'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.

Comments

Re:Nope.

[al0ha]

Off topic but please don't click on the link to Dropbox in the post above - it will make money for the spammer who posted it.

And notify all his neighbors with computers

[Anonymous Coward]

via email no doubt

Re:And notify all his neighbors with computers

[ackthpt]

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?

Re:And notify all his neighbors with computers

[WrongSizeGlass]

I'd prefer he find honest work .. the alternative is he returns to his past.

Do we believe in rehabilitation or vengeance?

I'd like to vote for 'vengeance', please.

Re:And notify all his neighbors with computers

[IICV]

Vengeance, duh.

If we wanted rehabilitation, we wouldn't keep electing politicians who run on "tough on crime" platforms even after the number of prisoners in the United States is about the same as the population of Houston, Texas.

Re:And notify all his neighbors with computers

[hicksw]

You must be new here.

Sincere apologies, but it cried out to be said.
--
How the road was paved doesn't matter if you're already in hell.

Nope, no information law

[Wyatt Earp]

"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?"

No there isn't, and after he has completed his parole he can apply for a name change in case his current name and reputation makes it hard to find employment.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Manfre]

A background check would catch name changes and most employers ask their potential hires if they've ever been convicted of a crime. If he lies during the interview process and the employer later finds out, that will probably get him fired and soil his new name.

Re:Nope, no information law

[cdrudge]

Depending on the job, even a basic background check probably would find alternate names. Every job application or background check consent form has asked for previous names/aliases and criminal background. Either lying or omitting has the potential for repercussion that could be worse then just telling the truth to begin with.

Re:Nope, no information law

[intellitech]

It definitely would. And you're usually required to describe all felonies committed in the last 5-10 year period. Can't remember the exact time frame, but having your name changed doesn't relinquish a felon's obligation to declare his status when applying for jobs when explicitly requested.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Wyatt Earp]

You didn't read the summary did you?

"I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list."

Thats what a name change is for, and while I'm aware of putting other names in on applications, in many states theres a sunset on how far back they can look for name changes and for convictions.

Washington's law is 7 or 10 years I think.

I actually had a fight over a job in Washington 2 years ago. The form said "within last 7 years" and I'd had a conviction for a misdemeanor 16 years ago, so I didn't put anything in. I was offered the job, then the background check hit that and I had the offer pulled back. I was about to start fighting it, then I moved to Alaska for more money.

Re:Nope, no information law

[spun]

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.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Wyatt Earp]

I think the guy should be banned from computer ownership and work for at least twice the time Mitnick was originally banned.

And stick him with only access to a land line too.

I don't condone killing him or a database for computer offenders by any means.

Re:Nope, no information law

[by (1706743)]

Mine is Howey the Howitzer. She's not the slimmest of gals...

Re:Nope, no information law

[maxume]

Do you think that Mitnick was treated justly?

If not (which seems to be a popular opinion), his punishment doesn't really serve as much of a point of reference.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 for this. So many people jump straight to vindictive and GLORY in it. It's nice to read a bit of civilization as a counterpoint to that.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Wyatt Earp]

Yes, except for the solitary confinement, same with Terry Childs.

But I'm not talking about the jail time, but the terms of the parole.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Captain Spam]

What? No appreciation here for the satisfaction of using your bare hands?

Re:Nope, no information law

[socsoc]

Bare hands? We have the right to bear arms, I'm wanting Grizzly.

Re:Nope, no information law

[socsoc]

Although Childs acted like a fool, he was mostly correct.

Re:Nope, no information law

[zach_the_lizard]

Not COBOL, Brainfuck is more appropriate.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, you sick bastard!

Re:Nope, no information law

[N_as_in_Mnemonic]

I can take action against him. I can act like a dick when I meet him. I can bad mouth him to my friends and family. I can refuse to hire him. There are plenty of legal things I can do to let this person know exactly what I think of them. And I will do that if I have the opportunity. He may have paid his debt to society, but he was still a spammer. Just like I would not necessarily trust a murderer who served 30 years, I wouldn't trust this guy. If he wants folks to trust him, he will have to earn it. 4 years in prison is not earning respect. He has to do that just to get back to the starting point. Now that he is there, he still have to work against his years of abuse. I, for one, won't be in any hurry to help him do that. He is a spammer, regardless of his time in jail. I will call him an asshole to his face and kick him out of my house. I don't want spammers thinking that they can do their thing, spend a few years incarcerated, and then everything will be fine. I want them to think that nobody will ever like them or welcome them and that they've ruined their life by choosing to spam. Then they can serve as a warning to others.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Opportunist]

Consider how often you have been shot and consider how often you have been spammed and ponder the problem again.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Opportunist]

The VERY LEAST I expect is that, if people commit a crime for profit, that they have to pay back ALL that profit, either to the people they profited from or if that's impossible to some organization that fights against such criminal profiting (or if everything else makes no or little sense, the government, they need money now anyway, why not squeeze it from scumbags instead of us?), AND THEN pay a fine on top of that (either monetary or prison time).

What we see today more and more (and also in this case) is people going to prison for a few years and come out to enjoy their illegally reaped millions.

More often we see people not even going to prison but paying some pittance compared to the money they robbed, though...

Re:Nope, no information law

[spun]

Rights from God and not man. But of course these thoughts come from principles of the bible. Which many Americans have long forgotten about. Only few remain.

Over three quarters of the US population claims to be some form of Christian. Get off your martyrdom kick, you are the majority.\
http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf

Also, please tell me how I may logically distinguish between the rights the True God imparted to us, and the rights that humans merely claim to be divinely derived. If you have a method based on logic and not faith, I think many people would find that very useful.

Re:Nope, no information law

[ottothecow]

You guys are missing the point though.

The person who looks you up on facebook or googles your name is probably working from a resume and cover letter. Most places, the people you interview with won't see anything more than that.

The HR person who processes your background check and actually looks at the forms where you listed weird history things, is quite possibly someone you never met in the interview process and is probably not going to go google all of your aliases out of curiosity.

Re:Nope, no information law

[spun]

Yes, forgiveness. Delightful concept, that. God will forgive me no matter how vindictive, petty, and unforgiving I am. All I have to do is make puppy dog eyes at Him and claim I am really, really sorry. Bonus points if I wait until the very moment before I die to ask for that forgiveness, right?

Re:Nope, no information law

[spun]

If there is some Slashdot Hive Mind, and it feels the way you claim it does, why did my comment get modded up? In fact, I might venture to guess that the reason your comments do not get the acclaim you believe they deserve has nothing to do with any supposed Hive Mind.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't condone killing him or a database for computer offenders by any means.

Ah, he will have to change his name to Bobby Tables
http://xkcd.com/327/

Re:Nope, no information law

[spun]

Well, that is certainly your right as a citizen. It does not mean that is the smartest way for you to act. There is a reason so many religions and philosophies the world over stress forgiveness. It is not for the benefit of those who need to be forgiven. Forgiveness is for the benefit of those who were wronged.

Re:Nope, no information law

[spun]

Chicago? Chicago is a doddle, a walk in the park, a pretty princess tea party with magical unicorns compared to New Mexico. Chicago is more like LA, where everyone is an aggressive driver, yes, but relatively courteous and skilled. Her in New Mexcico, they are insanely aggressive and simply BAD at the art of driving. In Chicago, if you are driving along a freeway bumper to bumper during rush hour, and you signal, people will let you in. Here, you NEVER use your signals, as people will close ranks to prevent you from getting in if you signal first. Everyone here is looking to screw everyone else on the road, driving around in a perpetual state of road rage, their machismo threatened by every driver ahead of or beside them on the road. If you are not rapidly receding in their rear view mirror, you are an enemy who must be destroyed.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Xiph1980]

Not so smart. Take away their surplus money and luxury items, but don't saddle them up with an overdue debt. Okay, so you're just out of jail and all you ever knew about making money was through crime. Now Uncle Sam has just placed a huge debt on you, which you have to pay off. How are you going to do that? Sure, you can say, "Well, sucks to be him. Should've thought of that before he committed the crime" but that doesn't mitigate the problem of a criminal who, even if he wants to stay on the righteous track, only knows crime as a way of life. Setting him up with a debt is a sure-fire way to herd him back to criminality.

Re:Nope, no information law

[icebraining]

Come on, people, it's spam, not eating babies. Four years in jail - especially in the US, from what I can tell - isn't a walk in the park.

Besides, raising the penalty for the crime doesn't actually fix the problem; it's proven that if the probability of getting caught is low enough, raising the penalty doesn't actually dissuade people from committing the crime.

You should ask for more efficient investigation process, not harsher penalties.

Re:Nope, no information law

[wisnoskij]

Great comment, was thinking of writing very much the same thing until I found yours.

"... which is a thing no sane citizen would wish for"
Well more succinctly it would be called Anarchy, and at least some sane people do advocate it.

Re:Nope, no information law

[cdrguru]

That is exactly what happens today with the result you have predicted. The debit is just the cost of living without the institutional support of the prison. The minute the prisoner is released he has to find a way to support himself - which means in most cases crime is on the table.

I suppose if we had an effective dole program whereby someone could just sit and collect money from the government we wouldn't have that problem. We would have other, more interesting problems. But as things are today the sure bet is that a criminal will immediately return to crime to support themselves because it is all they know.

Re:Nope, no information law

[spun]

Actually, there is a huge difference between anarchy and mob rule. Anarchy means "no hierarchy" not "no government," which would be "anocracy." Anarchists believe in government, they would just prefer leaders to rulers. Leaders are not "above" you in some hierarchy, they are the people you trust to help you get to where you want to go. Rulers, on the other hand, make you go where they want you to. For example, most anarchists would consider a pure participatory democracy as a valid form of government, although some would insist on a consensus based process. Most real anarchists (as opposed to the "circle-A" crusty street punk variety) would consider mob rule, or ochlocracy, to be an invalid form of government that relies on a hierarchy and force.

The reason no one talks about anocracy is that it isn't really possible for it to exist. If there are more than two humans involved, there is some kind of government.

Re:Nope, no information law

[pclminion]

No there isn't, and after he has completed his parole he can apply for a name change in case his current name and reputation makes it hard to find employment.

The man did JAIL TIME for a non-violent offense. Until he proves that he can't resist committing the same crime again, why don't we just accept that spending time behind bars was sufficient punishment and let him get on with his life? If he does it again, I'd be all in favor of decapitation, but for the moment justice has been carried out... No?

If you give people no reasonable way back toward law-abiding behavior, the only thing left for them is to continue committing crimes.

Re:Nope, no information law

[wisnoskij]

I was trying to use anarchy as a way of saying the will of the government or the many is not necessarily more important then the will of the individual ("will" is not a great word to use here, but you should understand what I mean). Which, at least in my opinion, is the underpinning idea of Anarchy.

Maybe this use was not technically correct.

Re:Nope, no information law

[spun]

I was trying to use anarchy as a way of saying the will of the government or the many is not necessarily more important then the will of the individual ("will" is not a great word to use here, but you should understand what I mean). Which, at least in my opinion, is the underpinning idea of Anarchy.

One branch of anarchism focuses on that. It's called, appropriately enough, individualist anarchism, and American Libertarianism is perhaps the most vocal example of that school of thought. But there are other schools of thought, for which the umbrella term is called social anarchism. These schools of thought generally believe that collective decisions outweigh individual will, although as I said, some social anarchists will only accept unanimous consent as valid form of hierarchy-free decision making, while others would say that majority rules democracy still counts, if everyone agrees to it.

You could argue endlessly about whether one school of thought or the other better promotes anarchism's overall goal of "no hierarchy," and believe me, we do. If you've ever seen one of my diatribes against Libertarians, you know which side I tend to fall on. I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist, because it's really obscure and it sounds kind of sinister. As an example of my ideal form of government, I give you The Mondragon Corporation. If I spoke Spanish, I'd move there. It's a great blend of worker's cooperatives operating in a free market system. Everything there is a co-op, everybody who has a good idea can start a business, and get cooperative staffing, banking, advertising, basically everything they need to succeed locally and cooperatively, and if the idea is very good, getting all the support they need to compete globally. It was founded not that long ago by a leftist Catholic priest and an engineer. They turned a community of subsistence level impoverished minority farmers into a global player with a university and factories in less than fifty years. And they did it without exploiting anyone.

Re:Nope, no information law

[brusk]

Your sample is not statistically valid, because people who have been shot are less likely to be on /.

Re:Nope, no information law

[brusk]

Exactly, if you think the punishment was wrong, advocate a change in the law. This guy took the risk he did based on the potential punishment he faced based on the law at the time, and changing laws retroactively is always dangerous.

Re:Nope, no information law

[brusk]

Man did his time, he's a free man now. I don't even think we should keep these records.

The repeat offenders, the 3 strikes rule is fair I think.

Wait, huh? How do you know who's a repeat offender without keeping records?

Re:Nope, no information law

[fishexe]

The spams can never injured me or kill me. The guns can. So many people have been killed with guns. Never a single one with spam.

...yet.

Re:Nope, no information law

[fishexe]

I don't condone killing him or a database for computer offenders by any means.

Ah, he will have to change his name to Bobby Tables http://xkcd.com/327/

I believe you mean he'll have to change his name to Robert' ); DROP TABLE Students;
He can go by Bobby Tables for short, but changing his official name to that won't kill any databases.

Re:Nope, no information law

[wisnoskij]

Well this has been an interesting off topic discussion.

I have never heard of the Monodragon Corporation, it sounds very nice and interesting, but seems more socialist then anarchist (not that socialism is not also a very interesting form of government).

I have not heard any of your debates before now, will try to keep an eye out in the future.

Re:Nope, no information law

[fishexe]

Come on, people, it's spam, not eating babies.

Come to think about it, I have a modest proposal for solving the spam problem...

Re:Nope, no information law

[juan2074]

Consider anti-statism.

Re:Nope, no information law

[SocratesJedi]

Seriously? Everything you describe in your post is destructive: you slam doors (literally and figuratively), are abusive for no purpose and overall take pride in acting out of hatred instead of out of compassion. The world is rarely improved by destruction. A more constructive approach would be to figure out (a) what are the forces that drove criminality in the first place, and (b) how you can help that person avoid taking the wrong path next time. Were I in the position you describe of meeting this man, I hope that I would do my best to reach out and help a human in a tough spot.

All humans - without exception - have worth. I'm not content to have our system chew up a human and spit him out so that he can 'serve as a warning to others'. It's would be act of cowardice to sacrifice a human just so others might fear the law and you might gain some small bit of security. The better solution is to treat everyone with humanity - giving people the benefit of the doubt - so that those who have chosen wrong can sincerely regret it and return to civilization. Don't you wish others would give you the benefit of the doubt when you've screwed up?

I do not speak to offend (and apologize if my diplomacy skills are insufficient to have prevented that), but to see if I might point out that perhaps your plan isn't the best and to honestly ask you re-assess how you would treat other humans.

Re:Nope, no information law

[Inda]

We have the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in the UK. I'm surprised you don't have something similar. Cars, houses and bank accounts are taken.

Re:Nope, no information law

[tqk]

If there is some Slashdot Hive Mind ...

They're called ACs. I think they're still (so far) outnumbered by real /.ers, which explains why I'm still here.

Re:Nope, no information law

[tqk]

All humans - without exception - have worth.

True. On the other hand, they may or may not be doing anything worthy, dependent upon their inclination, and actions speak much louder than words. I mostly agree with your inclination (hope for the best), but it's always wise to expect the worst at the same time.

Re:Nope, no information law

[FrozenFOXX]

Yes, forgiveness. Delightful concept, that. God will forgive me no matter how vindictive, petty, and unforgiving I am. All I have to do is make puppy dog eyes at Him and claim I am really, really sorry. Bonus points if I wait until the very moment before I die to ask for that forgiveness, right?

Yes, that would *indeed* be accurate according to them. Why would it be otherwise? Are you such a vengeful, spiteful person to think they should not be forgiven? What, "cause they didn't mean it?" Yeah, sure, I can't possibly imagine anything wrong with that.

The idea that you can sin as much as you like and just remember to say you're sorry fails to account for the fact that people procrastinate. Suppose you are this vindictive, petty, unforgiving person you claim to be and murder a kennel full of puppies. You get hit (and killed) by a vehicle outside before you can say you're sorry. Kinda screwed yourself, yeah?

While I won't pretend to know what the Christians' God is thinking consider that in death there's seriously not much more punishment that can happen. Why *wouldn't* God forgive anything and everything even the moment before you die? Once you're dead it wouldn't really matter anymore.

In death, all debts are paid. While I disagree with Christians on many things I don't find much fault with forgiveness of grievances upon one's death. Losing one's life is, especially to most Atheists, the greatest of prices to be paid.

Re:Nope, no information law

[spun]

No, being a Buddhist, I think there is never anything to be forgiven for.

hire!

[Anonymous Coward]

probably they would hire him straight away.

How about a second chance?

[ecotax]

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?

Re:How about a second chance?

[jfengel]

Ya know, I really, really want to agree with you. Everything you say makes absolute sense.

And yet, spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it. He couldn't possibly have been unaware of the fact that, had he accidentally taken a shiv to the ribs while in jail, there would have been widespread cheering. Perhaps guilt-ridden cheering, but cheering nonetheless. Clearly, he didn't care then, and I really don't see how four years in prison would make him care now.

At the very least, it seems as if there should be some sort of expedited process for prosecution should he return to spamming. Not to deny him due process, but just to place him on a high priority list for investigating. Call it "spammer profiling".

Re:How about a second chance?

[MikeDirnt69]

He is having it right now.

Re:How about a second chance?

[straponego]

Spam deprives us all of internet access. Sure, the costs are more spread out, but spammers steal more time and money from other people's lives than a hundred life sentences could equal. Spammers are sociopaths, pure and simple.

He'll probably get a job in finance.

Re:How about a second chance?

[ecotax]

Ya know, I really, really want to agree with you. Everything you say makes absolute sense.

And yet, spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it. He couldn't possibly have been unaware of the fact that, had he accidentally taken a shiv to the ribs while in jail, there would have been widespread cheering. Perhaps guilt-ridden cheering, but cheering nonetheless.

I'll have to plead guilty here.

Clearly, he didn't care then, and I really don't see how four years in prison would make him care now.

At the very least, it seems as if there should be some sort of expedited process for prosecution should he return to spamming. Not to deny him due process, but just to place him on a high priority list for investigating. Call it "spammer profiling".

Keeping a good eye on him makes sense, and I would be surprised to find out this isn't happening already.
And of course he knew exactly what he was doing. But spending a few years in prison will certainly have left an impact on him, for better or for worse.

Re:How about a second chance?

[dadioflex]

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?

I agree. To err is human, to forgive divine. Besides, if he's denied a legitimate job, what's he gonna do?

Re:How about a second chance?

[jbolden]

4 years in prison, like most suffering, can do a lot to change a person's attitude. Its much harder to see evils you profit from than those you suffer from.

Re:How about a second chance?

[ecotax]

Assuming you're right that he's a sociopath, that in itself does not justify punishment - only the typically resulting behaviour does (except in the financial industry, where it earns you a nice bonus, of course).

Re:How about a second chance?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

And yet, spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it. He couldn't possibly have been unaware of the fact that, had he accidentally taken a shiv to the ribs while in jail, there would have been widespread cheering...
At the very least, it seems as if there should be some sort of expedited process for prosecution should he return to spamming.

Wow. Just... wow. If you're not joking then I really hope you one day gain a sense of perspective.

Re:How about a second chance?

[cdrudge]

If he wants a second chance, all he has to do is click the unsubscribe link at the bottom of all the harassing emails he will receive. He'll then be removed from the mailing list in 7-10 business days.

Re:How about a second chance?

[The Archon V2.0]

sending spam isn't a sex offense

Hell, these days sex offenses aren't sex offenses half the time, they're stupid teenagers that some prosecutor wants to make an example of.

Re:How about a second chance?

[jfengel]

I sure hope you're right. It's just that somebody who starts from such a clearly bent perspective (i.e. willing to aggravate literally a billion people to the point of violent rage, or at least talking that way) seems unlikely to learn the intended lesson of the suffering.

But for everybody's sake, I hope you're right. The actual damage is comparatively small, in the scheme of things, but the collective irritation seems to add up to a heavy emotional toll.

Re:How about a second chance?

[corbettw]

Keeping a good eye on him makes sense

Does it though? This was a non-violent offense. Exactly how many resources do we dedicate to tracking non-violent offenders?

Re:How about a second chance?

[corbettw]

only the typically resulting behaviour does (except in the financial industry, where it earns you a nice bonus, of course).

Or Congress, where it gets you a committee chair.

Re:How about a second chance?

[jfengel]

Nope, not joking, and not sure which part you find humorous.

Expedited prosecution for somebody who has already been proven guilty once doesn't seem unreasonable. I explicitly said that I wasn't talking about violating due process, simply ensuring that the FBI was keeping an eye out (through legal means) rather than waiting for spam complaints to be traced back to him. We know that takes a very long time, and is hard to trace from that end. But if you know where it starts, it may be easier.

As for the violence against him, I admitted that it's an awful thing to wish violence on somebody. But I also know that I'm not causing that violence by wishing, and my life got noticeably better when this spammer stopped spamming. The perspective by which the world is a better place without him is perfectly reasonable. The means would still be deplorable and I don't condone them, but the celebration of his no longer plaguing me is sincere.

Re:How about a second chance?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Expedited prosecution for somebody who has already been proven guilty once doesn't seem unreasonable.

It takes resources and manpower. If they're going to do that, save it for violent crimes, first.

As for the violence against him, I admitted that it's an awful thing to wish violence on somebody.

It's not the wish, it's the disproportionate justice behind that wish that's disturbing. *Stab* *Stab* "The sun is out, the flowers are in bloom, and my inbox has fewer things in it!"

Re:How about a second chance?

[cheekyjohnson]

spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it.

Seriously? What he did may have been annoying (and in some cases, fairly bad), but it wasn't that bad (at least, I don't think so). There's no reason to think that he won't change compared to other 'criminals'.

Re:How about a second chance?

[cheekyjohnson]

I wouldn't be surprised if prison just made him a 'hardened criminal'.

Re:How about a second chance?

[Stradenko]

Or other totally ridiculous stuff.

The real issue I have with the GP is the idea that spammers are reformed by jail time, but sex offenders aren't.

Re:How about a second chance?

[BasilBrush]

Or political expediency (is a possibility) in Assange's case.

Re:How about a second chance?

[socsoc]

This isn't a lapse of judgment. He willfully cost a lot of people a lot of money. He's pretty low on the second chance list.

Re:How about a second chance?

[jbolden]

Then he gets involved in something really serious and does a few decades. The next time around given he was a criminal innovator the judges are going to be feeling a lot different.

Re:How about a second chance?

[socsoc]

thank you for that logic

Re:How about a second chance?

[jbolden]

Look he was a shit. I don't know when you got on the internet but the actual damage was pretty huge. Prior to 1995 we had an internet where everyone trusted one another, machines were mostly open. Protocols like FTP, rsession, telnet... dominated and machines were by today's standards wide open. All sorts of things would be possible if it wasn't for that whole generation of people who violated trust and brought mass crime to the internet.

That being said, things likely got out of control. He didn't think much of public opinion.

Re:How about a second chance?

[Locke2005]

Charles Manson has been in jail for 42 years now, so I'm sure he's changed his attitude by now and he's certainly safe to release back into society!

Re:How about a second chance?

[Locke2005]

Hopefully he came into contact with a few "hardened criminals" while he was bent over in the shower...

Re:How about a second chance?

[im_thatoneguy]

You can't change a sociopath's attitude with any amount of prison time. You *might* change their calculated risk/reward judgement.

