in August 2005, Vitale and Moeller sent e-mails on behalf of the informant to more than 1,277,000 addresses of subscribers at AOL, the online division of Time Warner Inc. Vitale will be sentenced on September 13 when he faces a maximum sentence of 11 years in prison. Moeller, who lives in New Jersey, faces the same charge.' We discussed Vitale's arrest back in February."

Comments

believe it when I see it

[saleenS281]

So he was guilty. Given the amount of money he amassed spamming, my guess would be he gets 1 year at most and then some probation. Money makes the judicial system go round in this country.

Re:believe it when I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Money SOMETIMES makes things go around. Usually it just gets you a slight tactical advantage at trial (actually, LACK of money puts you at a tactical disadvantage... that's the real difference) but tactical advantages weay close cases,,, they don't help when the giernment has a solid case.

In a country of 300 million people, and a LOT of courts and judges, there are some bad apples... but relatively few given the size of the barrel. This guy will be sentenced by a federal judge, and there is zero (statistically) chance he would get off with 1 year as you predict. Absent a plea bargain (which seems unlikely since he was the actual target of the investigation) I predict 4 to 7 years.

Re:believe it when I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Paris Hilton went to jail. And in spite of her family's money influence which resulted in the Sheriff altering the terms of her confinement, she was returned to jail. It is becoming increasingly dangerous for political figures to publicly yield to wealthy interests. Finally, spammers are the enemy of all. They are politically unpopular and an easy target to be made an example of justice done.

Now did he plea guilty as part of a bargain in exchange for a lighter sentence? The story didn't touch on that.

Re:believe it when I see it

[packetmon]

There is a set of guidelines a judge HAS to follow in order for sentencing its called a presentence report. A bunch of information is thrown together, weighed and based on that information along with the charges, the sentence is made. For example, did culprit cooperate, is his family life stable (not kidding), his prior history if any. More than likely he will do no less than 30 months unless they seek to make an example of him. Even then, they still have to follow the guidelines but a judge can impose anything a judge sees fit. His lawyers can counter and vice versa then go through appeals. So contrary to what some may like to believe about getting a slap on the wrist, the process is deeper than most know or care to know....

(d) Presentence Report.

• (1) Applying the Sentencing Guidelines. The presentence report must:
  • (A) identify all applicable guidelines and policy statements of the Sentencing Commission;
  • (B) calculate the defendant's offense level and criminal history category;
  • (C) state the resulting sentencing range and kinds of sentences available;
  • (D) identify any factor relevant to:
    • (i) the appropriate kind of sentence, or
    • (ii) the appropriate sentence within the applicable sentencing range; and
  • (E) identify any basis for departing from the applicable sentencing range. (2) Additional Information. The presentence report must also contain the following information:
    • (A) the defendant's history and characteristics, including:
    • (i) any prior criminal record;
    • (ii) the defendant's financial condition; and
    • (iii) any circumstances affecting the defendant's behavior that may be helpful in imposing sentence or in correctional treatment;
  • (B) verified information, stated in a nonargumentative style, that assesses the financial, social, psychological, and medical impact on any individual against whom the offense has been committed;
  • (C) when appropriate, the nature and extent of nonprison programs and resources available to the defendant;
  • (D) when the law provides for restitution, information sufficient for a restitution order;
  • (E) if the court orders a study under 18 U.S.C. 3552 (b), any resulting report and recommendation; and
  • (F) any other information that the court requires.
    
    

Cornell

Re:believe it when I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Now did he plea guilty as part of a bargain in exchange for a lighter sentence? The story didn't touch on that.

That's what I'm wondering. It's strange the story doesn't even mention it might have been a plea bargain. Considering the information comes from U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Michael J. Garcia, I'm guessing it's a bargain and he's hoping to keep that out of the main news story, by the time the facts come out, it will be "old news". For some reason, his website does not contain this press release. However, I was surprise to discover, they have already sent a couple other spammers to jail (15 and more years), so maybe there was no plea bargain and this spammer just gave up? Sounds unlikely to me.

Re:believe it when I see it

[hobo sapiens]

Then maybe the right punishment is that he has to pay back the money he "earned" or go broke, and of course he'll go broke. Prisons are full enough, and there are much worse people to send there. Make him go broke and then do some community service. Seems like sending him to jail is a bit draconian.

Plus, I can think of a few things he could do for community service:
1) since people once referred to the net as the info superhighway, make him the highway dept's official roadkill scraper for a few years
2) make him clean out some tubes...that's right, get them sewers real clean, boy!
3) let him go work at a nursing home where they give the old men free v!agr4 -- while dressed up as the girl from St Pauli Girl beer bottles. Ouch!
4) he has to clean all the restrooms in NYC's entire subway system.

Cruel? Unusual? Yes! Fitting? Yes!

Re:believe it when I see it

[eyebee]

My guess is that he's pled guilty as he's gotten some kind of plea bargain deal.

Re:believe it when I see it

[CharlieG]

No probation in Federal Prision...

Re:believe it when I see it

[ehrichweiss]

I'm hip to the presentence report but I've also personally seen a judge defying the recommendation of the report entirely. In this case it was for the worse, he recommended jail time instead of the recommended probation, but it apparently happens a lot.

Re:believe it when I see it

[KUHurdler]

I predict 4 to 7 years...

which typically translates to <1 year of time served and lots of probation/wrist-slapping.

Re:believe it when I see it

[KUHurdler]

so how much jail time did you have to serve?

Re:believe it when I see it

[Kabuthunk]

Exactly what I was going to reply with. This isn't a physical crime... thusly next to nothing will actually come of it. My money is on 4 months before some legal loophole breaks him out.

And then he'll get a big settlement for false imprisonment to boot.

Strangely, my captcha word was "optimism" :P

Re:believe it when I see it

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

No parole, not no probation.

Federal probation does exist.

Re:believe it when I see it

[ehrichweiss]

None. How does one seeing an event make them a part of the actual event and not simply and observer in your logic? I see people run red lights all the time but it doesn't mean I was part of them doing it.

Re:believe it when I see it

[ehrichweiss]

"and observer" = "an observer".

Re:believe it when I see it

[Quikah]

There is no parole in the Federal prison system since ~1990.

Re:believe it when I see it

[KUHurdler]

it was a joke... at least I found it funny.

Re:believe it when I see it

[ehrichweiss]

Understood now. It seemed borderline Troll/Funny so had to address it.

Re:believe it when I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

unless, of course, the defendant is named OJ Simpson or William Jefferson. ;)

Re:believe it when I see it

[efalk]

My prediction in zero jail time, and his assets are sufficiently hidden that he's fine-proof as well. He'll be given a substantial fine, but it will be suspended on the promise that he won't do it again. Then he'll do it again.

Re:believe it when I see it

[coryking]

Sorry, this dude needs to be locked up for a long, long time. When you consider the staggering amount of damages these jerks cause even 11 years isn't enough. Consider:

- Employee overtime including late night pages from servers being flooded with crap at 2am.
- Software Development time spent writing, tuning and updating spam filters
- IT overhead creating spam policies
- Hardware overhead to handle the spam
- Lost productivity filtering out spam
- Everything else I'm forgetting... botnets anyone?

Take that dollar value and multiply it by every organization and person connected to the internet. I'd wager you are looking into the billions of dollars of damages!

Spammers commit fraud on the highest of levels. They just do it in a way that distributes the damage in a way that makes each individual's share relatively low. you just have to add it all up to see that fuckers like the guy in this article are committing fraud on almost on the same level as your average Enron executive.

Re:believe it when I see it

[RealGrouchy]

Is it just me, or does the role of "judge" in the U.S. look more and more like "administrator"?

One branch down...

- RG>

Re:believe it when I see it

[RealGrouchy]

In an ironic, broken-windowsish way, sending people to jail can create more jobs (i.e. of guards), whereas (unpaid) community service takes away jobs through unfair competition (prison labour is the new slavery/outsourcing).

Punishing people can be quite a tough political decision.

- RG>

Re:believe it when I see it

[dotgain]

Just like federal pounding.

Re:believe it when I see it

[McFadden]

Sensitive much?

Re:believe it when I see it

[hobo sapiens]

I think you make good points, because I am sure that he contributed to a lot of IT headaches. I work in IT and that pisses me off. Truly.

I guess the legal system and justice are two different things. I really think that what this guy deserves would be classified as cruel and unusual. Now, if you offered him one of my above punishments or something equally cruel and humiliating and his lawyers fought it, then 20 years would be a nice round number for a prison sentence because that would show that he is not sorry for what he has done and has no interest in making right. But something other than prison would be preferable, for many reasons. If you have the choice between making him pay some restitution OR just making him suffer in prison (while you, Joe Taxpayer, feed, clothe, and entertain him), don't you see how the first alternative would be desirable?

Re:believe it when I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea. I had an uncle (now deceased) who did some stock fraud and came out of federal lockup a year later a much richer man than he went in. About 40 years or so ago.

And yes, I'm posting anonymously because I'm a coward.

Re:believe it when I see it

[d0llar97]

This guy deserves what he gets... Check out his buddy trill talking about how they spam http://rapidshare.com/files/37662735/Trill-onfire. mp3 there is no copyright on this file.. consider it GPL

Justice is as justice does

[djupedal]

"...he faces a maximum sentence of 11 years in prison."

He may want to ask for more years and just stay in - If I run into him on the street...well, let's just say he will need more than self-healing plastic skin to hold him together until he can be put out of his misery by Kevorkian.

Re:Justice is as justice does

[AutopsyReport]

If I run into him on the street...well, let's just say he will need more than self-healing plastic skin to hold him together until he can be put out of his misery by Kevorkian.

What are you going to do, fart in his general direction?

Re:Justice is as justice does

[Anonymous Coward]

He may want to ask for more years and just stay in - If I run into him on the street...well, let's just say he will need more than self-healing plastic skin to hold him together until he can be put out of his misery by Kevorkian. Don't you think that 11 years of life as a prison 'bitch' is more than adequate punishment?

Re:Justice is as justice does

[Anonymous Coward]

Still better then getting rectal fines in prison for being the fish :)

Yay!

[apachetoolbox]

CAN-SPAM Act: 1
Spammers: 1,305,931,426,569

Re:Yay!

[strider1551]

Am I reading this right? There are more spammers than humans?! I mean, hell, how do you legally stop aliens from spamming?

Re:Yay!

[BlueTrin]

He was maybe trying to say:

• CAN-SPAM Act: 1 action won
• Spammers: 1,305,931,426,569 spams sent

5 Minutes

[Bob9113]

1,277,000 addresses of subscribers at AOL ... faces a maximum sentence of 11 years in prison

Maximum of five minutes in prison for each of the people he spammed. Seems a little light.

Re:5 Minutes

[DataBroker]

A more fitting "rehabilitation" would be to give him a flexible release date. Let him know that his release date is the day that he finishes reading all of the email he sent, out loud. The quandry of course is how to pronounce things like "v!agr@".

Re:5 Minutes

[AltGrendel]

Maximum of five minutes in prison for each of the people he spammed. Seems a little light.

Well, talk to the judge, maybe he'll give you have your five minutes alone with Vitale and let you to bring your own baseball bat.

Re:5 Minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems a little harsh. Who takes 5 minutes to delete one spam mail?

Re:5 Minutes

[neoform]

I hate spam as much as the next guy, but 11 years in prison is too much, that's a murder's sentence..

If anything, the courts should put him in jail for a few years, take away all the money he's made and make sure he's never allowed near a computer again.

That would seem more fitting.

Re:5 Minutes

[Rob T Firefly]

Maximum of five minutes in prison for each of the people he spammed. Seems a little light.

It all evens out, assuming it didn't take any of those victims more than five minutes to press "delete" on a single email.

(must.. not.. resurrect.. stale.. AOLer.. jokes..)

Re:5 Minutes

[bwalling]

Maximum of five minutes in prison for each of the people he spammed. Seems a little light.

Interesting that all of the people on Slashdot rail against jail time for intellectual property violations, but think that the spammer's sentence was too light. Isn't the underlying argument the same - there really isn't a victim as it's all just bits. The problem is that with spam, the Slahdotters are the victims, and so now they want punishment and the spammers are sitting around saying "what's the big deal? it's just a few bits".

Re:5 Minutes

[TapeCutter]

Wait I have it...make him road test every penis enlargement product/procedure/pill that he has advertised. /unreasonable_revenge

Re:5 Minutes

[gad_zuki!]

I hate spam as much as the next guy, but 11 years in prison is too much, that's a murder's sentence..

No its not. Its more like "I sold pot to a consenting adult."

The average sentence for a state crime is 4.5 years. 11 is the max here, he'll get less than half and get out in less than 2 years.

Re:5 Minutes

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Punishments fitting the crime would be justice, and we can't have any of that. Too hard. Much easier to just kill everyone who steals bread or worse.

Re:5 Minutes

[Sobrique]

But it wasn't one spam. That was the number of users in AOL who got spammed.

I'd instead ask: How many people _haven't_ had 5 minutes of their life wasted by spam?

That is, of course, assuming that it was only ever AOL users who got spammed by this fine gentleman. And that the only 'cost' in email is the time taken to read it, decide it was spam, and delete it. Which isn't the case. Bandwidth costs, as does high performance disk. The volumes of spam are such that quite a few places are having to upgrade hardware and add additional servers to deal with that workload

Re:5 Minutes

[Spacezilla]

I know I should just STFU, but whatever. You really shouldn't steal time from people. I used to work for a postal service where I had to call people and ask for a key to their building, so we could get in and deliver the mail we had for them. This postal service only delivered letters that people had actually requested, so we were actually doing people a favor by asking them for a key to their building, so they could get the mail that they were waiting for.

Anyway, I quit. The job was good, but I couldn't handle taking up people's time constantly. Yes, they could just say: "Sorry, I can't help you with that." and we'd hang up immediately, but still, it just didn't feel right. You only have so much time here in life, it's so important not to waste it. How anyone can send out 1.2 million e-mails and sleep at night I just don't understand. Even if everyone could delete the e-mail they got in 1 second, that's still 1 second you stole from 1.2 million people, which ends up at two weeks. You just stole two weeks out of people's time. How would you like someone stealing two weeks of your time? And that was a best-case scenario, many people will take longer than that to delete their e-mails, few will be able to do it faster.

And what about the people who have their e-mails forwarded to their cell phones and were woken up in the middle of the night and couldn't fall back to sleep, so the next day was ruined for them? I have an e-mail address I forward to my phone, I do my best to make sure spammers don't get it and people only use that e-mail address if it's an emergency.

I know, I know, I'm making things much worse than they really are, all he did was send out some e-mails, what's wrong with that? Well, I just have very strong feelings about this, I try to never bother people unless I have a very good reason and my mom taught me to always ask myself what I can do to make other people have a better day, not how I can make it worse.

Stealing a few seconds of someone's time is no big deal. Stealing a few seconds of 1.2 million people's time is a HUGE deal.

This jerk didn't care about helping other people, he just wanted to make some money and he didn't care how many people he had to bother to do so.

So does he deserve 11 years in jail? Well, what he did was a very selfish; he stole time from more than one million people and he did it to make money. However, the bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged." and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." and that's how I try to live my life as well, even though I'm an atheist. I've done some very stupid and very selfish things myself, so I'm not one to judge him and if it were up to me, we should make sure he understands exactly what he's done, then let him go.

Re:5 Minutes

[bwalling]

So does he deserve 11 years in jail? Well, what he did was a very selfish; he stole time from more than one million people and he did it to make money.

I did not render an opinion on whether his sentence was too short or too long. I only made an observation that the general attitude of the Slashdot readership on this seems to contradict its general attitude on "file sharing".

Re:5 Minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

1,277,000 addresses of subscribers at AOL ... faces a maximum sentence of 11 years in prison

Maximum of five minutes in prison for each of the people he spammed. Seems a little light.

Yes, 1 year in prison per person and no desert!

Re:5 Minutes

[digitig]

Wait I have it...make him road test every penis enlargement product/procedure/pill that he has advertised. /unreasonable_revenge Hardly. None of them do anything anyway. Er...so I'm told...

Re:5 Minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

5 minutes per person spammed, or by my calculations: at an average of 1000 spam messages a person probably got from this guy, about 1/3 of a second for each spam message... Hmmm, does seem a bit light considering it took me at least 10 seconds to delete one of his messages from my inbox. To be fair, his sentence should be about 30 times longer, shouldn't it?

Re:5 Minutes

[inviolet]

That is, of course, assuming that it was only ever AOL users who got spammed by this fine gentleman. And that the only 'cost' in email is the time taken to read it, decide it was spam, and delete it. Which isn't the case.

True enough, but the judge can't consider that fact, because it isn't indicted or proven.

In reality, of course, this moron's net contribution to the world is -862.4 human lifetimes, and for that reason an informed vigilante would be justified in flaying him. However, our legal system is still mostly effective, and so the vigilante should yield to it, even though (unlike the vigilante) it can only punish those acts which are publicly provable.

Re:5 Minutes

[FreakyLefty]

Change his name to Earl and sentence him to giving an apology - in person, individually - to everyone he's ever spammed...

Re:5 Minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather it be given to his cell mates.

Prison isn't the real punisment for him.

[Anonymous Coward]

Verifying the efficiency of penis enlargement pills will be.

PMITA Prison, I hope...

[R2.0]

Hopefully to be in the cell next door to Paris "Sock Puppet" Hilton.

(Cue "US is evil/rape prison/Saddam was better in 3...2...1...)

Re:PMITA Prison, I hope...

[NayDizz]

Godwin's Law V2.0: Paris Hilton

Re:PMITA Prison, I hope...

[zentinal]

Still waiting...

Re:PMITA Prison, I hope...

[R2.0]

Actually, another user has a comment about Iraq being the new Godwins. Knowing this, I wrote it anyway. Sometimes, ya just gotta.

Will this improve anything?

[yohanes]

If he pleaded guilty, can he get away with everything?

What does it mean to all of us slashdot readers?

Oblig.

[Karganeth]

http://www.bash.org/?203815

Great! In just 10 minutes I expect to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

... some e-mail from Nigeria claiming that there is money to be made by getting this guy out of the slammer.

Let's just hope he does not whine like a certain celebrity and try to get out based on some mental disorder. He should never be allowed to touch a computer again in his entire life, as far as I am concerned.

Re:Great! In just 10 minutes I expect to see...

[Technician]

He should never be allowed to touch a computer again in his entire life, as far as I am concerned.


I don't mind if he touches a computer again. I do mind if it has any connections to any other computer in any fashion.

Too Many Kings

[moehoward]

There sure are a lot of guys who get the title Spam King. Can't we get more creative with these titles? Spam Lord. Spam Queen. Spam Prime Minister. Spam Court Jester. I'd prefer more Batman-style evil nemesis names like "The Green Viagra" or something.

I mean, who votes for these Kings? I didn't vote for him!

Re:Too Many Kings

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "Mr. Spam"? It worked for Homer.

Re:Too Many Kings

[TheWoozle]

Pfft. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power based on a vote! Everyone knows that kings are chosen by women distributing swords in a farcical aquatic ceremony. If I said I had been elected Emperor by means of popular vote, they'd put me away!

Re:Too Many Kings

[aadvancedGIR]

Not to be over-pedantic, but "The Green Viagra" sounds more Spiderman-style.

Re:Too Many Kings

[Tofystedeth]

Or Hell, how about Spam Czar? Then you could have Spam Tsars, csars, tzar, zar, not to mention all the czarinas... It'd be like having a bunch of kings, we'd just differentiate by spelling.

Re:Too Many Kings

[uradu]

> I mean, who votes for these Kings? I didn't vote for him!

Ok, that demands an obligatory Holy Grail quote:

King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
moehoward: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Re:Too Many Kings

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a vote by seven Prince-Electors? Or for that matter, a college of cardinals?

Re:Too Many Kings

[MadChicken]

"The people versus Lord High Spam, Circumventor of Bayes, Embedder of Speckled Images, Supplier of Questionable Wristwatches,..."

"Skip a bit, bailiff..."

Re:Too Many Kings

[untaken_name]

Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.

You are SO right! I hate it when people try to claim there's more than one correct way to make chili. Just like language, there are many ways to do it...but only one possible way to do it right. Good to see you spreading the word.

Re:Too Many Kings

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pretty sure everyone else already had that going through their head. It was, after all, a reference. To Python. Which most of us already know. And the rest don't give a damn. GJ.

Re:Too Many Kings

[RealGrouchy]

There sure are a lot of guys who get the title Spam King. Can't we get more creative with these titles?

