Slashdot Mirror


"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."

50 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. believe it when I see it by saleenS281 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:believe it when I see it by packetmon · · Score: 5, Informative
      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
    2. Re:believe it when I see it by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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!

      --
      blah blah blah
    3. Re:believe it when I see it by KUHurdler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I predict 4 to 7 years...

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

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
    4. Re:believe it when I see it by KUHurdler · · Score: 2, Funny

      so how much jail time did you have to serve?

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
    5. Re:believe it when I see it by Quikah · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      Q.
    6. Re:believe it when I see it by coryking · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. Justice is as justice does by djupedal · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...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.

    1. Re:Justice is as justice does by AutopsyReport · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

  3. Yay! by apachetoolbox · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Yay! by strider1551 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  4. 5 Minutes by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:5 Minutes by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Funny
      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.

      --
      The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

      - Douglas Adams

    2. Re:5 Minutes by neoform · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
  5. Too Many Kings by moehoward · · Score: 4, Funny


    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!

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Too Many Kings by TheWoozle · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

      --
      Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
  6. pfft by djupedal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, Brother - where fart thou...?

  7. "Spam King"? by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:"Spam King"? by Billosaur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  8. Why bother sending him to jail? by andyteleco · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  9. Awesome, but will do little to curb spam by llZENll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  10. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  11. Care package to his cell mates by hellfire · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Care package to his cell mates by torqer · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  12. but does the punishment fit the crime? by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    --
    blah blah blah
    1. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by jrumney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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?

      --
      blah blah blah
    4. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by Sobrique · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

    5. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by Eagleartoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -You have been modded appropriately-
    6. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by twistedsymphony · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    7. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by Battle_Ratt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by gatesvp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    10. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by inviolet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    11. Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? by drsquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  13. Truly Perplexing by gaelfx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?
  14. Jail Not Warranted by aldheorte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Jail Not Warranted by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Jail Not Warranted by Technician · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  15. spam has caused a HUGE cost to society by feepcreature · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
    1. Re:spam has caused a HUGE cost to society by yorugua · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  16. The damage is done by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  17. To those who say you only have to press 'delete' by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  18. Re:To those who say you only have to press 'delete by Easybake · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  19. Re:Overkill? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  20. Cell Next To Paris Hilton by queenb**ch · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
  21. Yes, but.. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Informative

    That was not informative.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  22. Re:To those who say you only have to press 'delete by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  23. Re:might be beliavable by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!"