Re:How about a second chance?

[jbolden]

Changing the risk / reward judgement is the start of conscience. That's how it develops in children.

Re:How about a second chance?

[jbolden]

Charles Manson degenerated in prison the first time. There are exceptions but I think people are capable of getting better. Are you as thoughtless about others as you were 10 years ago or have you grown?

Re:How about a second chance?

[ecotax]

The real issue I have with the GP is the idea that spammers are reformed by jail time, but sex offenders aren't.

I was a bit too terse to be clear I guess, but what I meant to say is that suggesting that something like Megan's Law should be applied in this case doesn't make senseto me - not that sex offenders can't possibly be reformed by jail time.

Re:How about a second chance?

[jfengel]

This isn't about "justice". It's about being glad when good things happen, or bad things stop happening. I could be sorry the guy is dead and happy that he's not going to be wasting any more of my time.

And he's only dead once. The time he's not wasting belongs to billions. That doesn't sound disproportionate to me.

I still wouldn't recommend it. But neither would I feel guilty celebrating if it did happen.

Re:How about a second chance?

[jfengel]

It wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that bad applied over a great many individuals.

To be willing to irritate, effectively, EVERYBODY requires a certain kind of sociopathy. Maybe he learned not to do that, or at least to realize self-interestedly that it's not going to turn out well for him. But I expect that you don't get that kind of behavior without being a troll, i.e. enjoying the irritation for its own sake. If he were capable of his own self-interest, he wouldn't have gone to jail.

Re:How about a second chance?

[cheekyjohnson]

To be willing to irritate, effectively, EVERYBODY requires a certain kind of sociopathy.

Most of the population actually has "a certain kind of sociopathy" to a certain extent.

If he were capable of his own self-interest, he wouldn't have gone to jail.

He may be capable now.

Re:How about a second chance?

[cheekyjohnson]

Then he gets involved in something really serious

Yes. And hurts someone. It's too late at that point.

and does a few decades.

While consuming tax dollars and clogging the legal system.

Re:How about a second chance?

[Locke2005]

Based just on what my wife has told me, I'm more of an asshole now than I was 10 years ago...

Re:How about a second chance?

[jbolden]

So what are you arguing for, the death penalty for all crime?

Re:How about a second chance?

[jbolden]

Well if you have been married I assume you had kids and so... your wife is probably wrong.

Re:How about a second chance?

[cheekyjohnson]

A better prison system. Or, at least, I'm criticizing the current one for locking a criminal up in a place where crime that hurts others is likely seen as 'okay' (which reinforces the behavior).

Re:How about a second chance?

[rsilvergun]

It's funny that with the same breath /. says it's so easy to spam we need harsh penalties, and with the next breath we say he had to be fully aware of the consequences. Maybe he's mostly non-technical, and thought it was pretty harmless. He couldn't be too technical, he got caught, didn't he? Ever think of that?

Re:How about a second chance?

[jbolden]

I'm all for rehabilitation. Is that what you mean? Otherwise yeah you gotta lock criminals up with criminals.

Re:How about a second chance?

[rsilvergun]

Prior to 1995 we had only highly technical users (and they were wealthy too, pre-1995 an internet capable PC wasn't cheap). The Internet changed for a lot of reasons, don't blame it all on one jerk.

Re:How about a second chance?

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes. That is what I mean. The problem is, the prison system is often used as a form of rehabilitation when it really isn't. It often worsens the person in question.

Re:How about a second chance?

[jbolden]

They weren't wealthy, at least not unreasonably so. You were looking at students, academics and military at that point. I'd say internet wealth was probably at its height around 98.

Re:How about a second chance?

[jbolden]

The prison system used to be better at rehabilitation. That was before the "tough on crime" stuff. Bring back 3 time loser and the prisons of the 60s.

Re:How about a second chance?

[fishexe]

Not that I have much sympathy for the man, but he did serve his sentence, sending spam isn't a sex offense...

Clearly you and I have not been receiving the same type of spam.

Re:How about a second chance?

[Programmer_In_Traini]

oop sorry, me no anonymous coward, just a forgot-to-login bastard.

Re:How about a second chance?

[Dracophile]

Perhaps guilt-ridden cheering, but cheering nonetheless.

IOW, we're all vindictive bastards, and we all know it, and none of us particularly care.

Clearly, he didn't care then, and I really don't see how four years in prison would make him care now.

That's as may be, but it illustrates a problem with incarceration-as-rehabilitation. It's supposed to be rehabilitative, but it usually isn't. What's readily apparent from the commentary here and in other threads of commentary like this is that it's meant to be nothing more than a punitive measure and as a rule we like it that way. We want to punish the guy? Fine. But make it purposeful, otherwise it's just a bloodsport. The fact that there's no actual blood just lets us be sententious about it. Poor form, humanity.

Re:How about a second chance?

[jfengel]

It's one of those problems with no solution. If you can't rehabilitate a criminal, and you don't want to have a bloodsport, what do you do with him? Letting him go practically guarantees the crime will happen again; death strikes people as disproportionate and unfair.

So, you do something nominally rehabilitative, which occasionally works, and sufficiently punitive as to at least nod to those who want revenge. And then... and then you probably do it again in a few years. Sucks, but it's humanity. Welcome to it.

Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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...

Re:Idiots

[SargentDU]

You have hit the nail on the head. Those who have been found guilty of sex crimes are particularly marred for life. I know a guy that was 18 with a 17 yo girlfriend, her Dad did not like the boy, and got him labeled a sex offender. He cannot get rid of the stigma and he is now in his late 40's.

Re:Idiots

[betterunixthanunix]

Don't you know? Jail is supposed to last forever. Criminals should never actually go free. Jail is a black hole where we toss people we do not like.

Re:Idiots

[jbolden]

Well there are statutes that allow you to expunge your record. He sounds like a perfect case. Most states now have a multi year split required to avoid this sort of thing.

Re:Idiots

[clampolo]

I agree that he should be forgiven once he has made amends. So after he has visited every person that he sent spam to and begged for their forgiveness, he should be left in peace.