Spam King
Spam Spam Spam Spam King
Spam Spam Spam King and Spam
Spam and Cheese King
Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam King with bacon and Spam ...

- RG>

Re:Too Many Kings

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr Spam is a loser (and I think he is a boozer)
So you'd better make that call to the Spam King.

Multiple kings?

[jonathan DS]

I wonder how many kings there are in the realm of spam...
A previous article stated Robert Soloway to be the spam king. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/033 2220

Will there be any online betting on who will win the jail fight?

Re:Multiple kings?

[init100]

Don't forget another "King of Spam", Alan Ralsky. I've had many laughs about the treatment he received from Slashdot.

Re:Multiple kings?

[nobuddy]

Alan Ralsky Andrew Brunner Sanford Wallace Jeff Slaton A few I remember from my term at the mailserver helm.

pfft

[djupedal]

Oh, Brother - where fart thou...?

Re:pfft

[MagicM]

That was not funny.

"Spam King"?

[Otter]

Has anyone ever been accused of spamming who wasn't described as "the Spam King"? The UCE world sounds like medieval Europe, where everyone with a castle and a few horses was the King of Whateveritania.

Re:"Spam King"?

[Billosaur]

Too true. "King" is a royal and regal word, watered down enough by a bunch of potentate wannabes, without subjecting it to the likes of this moron's ilk. I'm thinking "Chief Spam Weasel" is more in keeping with what he is.

Re:"Spam King"?

[Otter]

For example:

Alan Ralsky

Scott Richter

Ryan Pitylak

Sanford Wallace

The first ten results on Google give four different Spam Kings, none of which is the guy here, one of which involves Burger King and real Spam.

Re:"Spam King"?

[aadvancedGIR]

Moreover, 1.2M addresses would hardly qualify him as "King Nothing" in the spam realm.

Re:"Spam King"?

[Billosaur]

Apparently a "Spam King" is like a hydra; cut off one head and a bunch more pop up. Until there's some kind of live monetary cost for sending out emails, the profit in spamming outweighs the possible penalty, especially if you live outside the US. Then you can thumb your nose at CAN-SPAM.

Re:"Spam King"?

[Vexor]

Well if I recall the only way to kill a hydra is with fire... Burn the spammers! Burn them all!

Why bother sending him to jail?

[andyteleco]

He should be sent to Russia, there he would find justice like Vardan Kushnir

Awesome, but will do little to curb spam

[llZENll]

Spam is just insane, 90 billion per day are sent, 90 billion! This is great as it sends a message to spammers that finally it will not be tollerated. The charges and sentences are pretty pathetic considering the amount of spam these guys sent, probably well into the trillions. Unfortunately this will do little to curb spam as we have little power enforcing spamming across the borders of the USA.

Re:Awesome, but will do little to curb spam

[flyingfsck]

"90 billion" If you counted them, then maybe you should stop your obsession and get a life... ;)

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Now is someone going to arrest the guys who send my junk mail with fake little credit cards in them, or whoever has a machine call up to tell me I have a cheap vacation waiting for me? Why is that fine, but this guy goes to jail for doing the same thing via a different medium?

unuseable email

[phrostie]

does this mean i can start using my old email account again?

Care package to his cell mates

[hellfire]

I'm sending care packages to all of his fellow inmates... bottles and bottles of penis enlargement pills.

I'll send one to him as well, but the penis enlargement pill bottles will be emptied and refilled with breast enlargement pills, instead.

I know, I know... they don't work... but I can dream can't I?

Re:Care package to his cell mates

[Billosaur]

He better hope his bunkmate in prison isn't one of his former customers who got the penis enlargement pills but found out sadly they didn't work...

Re:Care package to his cell mates

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, I know... they don't work...

Whaddya mean they don't work - I want my money back! You can't trust anyone these days.

GW

Re:Care package to his cell mates

[torqer]

I'd imagine the situation would be worse if the penis enlargement pills actually *did* work...

Re:Care package to his cell mates

[nsebban]

You know, this uhhh...this good friend of mine...well...he said they worked pretty well ! :)

Re:Care package to his cell mates

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence to the contrary.

http://www.zug.com/pranks/penis/

Then again, you could be rendered impotent a month later.

Re:Care package to his cell mates

[rts008]

Good one.

My own solution:

Take them to someplace like Maine that has a large moose population (a lot of large Bullwinkles), hogtie them, douse them with She-Moose In Heat, and let the fun begin.

Bullwinkle: *sniff sniff*
Rocky: What's that smell?!?
Bullwinkle:SHE-MOOSE, and she's in HEAT!!
Bullwinkle:Hey Rocky, watch me pull a V1agr@ out of my hat! Hubba hubba, and don't wait up for me!

VITALE the spam king? Good riddance to him.

[Anonymous Coward]

I should have known that Vitale was the spam king. All of my spams read, "Unbelievable Baby! He's a PTP'er! Slam Bam Jam!"

but does the punishment fit the crime?

[hobo sapiens]

In all seriousness, though...11 years?

Of course he won't serve that. And of course, spam is bad. But 11 years?

Who was harmed in the process of his sending spam? How many people did he physically hurt? Even, how much money did he take from people? Ok, so the spam consumed bandwidth and wasted people's time. And he gets 11 years for that? Seems a little inappropriate given the crime, don't you think?

I could a large fine, community service, and a year in prison. But, sheesh! A manslaughter charge won't get you 11 years. Are we that out of whack that you get more time for spam than for killing someone?

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Applekid]

Killing a person rarely costs people collectively millions of dollars to manage the digital puke of scamvertising that is spam.

Now, if the was convicted on spamming 1 million or so email addresses, I doubt that caused enough financial damage to warrant 11 years. Clearly an example is being made of him.

Not that I mind in any way.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[jrumney]

Who was harmed in the process of his sending spam?

Anyone who has ever had to swap a hard-drive out of a mailserver due to increased wear or disk space requirements, or upgrade a data pipe to the next size up, has been financially harmed by spammers. And if you slipped with the screwdriver and injured yourself while undertaking this otherwise unnecessary work.... It is not the victimless crime that supporters of spam like to make out.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[miskatonic alumnus]

Are we that out of whack that you get more time for spam than for killing someone?

Yes. In some cases, drug dealers can spend decades in prison --- even for a single instance of selling a few hits of LSD to an undercover cop. Personally, I'm against incarceration. Prisons don't rehabilitate people.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[TheRaven64]

I'm not in favour of prisons in general (with the exception of a few sociopaths who can't be rehabilitated and would be a danger to the public if released), but it doesn't seem like too much time. 11 years, is 4015 days, or 5,781,600 minutes. He spammed 1,277,000 people. That works out at 4.5 minutes per person.

I would be willing to bet he sent at least ten spams to each person, which works out at 27 minutes in prison per spam. If it takes 2-3 seconds to check if an email is spam, then the prison sentence is only ten times as much as the total amount of time he's wasted, ignoring the cost of bandwidth etc. that has been used to deliver the spam. If you start from the belief that prisons are a good method of punishing criminals then this doesn't sound like a particularly unreasonable amount of time, particularly considering that it's a maximum, and he is unlikely to get more than half of it.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[hobo sapiens]

"It is not the victimless crime that supporters of spam like to make out."
I hope you aren't putting words in my mouth.

As for the rest of your post, you've gotta be kidding. As I said, spam is bad and nasty. I never said he didn't hurt anyone. I said he didn't physically hurt anyone. Financial restitution is in order.

Maybe some jail time is in order. I mean, the punishment seems a little excessive. But as another poster replied to me, they are making an example out of him. That's the only thing I can come up with as to why he gets so much time. I am not defending him.

I don't know anything about the guy, but what if he was just some geek who thought of a way to make some money? Maybe he didn't even realize what the impact would be. I dunno, that much jail time just seems crazy. This is precedent-setting. What other online activity could be made illegal next? How much jail time could you do? This is just as ridiculous as an SA who once worked for a p2p service getting jail time. What, we are giving out hefty prison sentences for relatively innocuous (read, online) crimes that don't result in loss of life?

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Sobrique]

Lets not be forgetting the deeply sick proportion of the bandwidth of the world that's taken up by spam. ISTR it was somewhere around the 1/3rd of all internet traffic mark. That's one hell of a lot of bandwidth wasted. Bandwidth that's not cheap at all, especially when you start talking about transatlantic communications.

Or perhaps the collective time of the people involved to filter out the incoming junk. I see at least 1000 per month caught by my filter. A filter that _used_ to be entirely unnecessary.

Having an active email account on the internet, almost guarantees getting spammed. OK, so I can tidy it, delete it or otherwise remove it. Much like I can pick up the empty beer cans that someone has decided to drop in my garden. This doesn't mean I appreciate it in the slightest.

This spamking has made a very larger sum of money indeed, by some seriously antisocial behaviour.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Eagleartoo]

Prisons aren't meant to rehabilitate, they are meant to punish. Like AlcAnon Members know, you can only rehabilitate yourself, no one can do it for you. Prison should be a shitty place so that people who end up their want to reform their ways.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[twistedsymphony]

I'm against incarceration. Prisons don't rehabilitate people.

I agree, though at the same time it's not necessarily the job of the government to rehabilitate people (and I'd be skeptical about what they would rehabilitate people into if they did). The idea of prison is to keep people from harming others in society. For someone like a spammer, locking them up while keeping them from harming others could be done in much better ways. Simply keeping him away from computers for X years would be more appropriate.

I've heard many people refer to prison as "criminal college" and I believe it. Junk email sucks, but we're not doing ourselves any favors if this guy comes out of jail ready to rape and pillage.

In terms of rehabilitation I can think of many jobs they could have criminals perform as an alternative to being locked up. Certainly some form of community service or even choosing to serve the country in the military in place of their sentence not only has the potential of serving the public but also making them into a better person by the time they're done serving their time. Of course these options should be available on a case by case basis.

... just some thoughts

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[miskatonic alumnus]

What is the purpose of punishment? If it serves to keep people from behaving badly, then that is rehabilitation. Otherwise, it serves no purpose other than to indulge in sadistic behavior --- which makes the punisher no better than the punished.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[drsquare]

It's called retribution. Someone does something bad to you, you get revenge. Anyway, when did we start feeling sorry for criminals? Let them rot, no-one forced them to commit crimes.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who was harmed in the process of his sending spam? How many people did he physically hurt? Even, how much money did he take from people? Ok, so the spam consumed bandwidth and wasted people's time.

The crime of spamming is one of scale. What you're thinking is that he just sent some unsolicited mail, so where's the harm? Well, he sent millions upon millions of emails to millions people. This isn't just time wasted, it is annoying just that many people and abuse of computer networks on a massive scale. And that's just one spammer, imagine if one out of three people was a spammer? And as if that wasn't enough, no one wants to recieve spam and most of the spam people do get is connected to illegal activities (drugs, pyramid schemes etc).

Also, you shouldn't be using murder as a measure of severity, because if we all did that almost no crime except for murder would be taken seriously (murder is, after all, often regarded as the worst crime you can commit). The diffrence between murder and spamming is huge, obviously. A murderer has usually just one victim to whom he has committed the worst of all crimes. A spammer on the other hand has millions of victims to whom he has commited what barely can be regarded as a crime. As far as spamming is concerned the crime is not the act of sending the email (which in itself is a trivial offence if the email is unsolicited) but rather the number of people affected. The two crimes cannot (and should not) be compared to one another.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are we that out of whack that you get more time for spam than for killing someone?"

Yes considering the fact that in some states such as NY a rapist will walk out of prison quicker then someone who was caught with cocaine when they were 18 years old. The system is all messed up but nobodys willing to step up and say "These people dont deserve to go to jail for as long as they do"

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[falconcy]

I think we need to look at how the system dealt with Kevin Mitnick, he ended up doing 5 years and had some pretty restrictive conditions set post his release until they were challenged in court. This idiot should be restricted as far as internet access goes, after all, he could carry on spamming from inside the jail were he allowed internet access. Curtailing his internet access for a long period of time might actually have a beneficial effect and discourage further acts of this nature by him and others like him.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Battle_Ratt]

What is missing from this thread is the other half of the quote.
"The indictment said that in less than a week..."
So how much spam did he send in a year? Billions very likely.
Now this set of charges is only about the activity during that specific week, however take into account just how many years of others peoples lives he has taken, 30 seconds at a time.

11 years doesn't even come close even Steven payback.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Ephemeriis]

A maximum of 11 years is just that, a maximum. It's up to the legal system to decide just how severely to punish him.

Much as I hate to roll out the "think of the children" line... Some spam (I am not at all familiar with this case so I have no idea what they were mailing out) is downright pornographic in nature. If they're just blasting it out to random addresses what are the odds that it reached minors? What are the normal charges for exposing a minor to pornography?

Then you have to wonder how many important emails got lost beneath the mountains of spam that these people produced... How many people missed an important announcement, a change of plans, or a business deal?

What kind of resources have been put into dealing with spam worldwide? More bandwidth for transmitting the messages...more storage for queueing and whatnot...bigger servers, bigger pipes, more IT staff...software to filter it out... How much time does your average IT monkey spend dealing with spam in one way or another over the course of a year? How much are they getting paid? How much of that spam came from these folks?

I'm not suggesting that these guys should get anywhere near 11 years... But I can see where, under some circumstances, 11 years makes sense.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[veganboyjosh]

Taking that idea a little further, didn't Kevin have to do some kind of community service to help tighten the security he found ways around?

Perhaps I'm just thinking of him getting employment by some computer security firm post incarceration. I guess the problem here is Vitale could make more money by continuing to spam than he would at an anti-spam place...

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might also be interested in this article on Wired. Free the Spam King! says that Robert Alan Soloway is facing 65 years and a $250,000 fine for spamming (a lot). It compares this to a rape conviction, which nets a maximum of 8 years in jail in California.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[miskatonic alumnus]

So, you agree that it's all about that good feeling you get inside when you see someone suffer. Nice. Clearly, we are evolving as a species.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[gatesvp]

I mean, the punishment seems a little excessive.

OK I'll bite, what punishment? He hasn't been sentenced yet that doesn't happen until September 13. For maximum sentences to be doled out, the convict has to either "be an example" or have a whole bunch of things working against them (related crimes, etc). So he's probably not getting the maximum sentence.

Next you say: I am not defending him. and then follow it up with several questions that undermine any form of harsh sentencing by using subtly applying your own value judgements inside of the very questions you want us to investigate. Your questions are practically rhetorical, not even questions really. And then you throw up this line: This is just as ridiculous as an SA who once worked for a p2p service getting jail time. without even bothering to provide a supporting link or two.

Just because you can't see the impact of these "relatively innocous crimes" doesn't mean that they aren't costing millions of dollars of resources. I understand that the digital world can be hard to fathom, so take something real. Imagine that a tire company paid a group of people (call them a gang) to slash tires in parking lots. Now imagine that it wasn't just a few tires, picture that EVERY DAY this gang of individuals slashed tires on 5 or 10% of the parked cars. And what if the problem escalates? Now people are hiring parking lot security just to make sure that their tires aren't being slashed. But the gangs are creative they come up with "slashing guns" and group diversionary tactics and various other means.

Now clearly, this is relatively innocuous and it won't result in loss of life b/c you can't leave the lot with no air. So what type of prison sentence do you dole out? I mean all they did was slash tires every day for 5 years. Mostly, they just wasted people's time and cost people of bunch of money (new tires and security guards).

If you've ever paid for tires or had your tires slashed, these arguments all sound pretty weak, and they are. Just b/c this whole spam thing happens digitally doesn't mean that it doesn't cost millions of dollars and tons of effort, it just means that you're not seeing it, b/c that cost is on your monthly ISP's bills or extra overhead for your company. You've off-loaded the costs to someone else (the parking lot security) and now you're forgetting what it was like when you could just park your car.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Mister Whirly]

Say I fraud you out of your entire life savings. I haven't physically harmed you either, but your life is totally devastated... What should be the punishment for that - 6 months? Do you know how many millions of dollars Spammers waste every year just by doing their "relatively innocuous" crimes? I'm not saying we should hang him or anything, but to me 10 years doesn't seem excessive for a white collar crime of this magnitude. I would offer him a deal though - stay offline for 10 years and only do a year in prison. If caught online for any purpose, back to the federal prison for 20 years...

If judges keep letting Spammers get off light, without ever setting a heavy-handed precedent, why would they ever even consider stopping the SPAM?? Sometimes a little scare is good.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Kabuthunk]

Aaaand it's people like this in the jury that keep non-violent crimes from getting a light slap on the wrist, being told to 'stop it', and they're scott-free.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[crucini]

But as another poster replied to me, they are making an example out of him.

I'd say that setting an example is always a goal of criminal sentencing. But in this case, there is no sentence yet. The max is 11 years.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Monchanger]

I agree that spam is a terrible thing. I'd love to see spammers drawn and quartered for what they do.

But you forget something important- this is the US legal system we're talking about. This one guy may have sent out a LOT of spam, but not all of it. He didn't cause the situation today, only contributed to it. By our justice system, he must pay for what he did, not be a scape-goat which pays for the sins of all spammers. The rest must be hunted down as well, or we'll have accomplished nothing by jailing this one.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[inviolet]

What is the purpose of punishment? If it serves to keep people from behaving badly, then that is rehabilitation. Otherwise, it serves no purpose other than to indulge in sadistic behavior --- which makes the punisher no better than the punished.

It serves to disincent others who may be weighing the odds of committing similar acts.

But then, you already knew that, perhaps on one of your more honest days.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[miskatonic alumnus]

Wow... that really seems to have worked. See: illegal drug use/distribution, prostitution, illegal gambling, copyright violation, spamming --- all of which have nearly vanished due to fear of being caught and punished.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[evil_aar0n]

I think you guys misunderstand his point. I don't read it as "He hasn't done anyone any harm," or "let him off easy," but, rather, that the punishment should be considered in context when compared with what someone might get for, say, murdering another, or raping someone. I think we can all agree that the latter two should be about the "ultimate" in offenses one could commit - against an individual, at least. But when we have "white collar" criminals getting jail sentences - and, granted, it hasn't been handed down, yet - that are more severe than a rape or murder sentence, something is not right with the system.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[hobo sapiens]

"I would offer him a deal though - stay offline for 10 years and only do a year in prison. If caught online for any purpose, back to the federal prison for 20 years..."
That's actually a very good and fitting punishment; if only it weren't almost unenforcable. Even if that's not possible, the guy should definitely do some restitution, even if he goes broke in the process. The guy does not deserve the lifestyle he obtained from his ill-gotten gains. This guy should be bankrupted and forced to earn a living like the rest of us.

"Say I fraud you out of your entire life savings. " etc...
Well, as long as you're taking my arguments waaaaaay past the intended point and carrying the logic to the nth degree, I guess some turnabout is in order here.
"If judges keep letting Spammers get off light, without ever setting a heavy-handed precedent, why would they ever even consider stopping the SPAM?? Sometimes a little scare is good."
It sure is a good thing the RIAA is suing elderly grandmothers. Maybe the real pirates will think twice if someone's grandmother gets slapped with a $100K fine! Riiiiiight. First it doesn't work. Second, it's not justified.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[inviolet]

Wow... that really seems to have worked. See: illegal drug use/distribution, prostitution, illegal gambling, copyright violation, spamming --- all of which have nearly vanished due to fear of being caught and punished.

You've hand-picked a combination of laws which are all either illegitimate (e.g. vice laws) or brand new (spamming, copyright) in order to make your point. I'm not impressed. It's only natural and proper that vice laws get flaunted (but even then, you'll observe that the fear of punishment has driven those activities indoors and underground). And copyright and spam laws are just barely on the books, and the police have no clue how to enforce them (but this will change).

It is far more relevant to consider whether prison is effective in the cases of laws which are generally agreed to be legitimate in all reasonable cultures: murder, arson, robbery, etc. etc. Does the prospect of prison time have a general deterrant effect?

I know that it has an effect on *me*. Were it not for the just punishment, there are some individuals whom I would have done mankind the service of removing from the planet.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Mister Whirly]

With a tracking system, it wouldn't be as unenforceable as you think. They gave Mitnick a similar deal, and he didn't use a computer for years. The idea is no one would risk 20 years in prison to go online. If I were him, I know I wouldn't. They offer similar types of probation to sex offenders, so why not Spammers?
It is easy to say you can't enforce it, but then what are the alternatives? Jail sentences, or letting him off scott free? What would be your propoesd "fitting punishment"?? If you really can't see that their are actual monetary damages to this type of crime you need to look harder. This isn't a victimless crime just because you personally weren't bilked out of any money...

