Porn Spammers Get Five Years Each

PC World is reporting that 'California's Jeffrey Kilbride and James Schaffer of Arizona, have been sentenced to more than five years in federal prison. Both were convicted of conspiracy, money laundering, fraud, and transportation of obscene materials, according to The East Valley Tribune, a newspaper covering the case.' Because sometimes bad things happen to bad people.

Comments

Woo

[Aranykai]

So how bout doing something about these Viagra 79% off October emails I get?

This is a case of two idiots who got caught by trying to operate as a legit business. I really cant see this impacting the volume of botnet, spam spewing compromised computers out there...

So now the taxpayers are out about $500,000

[antifoidulus]

since it costs roughly $50k/yr for prisoners, and we have 2 of them at 5 years....Prison is not the answer in this case. For a lot less money we could restrict them to house arrest, monitor their movement to enforce it, and ban them from contact with any personal computer unless needed for their job and approved by the feds. They still are punished, the taxpayers pay a lot less money, and they don't have to go to prison. If they violate that, THEN put them in jail, but I don't see how putting these 2 people, scum though they may be, in prison is really going to help anyone....or deter spamming for that matter. Prison should be for violent or repeat offenders only.

Re:So now the taxpayers are out about $500,000

[gad_zuki!]

Prison should be for violent or repeat offenders only.

I dont think the solution is less people in prison. Fraud, in my book, is a very serious crime. It sends senior citizens into the poorhouse. The problem is that society as a whole has given up the the idea of a debtors prison, where you work at something to slowly pay your way out of debt. In this case we can imagine every one of their transactions as fraud. They ripped off thousands of people. They owe them.

In real life, debtors prison is a horrible idea, as is capital punishment. So that leaves lots of people with short jail sentences and oddball stuff like community service and jail-at-home.

In my world, I think my tax dollars are used correctly to catch fraudsters. The money these guys are wasting is something in the neighbiorhood of one second of project time of some military porkbarrel crap that always runs through congress. I'd rather see pot heads released and fraudsters put in. America is wealthy enough to put fraudsters away.

Re:So now the taxpayers are out about $500,000

[HappyEngineer]

Does increasing the punishment really increase the deterrence? Are there any studies that that actually happens in a non-trivial number of cases? I have a sneaking suspicion that the number of crimes prevented by increasing a punishment from 5 years to 10 years would be essentially 0.

For me, being forced to live at home with no access to a computer at all would be a pretty terrible punishment. If I was a criminal then the possibility of prison would not be a greater deterrent because the lack of computer access because that would already be a terrible deterrent. Yes, prison would be worse, but it would not be a greater deterrence for me.

On the other hand, increasing punishment generates greater costs for society. Sometimes justice is not worth it. Repeat offenders need to be kept in prison to prevent them from doing things again. Single offenders don't need harsh punishments because they'll live productive lives after their initial punishment (or, by definition, become repeat offenders who deserve incarceration).

Re:But Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

[eclectro]

Since they grossed USD$2 million from their porn spam, I would say that the fine is fair. Also, maybe if spammers knew that jailtime was involved with sending spam, there would be less of it. Lemme guess, you are related to the spammers?

Transportation of obscene materials?

[Mr.Fork]

It's against the law? Oh right - the Miller Test. As a Canuck, guess I'll have to blot out my anti-bush stickers on my suitcase. Not that I don't like bush - err.. the right kind of bush...not that there's anything wrong with it... or liking it...the right bush... never mind. :)

Re:But Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

[Java Pimp]

It's actually lot less than you would get from an equivalent amount of mail fraud involving US mail.

It's also a lot less than you would get for handing out adult mags to neighborhood kids.

Re:But Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

[king-manic]

So for sending 600,000 spam messages, they were each jailed for five years. The money means little to me since they had it from this spamming but the time in prison, I personally believe is a little harsh. I guess that's what the jury should have and did decide although I find myself not agreeing with jurors as of late in many cases involving my field of study.

A fine without jail time is just "cost of doing business". It wouldn't deter that many people, it only sets up a extra cost center if they get caught. Jail time would be appropriate although I agree 5 might be too much. Rapists sometimes get off with 1 or 2 years of probation.

Re:But Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

[hawk]

Their combined time works out to about 10 minutes per spam . . .

hawk

Spoken like a politician

[UnrefinedLayman]

Don't let something pesky like the first amendment get in the way of corporate economic productivity.

Re:so how much did they profit?

[Burning1]

To someone making $15k per year at a crumby job, the risk/reward analysis will probably fall into the pro-spamming category.

I think that anyone capable of operating a world class spamming organization would be qualified for a job that makes far more than $15K per year. Prison being what it is, I think most would rather do something that contributes to society for their $60K/year.

Puritans

[Wiseman1024]

I bet these two got caught because they were dealing with porn. The reason they were sentenced is that they offended soccer moms and puritan standards, not that their business was spamming and trying to fool their customers; these are common commercial practices they rarely punish.