Re:Idiots

[Bigbutt]

I would expect ethical behavior from any employee of mine. While spamming isn't illegal, it is pretty unethical. As an employer in the computer industry, I would likely not consider this person or any one who has worked at a spam related company. Ethical behavior is pretty high on most employers list of expected behavior, in part because it can adversely affect the company itself.

The problem with not being ethical is that he didn't think it was wrong. I'd hope that he learned that spamming wasn't ethical while in prison, but if he didn't or if it only identified spamming as unethical, who knows what else he has a problem understanding that it's wrong or unethical. He may not even associate the actual act of spamming as unethical, just using other folks' e-mails as the From or using garbage in messages to bypass filters. Unfortunately, he'll likely find himself working menial jobs for a long time.

[John]

Re:Idiots

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, nerds have strange priorities. The guy sent a shitload of annoying mails. Sure, you can make up some meaningless aggregate number for the damage he did, but if you cost each person in the world $.01 you've suddenly done (OH NOES!!!) ~$50M in damages. It's a bullshit metric.

His sentence was appropriate, he served it, and he's out. He didn't murder a child or rape an old man or something like that. Grow up, nerds. Spam isn't the worst thing in the world.

Re:Idiots

[RightSaidFred99]

The odds are that the guy you know is lying - it's almost impossible to get sex offender status for something like that even these days, when it's really pretty easy. Back 30+ years ago it wouldn't have happened, and he could easily have gotten it expunged.

Re:Idiots

[khr]

What if he just sends them an email instead of visiting?

Re:Idiots

[Stenchwarrior]

Jail is a black hole where we toss people we do not like.

We thought that was called "Australia".

Sincerely, England - 1871

Re:Idiots

[tophermeyer]

A different perspective if you'll indulge:

This guy was the "Spam King". Literally the king of a new form of incredibly low cost high volume advertising. He pioneered it. He made it happen. From a business development or marketing perspective I might be very interested in bringing that kind of person into my organization.

Re:Idiots

[v1]

The problem with not being ethical is that he didn't think it was wrong.

Chances are very near zero he didn't realize it was wrong/illegal. He just thought the rewards were worth the risks. He may still have millions in foreign accounts, and may still consider it having been worth the risk in retrospect.

And now not only has he learned some lessons on what got him caught, but he also likely has a good deal of startup capital for his next "business venture", or at the very least a nice retirement nest egg.

The penalties for acts that adversely affect so many innocent people are far too soft. I wouldn't mind him having been sentenced to life. Considering the outrageous money that sort of thing can raise, the penalty has to be a deterrent to the offense or it serves little purpose. Is millions of dollars worth the chance of four years in jail, or even the CERTAINTY of four years in jail? Many would say yes. And that's why spam is still a problem four years later.

Re:Idiots

[BasilBrush]

I'm not sure of the logic of that one. In crimes for money, like spamming, or robbery, then one can see that the ex-con having a job after the jail time will lessen the likelihood of reoffending.

With sex-crimes its less clear cut. People want to have sex, and if the preferred object of that sex is illegal, then people tend to pursue it regardless of their employment status.

I'd like to see some evidence of recidivism rates with/without employment in these two categories of crimes before deciding whether or not they should be treated differently. Discussion based on gut feel or anecdote seems pointless.

Re:Idiots

[ScentCone]

While spamming isn't illegal, it is pretty unethical

Actually, depending on a few variables, it's almost always both.

Re:Idiots

[vlueboy]

Suppose Joe Q User got a high n < 50 emails from Spammer King per day. A few cents a day in 'damage recovery' won't be worth suing for when courts/lawyers charge in the thousands, and he's not the one paying for bayesian algorithm research and footing the power / maintenance bills for monthly SPAM filtering appliances.

WebMail providers and ISPs are the only parties that could USE your so-dubbed 'BS metric' to litigate any useful net values in the high Millions of dollars for millions of filtered emails to their millions of worldwide users. I would support their initiative... but they just aren't interested. It's the same apathy that Microsoft shows by caring only once or twice in ~20 years to sue malware creators who case real damages in IT time, ransomware actually paid, and data loss caused from poorly planned fixes and emergency restores.

How much less could a Webmail provider care compared to giants like MS, when spam is so hard to track that they're gladly footing the bulk-filtering bills mentioned and still giving millions of us "free" webmail?

Who's being punished here?

[bobdotorg]

FTFA:

As part of his plea deal, probation officers will monitor every e-mail Soloway sends and every webpage he visits for the next three years.

Oh how I would torture them...

Re:Who's being punished here?

[SimonTS]

Yeah - you've got to feel sorry for those poor probation officers. If they are really unlucky Mr Soloway will visit /. every couple of hours and they will end up having to read through every single post on every thread (reading at -1 - aagh) just to check he's not doing anything wrong. They'll be jacking their jobs in within a week.

Re:Who's being punished here?

[tophermeyer]

They'll be jacking their jobs in within a week.

I don't think it'll be the slashdot traffic that will make them do this.

Re:Who's being punished here?

[fishexe]

They'll be jacking their jobs in within a week.

I don't think it'll be the slashdot traffic that will make them do this.

That depends on whether goatse guy starts posting again.

No, we do not need another Megan's Law

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:No, we do not need another Megan's Law

[mcmonkey]

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?

That, and if he could throw/catch/kick a ball/puck/quaffle not only would all be forgiven, but folks would be fighting over a chance to give him a job.

Re:No, we do not need another Megan's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Name a single Slashdot poster who has done this. You won't because you can't.

Re:No, we do not need another Megan's Law

[fishexe]

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?

Perhaps the Slashdotters criticizing Megan's laws and the Slashdotters advocating them for spammers are different people with different viewpoints. Our community is neither monolithic nor uniform, we don't all speak with one voice.

His Job Hunt

[SkydiverFL]

I can see it now...

New message from "Robert Soloway" ... subject "Resume.doc"
New message from "Robert Soloway" ... subject "Resume.doc"
New message from "Robert Soloway" ... subject "Resume.doc"
[snip x 1,000]
New message from "Robert Soloway" ... subject "Resume.doc"

I wonder if he DOES apply for a job, if he'll even THINK of using an automated resume distribution system. Hell, I wouldn't even click the "send" button if I were him.

Re:His Job Hunt

[gstoddart]

I wonder if he DOES apply for a job, if he'll even THINK of using an automated resume distribution system.

Highly doubtful ... from TFA:

"If I send out spam e-mails, that's a violation of my probation. End of story," he said. "I'm being very careful. If I send out an e-mail, I'm not even going probably to CC it. I'll send a unique e-mail to each person."

I suspect being in prison was enough for him to decide he doesn't want to go back and run afoul of his parole.

May not be a good idea...

[LoyalOpposition]

I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.

I don't know if that's a good idea. If you take someone who has shown he's willing to commit crimes and make it impossible for him to earn a living legitimately, then what ways does that leave him to earn one?

~Loyal

Re:May not be a good idea...

[jareth780]

Another reason that may not be a good idea is is some potential employers have marketing departments.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2000-11-13/

Re:May not be a good idea...

[Dogtanian]

I don't know if that's a good idea. If you take someone who has shown he's willing to commit crimes and make it impossible for him to earn a living legitimately, then what ways does that leave him to earn one?

Who gives a flying fuck? He's proven he couldn't [my emphasis] earn a "legitimate" living when he COULD have.

Incorrect. The far more likely conclusion is that- regardless of whether or not he could hold down a legitimate job- he preferred, and chose to go for, the vastly greater rewards he was getting from his illegal spamming.

Not that this is necessarily any better, but it's somewhat different.

Great idea: Spamking's law

[syousef]

Dear neighbour,

I have recently been in prison for spamming. As part of my rehabilitation I am required to contact you and inform you of my crime. If you can spare as little as one dollar please make your tax decutable donation out to "Spammers rehabilitation. 45 LaughingAllTheWayToTheBank Street, Idiotsville". From time to time I'll be contacting you to let you know about similar opportunities as well as a host of unbeatable specials for valuable goods like viagra. My friends from Nigeria will be contacting you with some fantastic financial opportunities I know you won't want to miss.

Yours in Spam,

The Spam King.

Re:Great idea: Spamking's law

[Thud457]

Why it's the AT-5000 Auto-Dialer. My very first patent.
Aw, would you listen to the gibberish they've got you saying, it's sad and alarming. You were designed to alert schoolchildren about snow days and such.

Laws should be made to address actions

[chicago_scott]

I still can't believe this guys was given four years for doing the same thing that companies do to my snail-mailbox everyday. Laws should not be based on what medium was used to perform an action; they should be based on the actions themselves. Either outlaw electronic junk mail and snail-mail junk mail or don't do anything at all. Doing the former only serves to corrupt the law.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions

[jbolden]

With junk mail:

-- you pay for the paper
-- you pay for the printing
-- you pay for the fulfillment
-- you pay for the postage

You as the sender have a strong incentive to not be wasteful. That's not at all the same as spam.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions

[schnikies79]

Snail-mail spam is paid for, by the companies sending out said mail. Spammers don't, they hijack.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions

[chicago_scott]

As a recipient:

I pay for the trash bags to put the junk mail in
I pay for the trash service to take the junk mail away
I pay with my time having to sift through the junk mail to make sure my real mail hasn't been inserted into it
I pay in time when I have to track down a bill that's been thrown away when it's stuff into junk mail

Regarding hijacking servers, that's illegal and it focuses on a specific action. Charge him with hijacking a server.

The fact is, as one another person posted, the reason junk-snail mail has not been outlawed is because it server an economic purpose by feeding money into the postal system. That's why one in illegal and the other is not. IT's not based on right or wrong, it's based on economics and who benefits from it being legal. And that thinking corrupts the law.

Why should I be forced to receive something that I didn't ask for? Whether that be spam or junk-mail? Making one illegal an the other illegal creates ambiguity in the law because the law is no longer about right and wrong. Spam vs. Junk-mail just being a small example.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions

[jbolden]

Your costs associated with junk mail you receive, pale in comparison to costs for senders. That's the point. They have an incentive not to be wasteful.

And of course it is about economic costs. All crimes are about net cost to society.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions

[chicago_scott]

So basically you're saying that this guy went to jail because he was wasteful and not because of the effect his practices had on the recipients?

Re:Laws should be made to address actions

[jbolden]

No I'm saying there is a huge difference in terms of costs to society with spam and junkmail. With junkmail senders (advertisers) are much more careful because they spend more per pair of eyeballs. That additional spend creates a presumption that you are not being wasteful. With spam the cost was so close to 0 that the spend didn't act as a natural constraint and so artificial costs, i.e. the criminal justice system needed to be introduced.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions

[chicago_scott]

I'd say that makes sense, except that there are so many tools available to a user to reduce (or even eliminate) spam in their Inbox that would compensate for any lack of natural constraints, like the one you refer too, thereby eliminating the need for the criminal justice system to be involved at all.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions

[jbolden]

Well yes. And originally the idea was between enforcement on the ISP level and filters spam wouldn't be devestating. But spam began to consume huge percentages of bandwidth. Further given the quantity of spam even highly accurate filters have trouble. I don't filter accurately so I end up having to look at my junk mail folders.

So that's why there was some enforcement.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions

[Legion303]

As a recipient, you can also go to your post office and request no more "presort-standard" delivery, which will eliminate all third-class advertising and crap. Good luck doing that with your ISP and spam.

Re:Laws should be made to address actions

[jbolden]

You are a minority there.

work in spam prevention

[ItsLenny]

I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list. I would think he would be well suited to help prevent others from doing what he did. Depending on the company and what they want him to do them googling his name could be the best reference to his "real world experience" possible.

Washington

[Tubal-Cain]

First Microsoft, now the Spam King. It is clear: the world's IT evil is gathering together in Washington. War is coming.

Re:Spammers Vs. Virus Writers

[spun]

What's worse?

Reading Slashdot for years, virus writers seem to be better thought of.