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[spamking]

They offer similar types of probation to sex offenders . . .

Like what? Probation and no sex for 5 years . . . during which time you can only spank the monkey?

Either way this dude has caused harm to folks and probably made a pretty penny doing it. We have probably all been affected by spammers and may not have realized it.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[An ominous Cow art]

But when we have "white collar" criminals getting jail sentences - and, granted, it hasn't been handed down, yet - that are more severe than a rape or murder sentence, something is not right with the system. Good point, but which is it: A) "White collar" crimes are punished too harshly, or B) Violent crimes aren't punished harshly enough? I lean toward B) myself, but sadly, crime vs. punishment isn't something that's easily quantized.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Mister Whirly]

No, like GPS tracking and the condition of not going anywhere nears schools, playgrounds, kids, etc.. Or even "chemical castration" which, by using drugs to make you impotent, would take away the ability/desire to spank the monkey also.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that it has an effect on *me*. Were it not for the just punishment, there are some individuals whom I would have done mankind the service of removing from the planet.

Indeed, I've often said that the day after there's a general breakdown in the rule of Law, I'm going to start hunting SUV drivers and spammers, two of the two lowest forms of life around.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[DaMattster]

Well, for violent crime, I am all for incarceration because the offender does need to be punished and removed from the streets for public safety. What I am against, is continuing to punish the offender after they have done their debt to society. In Iceland, once your debt to society is served, you are on a clean slate. In Iceland, it is illegal for your background to be used in consideration for employment. When you look at incarceration for drug use and possession, imprisonment does more harm than good. Drug users are sick, not bad. Giving a drug user a criminal record makes it doubly difficult for them to rehabilitate when they may already suffer from depression, anxiety, and low self esteem. Tack on a criminal record and finding gainful, meaningful employment becomes even more difficult thus beginning a vicious cycle.

Honestly, it was the anti-drug laws that brought about drug related violence and gave rise to the cartels much in the same way that Al Capone came to prominence when prohibition laws were enacted. At least America, at that time, was not blind enough to see that prohibition doesn't work. We haven't reached that stage quite yet with drugs. And notice that the most vociferous anti-drug crusaders and advocate of harsh prison terms, President George W. Bush, is a recovering addict himself (because you never completely recover.) You would think he would be more sympathetic. And he did not one week in prison. Criminal Justice is just hypocrisy in America.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[drsquare]

If you don't think wrongdoing should be punished, then you are not a human being. Obviously you're a more evolved, emotionless, mature person who can take all sorts of suffering at the hands of criminal scum and just turn the other cheek. Or maybe you've just never been the victim of crime and are speaking from a perch.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[miskatonic alumnus]

It's only natural and proper that vice laws get flaunted

I'm glad you feel that way. I'm in complete agreement here.

And copyright and spam laws are just barely on the books

Well, I wouldn't say copyright law is "just barely" on the books. I think a few hundred years is sufficient to iron out the wrinkles.

It is far more relevant to consider whether prison is effective in the cases of laws which are generally agreed to be legitimate in all reasonable cultures: murder, arson, robbery, etc. etc. Does the prospect of prison time have a general deterrant effect?

Perhaps. But, is imprisonment the only option available to deter these behaviors? And if not, is it the best option?

In matters of damage to property, financial restitution (with interest) would have the benefit of giving compensation to the victims, as well as deterring theft/destruction of property. Furthermore, the guilty party would not have to give up their freedom, nor would they be a burden on the taxpayer.

Imprisonment, on the other hand, doesn't financially compensate the victim ... indeed, the victim is likely to pay more (in taxes) for the criminal's upkeep in a prison. And while this may dissuade some from engaging in like behavior, the criminal (upon release) is likely to engage in criminal activity again.

As for murder, I still don't believe that prison is the solution. I'll admit that I have not come up with an alternative that is acceptable to me (much less to anyone else) except in the case of serial killers --- they are beyond rehabilitation, and their incarceration will not deter other potential serial killers.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[BlindBear]

He is scum, don't forget that, I can't think of one reason to ever allow him to see the light of day again.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are we that out of whack that you get more time for spam than for killing someone?"

Yes. Yes we are. Now lock him up!

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[inviolet]

Well, I wouldn't say copyright law is "just barely" on the books. I think a few hundred years is sufficient to iron out the wrinkles.

In your original post you mentioned copyright laws in the context of prison-backed laws which are failing to dissuade violators. Since we don't presently have a problem with non-electronic copyright violation, you could only have been referring to electronic copyright issues. And that is why I called those laws "just barely on the books". Now you are switching up again... and setting off my "weasel" alarm.

In matters of damage to property, financial restitution (with interest) would have the benefit of giving compensation to the victims, as well as deterring theft/destruction of property. Furthermore, the guilty party would not have to give up their freedom, nor would they be a burden on the taxpayer.

This system would create the exact problem we complain about today: corporations can do whatever they please once they've balanced the budget against the anticipated fines for violation. And so they do, whenever and wherever the numbers favor a violation.

Prison is a whole 'nother level of disincentive because its disvalue cannot be fully quantified (for probably many reasons)... and even if it could be quantified, its dollar value would self-adjust to the financial station of every would-be violator.

If I knew exactly what my payoff amount would be for going out and beating up a spammer, or whoever I don't like, I would almost certainly do it.

And while this may dissuade some from engaging in like behavior, the criminal (upon release) is likely to engage in criminal activity again.

Ah, but there is a vital ratio at play here. Sure, prison increases the recidividism rate for the one individual, but at the same time its fearsome potential will prevent n law-abiders from going astray. Would you therefore support the idea of imprisonment for n=10? n=100? n=1000?

As for murder, I still don't believe that prison is the solution.

You should tour a state penitentiary some time. The state pens get the worst of the rabble because it is the state laws that prohibit the real offenses to humanity -- rape, arson, murder, and such. Last time I toured one, four years ago, I came out with renewed gratitude for the fact that such people are kept locked away.

I could not avoid reaching the conclusion that a significant percentage of the human population will fail to achieve either honor or empathy. And so I don't want it to be possible for them to buy their way back into our presence.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[RobertLTux]

or even surgical castration (buh bye monkey) but anyway i would guess that even if in wasted time this guy cost us on average US$4.00 (5 minutes) per person then
in total we would have a few bodies lying around. I would say that he needs to pray with the Benedictine monks of Santa Domingo de silos for about the next decade (or when Vista is stable and secure on normal hardware whichever is longer)

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[miskatonic alumnus]

Since we don't presently have a problem with non-electronic copyright violation, you could only have been referring to electronic copyright issues. And that is why I called those laws "just barely on the books". Now you are switching up again... and setting off my "weasel" alarm.

If there was no possibility of copying works (electronic or otherwise), there would be no need for copyright law or punishment for violating it, would there?

This system would create the exact problem we complain about today: corporations can do whatever they please once they've balanced the budget against the anticipated fines for violation. And so they do, whenever and wherever the numbers favor a violation.

Strawman. Corporations don't go to prison.

If I knew exactly what my payoff amount would be for going out and beating up a spammer, or whoever I don't like, I would almost certainly do it.

Check out your local laws regarding assault. Penalties are fines or maybe a little time in the local jail. I know, having assaulted someone before ... well, I pushed someone off a chair. They called it assault. I paid a fine.

Ah, but there is a vital ratio at play here. Sure, prison increases the recidividism rate for the one individual, but at the same time its fearsome potential will prevent n law-abiders from going astray. Would you therefore support the idea of imprisonment for n=10? n=100? n=1000?

No, I wouldn't support it. I don't dispute that imprisonment can deter people from property crimes. But, once again I ask, are there not better methods than imprisonment? My freedom is more valuable to me than my life. Stripping someone of their freedom should be reserved for the most extreme of offenses. Depriving people of their property isn't one of them.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[spamking]

Sorry . . . I guess my sarcasm didn't make it through.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[miskatonic alumnus]

I would like to add something regarding the fining of corporations --- if current fines don't discourage them, increase it to the point where they take notice. A small fine can be passed on to the consumer. But if the corporation attempts to do this with an enormous fine, customers will go elsewhere, and the corporation will go belly up. Problem solved.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Mister Whirly]

My bad. Had my sarcasm filter set a little to aggressively and it filtered it out... I just hate all the sarcasm SPAM I get...

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[inviolet]

This system would create the exact problem we complain about today: corporations can do whatever they please once they've balanced the budget against the anticipated fines for violation. And so they do, whenever and wherever the numbers favor a violation.

Strawman. Corporations don't go to prison.

That is the FREAKING POINT!

You advocate the same system for individuals. And so individuals will begin behaving the same lamentable way. Especially wealthier individuals. In no time at all we'll be back to where we were 300 years ago: an above-class that is more or less exempt from laws against coercion.

Elsewhere on slashdot, and all over the place, we hear calls to implement the exact reverse: expose corporate officers to the threat of prison in order to reign in their present brazen behavior.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[bhalter80]

I don't know anything about the guy, but what if he was just some geek who thought of a way to make some money? Maybe he didn't even realize what the impact would be. The issue here is that he continued to spam after the CAN-SPAM law was signed into law, I can't believe that you are practically arguing for the ignorance of the law defense. Many (many, many, many??) spammers have figured out how to comply with CAN-SPAM and continue merrily on their way to selling V14GR4 or the like through the internet. I don't actually expect him to serve 11 years but I like that he can be sentenced to 11 years so that if he does it again the opportunity will be there to give him a harsher sentence. The justice system believes in giving people 2nd chances and I expect they will in this case as well.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[inviolet]

My freedom is more valuable to me than my life. Stripping someone of their freedom should be reserved for the most extreme of offenses. Depriving people of their property isn't one of them.

That's why it works. And you are painting with misleadingly broad strokes: we do not, as you suggest, deprive people of their freedom for a property crime. What we do is temporarily deprive them of their freedom.

Presently you are fearful of these punishments, and so you come here to crusade for a change -- for a punishment that does not fill you with such anxiety. I submit that the present arrangement is actually optimal: we ought to fear the penalty for committing the obvious offenses. (And here I am leaving aside the discussion of objectionable laws like vice, copyright, narcotics, etc.)

