Slashdot Mirror
'Spam King' Released From Prison, Now Lives In Seattle
dmmiller2k writes "Apparently, after 'nearly four years in prison, the man dubbed the 'Spam King' by federal prosecutors, is allowed back online.' I wonder if there's some variation of Megan's Law requiring him to register with the local police department and notify all his neighbors with computers?" I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.
Not that I have much sympathy for the man, but he did serve his sentence, sending spam isn't a sex offense, and denying someone internet access is a pretty harsh punishment these days. How about giving him a second chance?
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
> I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.
Why? What will this guy do when he can't find a job and needs money? This stupid sentiment that criminals should suffer forever is actually creating crime...
In general, the libertarian-leaning Slashdot population is quick to criticize the Megan's laws. But now that it is about something important... SPAM! ... well, those principles all go out the window, huh?
Those laws:
- Do not work.
- Are likely unconstitutional.
- If the likelihood of recidivism is that high, the person should not be released anyway.
It seems as though there are quite a few people here who do not think the punishment decided on by our legal system is enough, and wish this "spam king" would have to keep paying, and paying, and paying for his crimes. Now, I do not hold absolute trust in our current legal system, but the alternative is mob rule and vigilante justice, which is a thing no sane citizen would wish for.
Personally, I think the punishment is sort of light. But that does not entitle me to take action against the man. The law of the land does not boil down to "What I, personally, think is fair." If I felt strongly enough that this punishment was too light, I would write to my representatives to advocate for tougher cyber-crime laws. I would not go to this criminal's new home town with a gun, as some are (jokingly? who knows in today's political climate.) advocating.
Nor do I wish that this man never finds employment again. That would mean that my tax dollars would go to support him. I'd rather he finds some useful work, due to my own self-interest, and my feeling that, once you have paid your dues to society, you deserve a second chance.
This is coming from my civilized side. My vindictive side thinks the man should die in a fire, but I am trying REALLY HARD not to give in to my vindictive side. If I did that, we'd have a lot of dead motorists here in New Mexico (land of the worst drivers in the world) and I would be in jail myself.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Reading Slashdot for years, virus writers seem to be better thought of.
Protecting oneself from viruses is easy and has few side effects.
There's no protection against spam that doesn't also kill some of the utility of email. There was a time when one could put an email address everywhere and be contacted only by interesting people. I even had my email address published here in Slashdot.
Spammers killed all that. They are much worse than virus writers.
I'm a death penalty proponent and believe in harsh sentences for crimes like robbery, sexual assault and burglary, but I think the permanent punishment people experience well after they have been tried, convicted and served their time is a grave injustice and actually ends up producing more harm than it solves.
I think that it should be illegal to ask if you have been convicted of a crime in a job application or a job interview. Only under very specific circumstances should it be possible to deny someone employment or housing based upon a past conviction -- if you are still on parole for a crime of violence or if you are applying for employment in a field tied to your conviction within 2 years of the end of your sentence (ie, you did time for embezzlement and you want to be an accountant).
And even then they should be required to spell this out. Getting caught discriminating illegally should involve a fine payable to the discriminated employee equal to a minimum of 5 years salary PLUS their legal fees with a multiplier
We're "convicting" people of crimes, letting them off with no sentences because our jails are full and then punishing them FOREVER because they once had a conviction. And then we act surprised when they turn to drug dealing, robbery, burglary or other criminal enterprises because they can't get a job.
Consider how often you have been shot and consider how often you have been spammed and ponder the problem again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
via email no doubt
I'd prefer he find honest work .. the alternative is he returns to his past.
Do we believe in rehabilitation or vengeance?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar