Slashdot Mirror
NJ Spammer Gets Two Years Jail for AOL Spam Scam
Tech.Luver writes "A man from New Jersey has been sentenced to more than two years in prison for sending more than a million spam messages to AOL users. 'Todd Moeller was sentenced ... after he was caught making a deal with a government informant to send junk e-mails advertising a computer security program in return for 50 percent of the profits ... Moeller told the informant via instant messaging he could conceal the source of the e-mails through his access to 40 different servers and had profited $40,000 a month from other spam e-mail scams that promoted stocks, prosecutors said.'"
I have heard of Chaumian mix spam spam spam and spam or a spam spam DC-net sausage and spam. Spam. But instead I think I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam! Spam Spam Spam Spam... Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
(Sorry, the title of the article ending with "spam scan" encouraged me. Spam.)
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
AOL users.
Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
I believe an appropriate quote would be, "You may have won the battle, but we will win the war" - Even taking out a large spammer like this doesn't have a particularly large effect on the overall influx of spam. Maybe we need to go with the ??AA tactics and sue the mom-and-pop spam shops to try and scare the $*&^ out of them?
-- All your booze are belong to us.
Unfortunately, it would interfere with the "Direct Marketing Association", a lobby that protects junk mail and junk email. They're thoroughly unwilling to allow any law that might interfere with their clients be passed, so the laws against spam are written only to address the most blatant forms of fraud and carefully avoid putting any responsibility on the network providers who provide them services.
So there remains no law against spam itself, anymore than there is a law against junk mail.
Given the prevalence of rootkitted Windows boxes and even servers on which spammers rent and lease time, the routing information doesn't do you that much good. And the routing information is often deliberately cluttered with forged and irrelevant headers, so it's not as useful as you might think.
Usenet had similar issues until the "NNTP-Posting-Host" header was added and became popular some years back, in the midst of a nasty war of forged cancellation messages on a Usenet newsgroup.
And how appropriate that the story itself is spam for this techluver blog.
In any case, I wonder why don't they do this kind of sting operations to catch spammers more often. Just the lack of resources or will I guess. If we could somehow link spammers to terrorism I'm sure we'd see this kind of thing a lot more often. Like manufacture a story that Al Qaeda is financed by sales of penis enlargement pills or something?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The people begging for government intervention on spam need to tread carefully. The government has started with CANSPAM, which everyone knows is futile but might scare a few people off, but where is it going to go. Spam does not have a legal solution, it has a technical one. If you do not expect to receive unsolicited e-mail, drop it, and have your friends do the same. Obviously this is unfeasible for many but once the personal e-mails are secure the money will dry up.
Letting any message into your inbox and complaining when it is full of spam is like leaving a cup outside and complaining when it is full of rain.
_____
Thank you.
"confiscated" or whatever is the correct English word. If not, this isn't really going to deterr future (and present) spammers - two years in jail, but after making US $40.000/month... I dunno, some would still risk it.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
And, that, completely summarizes the problem with laws today.
The fact that a lobby group is "unwilling to allow any law that might interfere with their clients be passed" should be irrelavant. It shouldn't be up to them to decide.
Sadly though, I think you're 100% accurate -- lobby groups have far more sway over laws than citizens and lawmakers. And, not just on the topic of spam.
Ideally, they should be able to collectively tell the "Direct Marketing Association" to go pound sand. Personally, I don't see why the people sending junk mail should have any more right to send crap to me than the morons selling me C1Al1s or V:I:A:G:A:R:A or what have you. I don't want you rpaper fliers or your junk e-mail.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.