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[KDR_11k]

White collar crimes affect loads of people while providing much greater incentive since they're often really profitable. To counteract that incentive you have to make matching punishments so they'll think twice before illegally making millions if they risk going to jail for 15 years.

Also this guy's a serious repeat offender. If you gave him a month per batch of spam he sent he'd probably end up with much more than 11 years.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[KDR_11k]

A possible problem would be the growing importance of the net, wouldn't surprise me if within the next 10 years some regular interaction with the government (filing taxes for example) would only be allowed through a computer.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[Mister Whirly]

Unless the government is willing to provide computers to anyone who can't afford to buy one, this will not happen. Look at the fiasco with all digital broadcasting of television in the US. It was supposed to happen years ago, but keeps getting pushed back further and further because the government doesn't want to pony up thousands or millions of free converters for the masses. Besides, bureaucracies LOVE paperwork, and by that I mean actual "paper" paperwork....

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[KDR_11k]

Compare the punishment for spamming millions of people with the punishment of raping millions of people, though.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[miskatonic alumnus]

You advocate the same system for individuals. And so individuals will begin behaving the same lamentable way. Especially wealthier individuals. In no time at all we'll be back to where we were 300 years ago: an above-class that is more or less exempt from laws against coercion.

I don't buy it. Do you assert that no fine, however large, will deter the same number of people from property crime as current prison sentences do? Sure, if the fine for ripping off a million dollars is $2 across the board, lots of people will do it. If the fine is $2 million, only the rich will do it. If the fine is all of your income from all sources for the next 10 years (less minimal living expenses) no one will likely do it.

I guess we'll agree to disagree here. Thanks for being civil.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[coryking]

If you ignore things like bandwidth, hardware and IT costs, you leave out a lot of the true damage these people cost. For example consider this scenario:

- Consider your server paging you at 2am because some jackass decided to flood it with spam from a bagillion random IP addresses. That is a high cost cause you have to get up at 2am and fix it.

- Consider that those bagillion random IP addresses are most likely botnets.

- Consider each of those infected boxes will have to be repaired at some point.

Even going down that one vector alone will yeild a significant amount of damage.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[inviolet]

I don't buy it. Do you assert that no fine, however large, will deter the same number of people from property crime as current prison sentences do?

I noticed when you slipped the disclaimer 'property crime' into what was a discussion of all crime. Even a fool can see that property penalties, such as the fines you advocate, are and always will be effective against property crimes. But still, the far more interesting and (I think) worthy pursuit is the disincenting of violent crime.

As an aside, fines are not nearly so simple as they sound. Collecting years' or decades' worth of payments, from dirtbags, who may not have a legal job at all, who may leave the state or country, who may obscure or abandon their identity, and who may incur additional fines far in excess of their earning power, is problematic. And what is to disincent some loser who is already fined beyond his own lifetime (or more pertinently, beyond his scope of awareness)?

Prison doesn't have these problems; it simply has a fixed cost. And short of death row, a person in prison will forever be incented to obtain his own freedom.

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[miskatonic alumnus]

I noticed when you slipped the disclaimer 'property crime' into what was a discussion of all crime.

Negative. Go way back up the thread to where I divided non-vice crimes into property crimes and murder (the big daddy of violent crimes). The last few posts have mainly addressed statements I made regarding property crimes. I didn't "slip that into" the discussion of all crime.

Prison doesn't have these problems; it simply has a fixed cost.

The same can be achieved by amputating limbs, or execution, and perhaps a range of other penalties. Why don't you advocate those?

Re:but does the punishment fit the crime?

[hobo sapiens]

Why is it that people here seize on one phrase and totally miss the whole point of what you are trying to say? Thanks for not being one of them and taking the time to say it.

Now if only they'd nail his brother Dick...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

We discussed Vitale's arrest back in February.

Now if only they'd nail his brother Dick. He must be violating a noise ordinance somewhere.

Truly Perplexing

[gaelfx]

He was caught making a deal with a government informant that sent spam e-mails advertising a computer security program in return for 50 percent of the product's profits, prosecutors said. Was the guy so greedy he couldn't see that this deal was way too sweet or is this the standard pay-off to a spammer? Or is that not actually a great deal?

Jail Not Warranted

[aldheorte]

Why would we jail someone for spamming? They are non-violent offenders. Now, after forcing us to waste our time dealing with spam, we get the additional opportunity to pay for his housing for up to 11 years. I think we should place non-violent offenders under house arrest and have them work to undo the damage they did. Maybe have him spend several years identifying spam or doing community service.

This jailing of people for computer crimes that did not cause physical injury and do not present a continuing danger is ridiculous. Take the money they made illegally away and then have them do something to make it up to the community while on probation. Now, if they make a second attempt and get convicted again at whatever they were convicted of originally... then let's reestablish public gallows and hang them, then mount their head on a spike somewhere preferably near a webcam. The point is, either way, they don't go to prison and we save money.

In serious, this whole idea of throwing people in jail for things they did on a computer (including copyright violations) that didn't result in someone being bodily harmed or killed is totally out of proportion and a short-sighted way of dealing with the problem. You can beat the living crap out of someone, enough to give them some minor form of permanent disability for the rest of their life, and get a year in most states - and that's the maximum, which will only be applied if you are a chronic repeat offender.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[jrumney]

Why would we jail someone for spamming? They are non-violent offenders.

People who commit burglary while the owners are away are non-violent offenders. Serious fraudsters are non-violent offenders. Drug dealers are non-violent offenders. Violence is not a prerequisite for jailing criminals, nor should it be. Harm to society is not always physical.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple: spammers do what they do because they know they'll get off light or that the risks are virtually nil. Prison makes most people (including spammers) think twice about doing what they do.

I agree that as non-violent offenders spammers "probably" should not go to prison. However, segregating them from society in some way is the only way to keep them from applying their same techniques to something else. For example, if you kept them house-bound via anklets and forbade them to use computers or access the Internet directly or indirectly, they'd sit around doing nothing for a while, then would resort to their same tactics except via snail mail, telephone spam, or anything else which they could apply their methodologies to (thus not violating their sentence).

The more fear you instill in spammers, the higher the chance they'll stop. I refuse to believe they "can't" stop -- it's a choice they make. They can become working-class citizens like the rest of us, and earn their keep legitimately and be part of a productive society, or they can continue to bottom-feed and abuse a system that was never intended for wankers in the first place.

Make sense?

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[frogstar_robot]

You're right: jail isn't warranted.

Put him in an electric chair where the switch has been replaced with dial that is labeled:
1. Barely Stings
2. Kinda Painful ...
and so on all the way up to
"11 - Smokey and Crispy".

Let the spamming piece of s*** sit there while flustered mail admins take turns jazzing the dial back and forth under "6. Life Threatening". When we think he's had enough (not that it'll ever happen), we'll slather some K.C. Masterpiece on him and give "11" a try.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[Technician]

Why would we jail someone for spamming? They are non-violent offenders.

Would you like to spend your entire life from birth to death deleting spam? It doesn't take long to delete a single spam, just a second or two. In the US alone, just deleting spam has taken the manhours of several peoples entire lifetimes. Just because it isn't all stacked up for a few individuals to use their entire life deleting spam but spreading it out cross the entire US population instead does not remove the fact that spam has taken several entire lifetimes of manhours to deal with the problem.

SPAM has pretty much killed my first e-mail account. Instead of checking it daily and deleting the spam, I now check it monthly for content and flush the entire thing. It's the only way to not spend lots of time sorting and just hitting delete daily. SPAM has changed e-mail from a useful tool, to someting I'm about to drop entirely. Those who need to reach me has my pager number.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[Sobrique]

Bandwidth is expensive.

High performance disk is expensive

Man hours 'wasted' from junk emails, also adds up to quite a disgusting amount each year

Having a piece of litter dropped in your garden very occasionally, is irritating, but takes very little effort to sort out. However when it's 30 pieces of litter a day, then it becomes irritating and timewasting, and a major nuisance. I seem to recall a quote of some 90 billion spams sent, and a third of the total bandwidth of the 'net. That's really not a trivial matter.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[dm0527]

Drug dealers are non-violent offenders.

While I would argue with you that dealing drugs is a non-violent offense, I agree with you that violence shouldn't be some kind of litmus test for jail time. That being said, violence should definitely be taken into account for the argument of repaying society - violent offenders are usually not redeemable, but those who commit "white-collar" crimes should be made to repay society by working it off. It's an offense to me and every other tax payer that these offenders are just shoved into some cell somewhere and we get to pay for them to live there until they get out - they should be put to work bettering society or shipped over to some outsourced jail in Russia somewhere to save money.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[That's Unpossible!]

No, but it makes much more sense to have them pay restitution. Paying large sums of money and depleting your cash reserves or going into debt is quite a deterrent, and it benefits society by raising money and paying awards to the victims.

Putting him in jail may suck for him, but it also sucks for taxpayers.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[gdchinacat]

"The more fear you instill in spammers, the higher the chance they'll stop."

So, you are proposing we resort to a form of terrorism as a means of bettering our society?

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[Fission86]

True, and this sounds like a decent idea, but where does the money go? Definitely not to the DOJ, that would create bias in the sentencing. A charity would probably be the best, but that brings up other administrative concerns.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[apachetoolbox]

People who commit burglary while the owners are away are non-violent offenders. - Yes and they take physical property from someone, theft.

Serious fraudsters are non-violent offenders. - I assume you mean financial fraud. Again physical property (money) is taken from someone.

Drug dealers are non-violent offenders. - I don't know where you buy your drugs but from what I understand most drug dealers aren't the hippy types giving it away for free.

Jail should be for violent offenders to protect others from their actions. Not spammers, downloaders, or pot smokers. I don't need protection from these poeple at all.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[llZENll]

Very good point, take all of his assets, ban him from computers for the rest of his life, and take 80% of all future income earned above $30k/year or so. Criminals like this should be required to work for 10-20 years in a social services department for free, a compound of sorts, room and board included, you are free to come and go, you earn no money. For crimes that are money driven and involve no physical human pain, the punishment should be financial, this makes total sense in a capitalist society.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[Anonymous Coward]

Withdraw the cash and burn it. Reduce inflation, everybody wins...

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[rhizome]

Drug dealers are non-violent offenders. - I don't know where you buy your drugs but from what I understand most drug dealers aren't the hippy types giving it away for free.

So the fact that money is exchanged means it's a violent offense?

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[rhizome]

That being said, violence should definitely be taken into account for the argument of repaying society - violent offenders are usually not redeemable, but those who commit "white-collar" crimes should be made to repay society by working it off.

I don't agree with your Reaganesque assertion that violent offenders are not redeemable, but certainly white collar criminals should not be able to retain any portion of their ill-gotten gains.

Re:Jail Not Warranted

[RealGrouchy]

Yes, and most of those people should not be going to jail.

All that jail does is make people less able to be a productive member of society when they leave than when they enter. And at $20,000-$100,000 per person per year, too.

If you read some of the more in-depth articles about the Paris Hilton thing (I know, I know...), they say outright that prisons are totally overcrowded, and almost nobody is getting any sort of treatment or 'rehabilitative' programming while inside.

Many California prisoners are sent to out-of-state prisons, and thereby lose connections with their families, who can't afford the time or money to visit them.

- RG>

11 years?

[MikeRT]

The government should not be putting him away for 11 years, it should be making him pay the bills of the resources his spam consumed and a punitive restitution fine to Time Warner. That would be far more helpful to Time Warner than just locking him up.

Re:11 years?

[cpghost]

Most people believe they won't get caught. If you start catching and jailing 100s of spammers for even sentences of a few months AND fine them so they end up with a significant net loss, then spammers will stop spamming - because they start noticing that spammers ARE getting caught.

The problem is that lion's share of spam can be traced back to very few individuals. Sentencing one of them to 10+ years in jail certainly sends a message to the rest of them. BUT I agree: it's still not enough. Once they sentenced, say, 10 or 20 of the top spammers 10+ years each, THEN it will start to show. Right now, it's nothing more than a blip on the radar of those ROKSO criminals. But now, not even this one has been sentenced yet. It's still to be seen how many year's he'll finally get (probation? 2 to 5?)

Informant?

[residieu]

Vitale and Moeller sent e-mails on behalf of the informant to more than 1,277,000 addresses of subscribers at AOL

Do we have any ammunition to go after the real problem here, people like "the informant" that hire the spammers?

An informant?

[WalterGR]

From the Reuters article:

He was caught making a deal with a government informant that sent spam e-mails advertising a computer security program in return for 50 percent of the product's profits...

That's a weird sentence. Did the informant send spam e-mails (and hence is guilty of violating CAN-SPAM,) or did the guy get caught because he made a deal to send spam e-mails?

Do informants gets to break the law? I'm not sure how all that works...

spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[feepcreature]

11 years - sure he deserves it. He and his ilk between them have all but destroyed usenet, and made the email system vastly less useful to society as a whole. Email has gone from an almost-always works system to one where messages are very likely to be buried in a flood of spam, or automatically deleted by imperfect spam filters.

That deserves to be punished.

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[hobo sapiens]

"messages are very likely to be buried in a flood of spam, or automatically deleted by imperfect spam filters."
Maybe. I dunno. I never get any spam in my gmail address, which I use for all online activities. My sbcglobal address (AT&T DSL, cobranded with yahoo) never gets ANY spam...oh wait, I stand corrected, I got one last year.

Not justifying his actions, just saying (once again) that prison time seems draconian. Surely there are more fitting punishments.

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[dave420]

Yeah! 'Cos now when I send an email, the recipient gets AIDS. It's terrible! I once sent an email to my mother, and all that happened was poisonous spiders of every description sprang forth, speaking German, and trying to annexe the computer room! The humanity!

Punish it, definitely. Really destroy a life because of people being inconvenienced? Definitely not. Proportional sentencing 11 years is not.

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[RichardDeVries]

He shouldn't go to prison because he did not spam you?

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[yorugua]

Punish it, definitely. Really destroy a life because of people being inconvenienced? Definitely not. Proportional sentencing 11 years is not

I guess a few factors must be considered:

a) As spam (and the act of spamming) cost almost nothing, so if it is so "ok", then it could get much worse if unchecked. So, as we can not add much cost to bandwidth, the problem is that it might land you in jail. That's the spammer "cost" or "risk". Basically, why would be a requirement for me or my employer that I must give attention to every potential seller on this planet that thinks he has something something I need (a nigerian scam, \/14gr4, whatever) on a no-question-asked basis?

b) A relative of mine died a few months ago. I'm having trouble communicating with my lawyer because of the spam software he/she is using to get rid of spam. Sometimes, key information was delayed because it was wrongly classified as spam, or maybe lost. So, it costs me in both time and resources and money. On top of that the law here stipulates a certain period of time in which all this issues have to be dealt with. My sisters live in other continent, so it's tricky for them to call our local lawyer given the time difference, and phone call costs.

c) In my work we have bought or have to look after the following things because of spam: servers, sw licenses, high availability clusters, e-mail administrator, software, updates, patches, IDS's, security reports, security monitoring, utilities bill because of servers and HVAC. So, spam "costs" us a lot.

Bottom line, I'm more than just "inconvenienced" because of spam. And if you think I shouldn't: Would you be so kind to allow me to bill you our spam-related problems? I'm having a much harder time down here because of the nice little trick of a few people getting richer because of sending millons of low cost email on "products" I don't need, or I did not ask for.

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[hobo sapiens]

No, I used to get spam. But then I had the sense to leave hotmail in like 2001 and go to something better.

My point is this: the subject of this thread is "spam has caused a HUGE cost to society". Isn't that being just a little over the top? Spam sucks, but at worst it's nuisance. What, we are imprisoning people for annoying us now? Well, all the homeless people, hare krishnas, and weirdos downtown had better look out!

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[RichardDeVries]

Sorry. I tried to be funny. I understand your point, but to back it up with the fact that you don't get spammed is hilarious to me. Your post can be read that way, I know you meant to get the other message across (no one is being harmed by spam).

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[Mister Whirly]

When the homeless, hare krishnas, and weirdos cost businesses millions of dollars, let me know. That to me seems a little worse than a "nuisance". Have you ever had to spend an entire day writing filters so legitimate mail can make it through and those damn SPAMs can't? I'd be willing to bet no. It's more than annoying, it prevents people from doing their REAL jobs. Which ends up costing REAL money. What you are saying is the equivalent to - "Well, he did rob you, but you can make more money, so really it's only a minor annoyance, not a real crime."

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[Anonymous Coward]

The different light viewpoint:

My point is this: the subject of this thread is "rape has caused a HUGE cost to society". Isn't that being just a little over the top? Rape sucks, but at worst it's nuisance. What, we are imprisoning people for annoying us now? Well, all the homeless people, hare krishnas, and weirdos downtown had better look out!

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[hobo sapiens]

well, now that you say it like that...that is kind of funny

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[hobo sapiens]

yes, and of course that's a perfect analogy. Nice work, Mr. Coward. Flawless logic as always.

I should have just ignored you like I usually do with all other ACs.

Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society

[Ornedan]

No. Spam used to reach you. Then you switched email providers to one that's wasting more effort on preventing spam reaching you than the one before. The point is, just because you aren't dealing with all the spam coming at you anymore doesn't mean someone else isn't.

The damage is done

[Spy der Mann]

Fine, he goes to jail. But in the meantime, he's probably sold millions of e-mail addresses to other spammers, because people trusted CAN-SPAM and clicked on the "unsubscribe" link.

The problem with CAN-SPAM is that it's a reactive measure. While allowing spammers to collect your e-mail addresses, the government is feeding the beast they're supposed to kill in the first place.

I agree

[Solandri]

Why would we jail someone for spamming? They are non-violent offenders.

I agree. He shouldn't go to jail. He sent 50,000 spams to 1.277 million email addresses (albeit AOL addresses). His punishment should be to have to hand-sort through 63,850,000,000 of AOL's spam reject emails looking for false positives. Sprinkle in a couple hundred legit emails to check to make sure he's really trying. When he finds them all, he's free to go.

What's that? He'd prefer to go to jail you say?

To those who say you only have to press 'delete'

[Andy_R]

How about we lock this guy in a cell with a keyboard, and let him out when he's pressed 'delete' once for every spam he sent?

Re:To those who say you only have to press 'delete

[Wicko]

And if he loses count, make him start over!

Re:To those who say you only have to press 'delete

[Sobrique]

Does he get a replacement keyboard? I mean, I figure with that kind of quantity, you'd have some serious issues with your 'delete' key wearing out ...

Overkill?

[Easybake]

I'm annoyed by spam as much as the next person, but am I the only one who thinks a maximum of 11 years is overkill for a "crime" of this type?

The worst effect his actions could have on an individual person is the inconvenience of pressing the delete key a few more times. It's not like he's committed a violent crime or put people out of work.

Yes, it's an abuse of resources, and it costs ISPs money to combat spam. But wouldn't a far more appropriate response be to seize his assets and slap him with fines amounting to the damage he's caused?

Or have I missed something here?

Re:Overkill?

[Anonymous Coward]

am I the only one who thinks a maximum of 11 years is overkill for a "crime" of this type?

Yes, you are. They have cost society, including you and me, BILLIONS of dollars and lost time. They should be brutally beaten and shot to death in the face. That is the only way to stop the other spammers is to make it clear to other would-be spammers that it is not a profitable path.

Re:Overkill?

[ScentCone]

have I missed something here

Yes.

It's not like he's committed a violent crime or put people out of work.

This plague costs the economy billions in lost productivity, otherwise unecessary system capacity expenses... do you REALLY think that a company looking to grow and compete and hire/retain the best people at whatever they do wouldn't rather spend all of that time and energy on things directly relevent to what they DO for a living? Huge expenses - otherwise unrelated to a business's actual line of work - absolutely DO cost jobs. How many schools could better spend that money on lower tuitions or newer labs? Just think it through.

But wouldn't a far more appropriate response be to seize his assets and slap him with fines amounting to the damage he's caused?

The damage he's caused involves WAY more money than what he's collected. That he's willing to cause that sort of damage should tell you everything you need to know about the guy. He wants someone else's money, and is willing to cause damage and participate in fraud to get it. It's not very different than committing insurance fraud for cash... and then watching the rest of us pay higher premiums to cover it.

More to the point, though: he's already demonstrated a willingness to knowingly break the law and abuse other people's systems and networks. Physically stopping him from doing it again by locking him up is the only way you'll prevent him from just putting on another hat/identity and doing it again, more carefully, through a surrogate. Or "consulting" for someone else who does. What do you think he'll do at night after he clocks out of the community service work you'd rather he was doing? Hopping online somewhere, or talking someone else through doing so, and doing something he knows will generate some cash.

Re:Overkill?

[nobuddy]

Yes, you are the only one. My concept of justice looks like the cornfield scene in Casino....

Re:To those who say you only have to press 'delete

[Easybake]

1,277,000 addresses
1 second per email
@ 60 emails per minute
= 21283 minutes

=354 hours of pressing delete=

Or 8.87 40-hour work weeks

easy fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Take away all of his money and material possessions, then send him to the Asscrack of planet Earth. After he has arrived in whatever part of Africa is in the most turmoil this week, strip him buck naked and leave him out on a country road somewhere with nothing but the hair on his ass. If he can survive that, and make it back into the U.S. with no passport etc, then he can have his life back. Except all of the money and possessions are gone, he has to start from scratch.

I think that form of punishment would either completely deal with our over crowded prison population, or teach them at least some severe lessons that would be hard to forget. It would also give those spear chuckers in africa some nice targets to practice on.

Kill 2 birds with one stone!

Re:easy fix

[emurphy42]

On the other hand, he might head for Nigeria instead, as if we didn't get enough spam from those guys already.

The Perfect Sentence!

[Organic Brain Damage]

Make him open and read aloud every SPAM he ever sent.

If you want to stop SPAM

[Anonymous Coward]

By the judges a laptop and an AOL account and teach them to use mail.

He PLED guilty! - OT

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like 'Spam King' Adam Vitale has finally plead guilty

PLED! pled pled pled pled pled, say it with me, brothers

...and while we're at it, the past tense and participle of 'lead' is led. "We were led to believe," etc.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. You may now switch off the Grammar Nazi Channel.

It is for deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get fined less than you made through the illegal activities then it is merely a cost of business.

Would a millionaire pay a thousand-pound fine or go to jail for a week?

Would someone on minimum wage pay a thousand-pound fine or go to jail for a week?

If he's jailed for 11 years and the money he has taken away, he's lived the life of riley for a decade and will spend a decade in prison. Any future spammer would see that balance sheet and decide it isn't worth it.

Re:To those who say you only have to press 'delete

[Lookin4Trouble]

How about this - we set him up like you say, with 1,277,000+ messages, all with the same text, but one contains a code for "Get out of jail free" - all others contain a code for "5 more seconds in lockup" - how's that sound?

11 years?

[TheLink]

I dislike spammers, but that's rather long for spamming.

I'd rather they catch 11 spammers and give them 1 year each.

Catching just one and sentencing him to 11 years is just silly, and doesn't help much.

Most people believe they won't get caught. If you start catching and jailing 100s of spammers for even sentences of a few months AND fine them so they end up with a significant net loss, then spammers will stop spamming - because they start noticing that spammers ARE getting caught.

What's with these crazy sentences anyway? Like teacher threatened with 40 year jail sentence for showing porn to kids, whether it's voluntary or not who cares, 40 years is crazy. Or that poor kid in georgia who's serving out a 10 year sentence for having _consensual_ oral sex with a teenage girl - court calls it "child molestation" for some reason.

Aggregate suffering

[fyoder]

A manslaughter charge won't get you 11 years. Are we that out of whack that you get more time for spam than for killing someone?

Makes sense if you consider aggregate suffering. Manslaughter causes great grief to a small group of friends and family. A spam email causes small grief, but to millions. I'm opposed to capital punishment, but mass murder, sadistic murder, and spam all keep me reassessing that position.

Re:Aggregate suffering

[hobo sapiens]

Great. Clearly, then, spam is WAAAY worse than manslaughter.

I understand what you are trying to say. But come on now, surely you know it doesn't work that way. That's the logical equivalent to baking a pizza at 600 degrees for 10 minutes when the instructions tell you bake at 300 for 20 minutes.

Re:Aggregate suffering

[coryking]

It is. Spam harms far more people than manslaughter but with far less pain to each victim. However, in aggregate, the "pain points" from spam add up to far more pain than some dude getting shanked.

Would you say what the Enron guys did is worse than manslaughter?

Re:Aggregate suffering

[Anonymous Coward]

> Would you say what the Enron guys did is worse than manslaughter?

No. If you lose your life, you get no second chances, but money is just money. You always get another chance with money.

Re:Aggregate suffering

[hobo sapiens]

"It is. Spam harms far more people than manslaughter but with far less pain to each victim. However, in aggregate, the "pain points" from spam add up to far more pain than some dude getting shanked."
Good grief. I am kind of on the edge on whether your next question even deserves a response after that stinker of a statement. I hope you weren't serious. I am sure you'd rather be neck deep in gay kiddie llama porn spam than have your wife|mother|girlfriend raped.

ok...Enron guys, worse than manslaughter? The effects are not worse than killing someone. Are they personally worse than someone who commits manslaughter? Sure. They did what they did with intent to defraud. Manslaughter (not murder) could just me or you falling asleep at the wheel and killing a pedestrian. Negligence, but no malice.

The problem with this kind of discussion is that it degrades to a game of moral three card monty in which you start asking me if it's bad to kill someone even if that someone is planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in NYC, etc. It's a slippery slope, and not a road I want to go down. Geez, if they give the guy 50 years I don't care. Just let the punishment fit the crime, that's all I am saying.

What's he worth as a person?

[athloi]

Let me ask you this: what does he offer our society? If the answer is nothing, why should we keep him alive?

Cell Next To Paris Hilton

[queenb**ch]

Hah! He'll be in the cell next to Paris Hilton because it's currently seen as a "victimless" crime. What they don't realize is the wide reaching impact that this has. Most people in the country work for small to medium sized businesses. These are the employers that are hardest hit by this. Email infrastructures are melting down under the load. This means that companies are spending dollars on deploying spam filtering software, hardware, more bandwidth, etc. to deal with the problems. This is money that could be better used to hire employees, pursue R&D, improve their facility, etc. In the long run it siphons resources away from the rest of the operating budget. It's like a leech or a tapeworm.

2 cents,

QueenB.

Re:Cell Next To Paris Hilton

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Email infrastructures are melting down under the load. This means that companies are spending dollars on deploying spam filtering software, hardware, more bandwidth, etc. to deal with the problems. This is money that could be better used to hire employees, pursue R&D, improve their facility, etc.

Or some small businesses simply go the g-mail route. It is as professional if you don't examine the headers, and nothing sensitive should be sent unencrypted via e-mail anyway.

Yes, but..

[Mister Whirly]

That was not informative.

Re:Yes, but..

[DrEldarion]

Wow, it's a moderation party! Let's see if this works.

"This is not insightful."

Re:Yes, but..

[Xinef Jyinaer]

Lmao - I love slashdot moderation, it allows geek justice to be served. As well murdering the hopes of those who intend to abuse it!

Re:Yes, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

'eh, I've been at the max for years. Was just an experiment :)

Re:To those who say you only have to press 'delete

[Andy_R]

You're assuming he only sent 1 mail to each address. If this guy is anything like the people asking me to deposit a currency my country doesn't use with 'VIP Royal Casinos', the people using text from bugzilla for their mail titles, or the countless women with middle initials who behind 'can you imagine that you are healthy' he'll have spammed each one of them dozens of times per day.

Where's the justice? - "Spam King" Pleads Guilty

[pigpoosmells]

Great reading and now (if you don't mind too much) I'd like to take a moment or two (about the same amount of time it takes me to deal with spam) to add my tuppence worth ;^)

How many people and companies reading these posts are profiting from spam? - well there's a whole raft of companies making software and appliances to stop spam and some are charging hefty licenses - one of which was featured on this very subject page :-)

At what point will it evolve like graffiti to an art form and be praised? Not too soon I hope, but you have to admire the ingenuity and content of some spam. Each time I create a rule, it is either circumnavigated (not circumcised - I seem to get those two mixed up) or a new technique arrives.

Oops I just circumnavigated my pencil and the rubber (eraser) dropped off!

And by the way let's not confuse kings with knights: The only ceremonies a king goes through to become king are:

1 - to be born of royal family - and

2 - to be crowned.

That stuff with a sword is for knights etc and the water is for christenings. (see other equally bizarre postings)

Don't get me wrong - I hate spam - but lets see both sides and profit from the experience
Doug

What about the "Burger King"?

[petehead]

Now, can we please get the "Burger King" to plead guilty for being creepy and climbing into people's beds while they are sleeping?

Re:To those who say you only have to press 'delete

[dodobh]

Did anyone say he only sent one message to each address?

Re:might be beliavable

[Trent Hawkins]

It might actually achieve something if the Judge happened to clear out 1,000 spam messages from his mail box that morning. "Enlarge penises in jail, BITCH!"

If 'Law and Order' has taught me anything...

[stu42j]

It is that judges will do whatever the hell they feel like.

No death penalty?

[Snaller]

Wow, what a lousy system.

Re: I've got your cruel and unusual right here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Make him do a "drinking game" except instead of alcohol, make him take a viagra every time he gets a spam for it. Tell him he's free to go once the swelling goes down. ;-)

Swords and water

[Anonymous Coward]

The references to swords and water are based on the story of Excalibur being presented by the lady of the lake.

But actually, you should also think about how a family gets to be royal. Mostly it is a similar sort of process to becoming the grand Capo of the Mafia, with large numbers of bodies to be disposed of.

Re:Where's the justice? - "Spam King" Pleads Guilt

[myowntrueself]

that stuff with a sword is for knights etc and the water is for christenings. (see other equally bizarre postings)

If I recall, in the UK it does involve oiling them up... something to do with annointing probably for the lube effect.

Re:Where's the justice? - "Spam King" Pleads Guilt

[pigpoosmells]

I think you're right "slippery little suckers" to quote Pretty Woman

He is only part of the problem.

[jotaeleemeese]

The other part is all the companies and people that made email a central part of how they do business.

The smtp protocol is not adequate for this, and although the spammer should be punished for abusing the system one has to wonder how fair it is to do so given the system's propensity to be abused.

"Spam King" Pleads Guilty in U.S. Federal Court

[Anonymous Coward]

00 Buck on The Boundary Bay Morning Steamer"
http://boundarybaymorningsteamer.blogspot.com/2007 /06/robert-alan-soloway-revenge-of_16.html
has a neat notion. Flood the joint where Soloway is holed up with postcards and letters. We all should do the same to Vitale.