It takes some small measure of hacking skill to write a good virus. All it takes to be a spam king is to have the morals of a rabid weasel.

Spam King?

[rhizome]

Do we forget about Sanford Wallace so soon?

Re:Spam King?

[swordgeek]

My thought as well. When I hear "Spam King", Sanford is always the first name that comes to mind.

Re:Spam King?

[arb]

Thank ghod someone remembered Spamford Wallace, the original Spam King.

Re:Spam King?

[pthisis]

Do we forget about Sanford Wallace so soon?

For sure. Calling Solloway the Spam King is like calling Ladanian Tomlinson LT--there's already a well-established original with that nickname.

Re:Spam King?

[hardwarefreak]

Do we forget about Sanford Wallace so soon?

Or Jeremy Jaynes?

Re:why spam?

[rubycodez]

spamming has nothing to do with spreading malware. It is a very profitable means of advertising requiring only a very low response rate. Many otherwise legitimate companies spam, they use off-the-shelf software for "email blasts" from paid-for mail lists or targeted web scrapings.

Re:why spam?

[CohibaVancouver]

What's the use in spamming at all anymore?

Because it's profitable. Cite:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/profitability-of-spam-finally-measured/2159

From TFA:

...this provides a yearly revenue rate of the Storm botnet for the sale of pharmaceuticals of around $3.5 million dollars.

Googling Him

[jIyajbe]

I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.

The only way that could happen is if a bunch of people all put the words "Robert Soloway" and "Spam king" together on a major website that Google crawls.

Doesn't seem likely...

you stay classy, slashdot

[digitalsushi]

Cause someone sending out spams is equivalent to raping children.

(Actually, most people on the Megan's Law list are folks who got caught peeing behind a bar -- er, exposed themselves to children who live in ally ways.)

Re:you stay classy, slashdot

[fishexe]

Cause someone sending out spams is equivalent to raping children.

(Actually, most people on the Megan's Law list are folks who got caught peeing behind a bar -- er, exposed themselves to children who live in ally ways.)

So in other words, slashdot just compared spamming to peeing in public, and then you accused them of comparing it to raping children. Stay classy, digitalsushi.

Re:Expedited Process

[TaoPhoenix]

You mean like the judge blasting him with 11 trillion 1 day sentences?

request

[SethThresher]

Do we know his mailing address? I have some lists I want to sign him up for.

Re:Retribution

[jonescb]

I agree completely. Also, it's pretty disturbing how many people here are treating this guy like a violent serial killer. Is sending spam email really all that bad? So just because you've been inconvenienced for the 5 seconds it takes to clear out your spam folder this guy is now public enemy number 1?

My spammer story

[Brainless]

I'm not the author, but was involved in this bit. Spammer was sent to prison, escapes and killed himself and his family.

http://wildernessvagabonds.com/zp/index.php?p=news&title=Daily-Writing-The-Spam-King-Tragedy

Re:My spammer story

[metamatic]

It's sad that he killed his family.

Re:Spammers Vs. Virus Writers

[mangu]

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.

Repreat offender biding his time

[macraig]

You know he'll do it again if - when - he decides he can get away with it. $20,000 per day trumps ethics for anyone but the Pope... and maybe not even him.

Re:Expedited Process

[jfengel]

I'd settle for 11 trillion millisecond sentences, served consecutively.

Re:Expedited Process

[Dan93]

Even 11 trillion minutes in prison would be enough. And fair to boot, since it be send him to prison equal to the amount of time wasted by other people deleting said spam.

Re:Nope.

[BasilBrush]

Better to not respond to spam and trolls. The mods will soon put them on -1, if they aren't already.

Dorthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess me and Dorthy better take a vacation to Seattle quick. Dorthy is my pet shotgun.

Is that pronounced anything like "Dorothy"?

TRUE honor among online thieves

[vlueboy]

I don't agree with spamming and it doesn't prevent me from seeing that you are absolutely right. The guy will get hired* for the same reason notorious black hats and gray hats get hired:

He's good at what he did, and the employer's bottom line would be fattened up because someone known as 'The King' must have made some good profit. So thieves can make alliances when the goal is stolen cash. Even white hats might hire him to help "harden" their systems against his own old and new 'intellectual property.'

* assuming he won't work alone to avoid tipping off the feds, like all those "small fries" scammers operating in US jurisdictions.

Re:TRUE honor among online thieves

[bangzilla]

getting hired? Not easily with a felony rap sheet.

An ex Robert Soloway spotter of the world says.

[sjwest]

I was one of about four people who kept a log a Mr Soloway's activities. Before fbi went msm in regard to Robert.

There is at least one web page dedicated to him and not just mentions, but domain names, ip's, court docs in pdf, etc I do hope he has reformed,his amazon book list (since deleted) would indicate no remorse or whatever you americans call it. I have those alleged wishlist books of his stored and there not Charles Dickens titles.

Sweden (where he has dual nationality) also should also be concerned.

Hopefully i hope he reformed. But im happy to monitor him should he come to my attention.

We should end "permanent punishment"

[swb]

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.

Re:We should end "permanent punishment"

[cdrguru]

Yes, but consider that without a permanent criminal class what would law enforcement be doing? Well, they might be coming after you!

As things stand, law enforcement has plenty to do with what we would consider to be a permanent criminal class. Once someone is identified as belonging to this class they are pretty much excluded from every working in a decent paying job again. So, the only way they have to support themselves is through continuing their membership in the criminal class. That isn't to say they can't cross over between different subspecialities - like a mugger becoming a rapist or an embezzler robbing homes.

While you might consider this to be really unfair, a bigger problem is that as we have pretty much given up on the idea of reforming criminals as not being possible just what exactly are we supposed to do with the ones that are really in fact for-life criminals with no other interest, motivation or ability? Sure, what we have today is pretty rough if you do something stupid and get caught. You can be part of the very small percentage (1% maybe?) that committing some crime is a one-time thing never to be repeated. But how does anyone know? And, with the situation of jails and prisons being pretty much Crime U. today it is a wonder anyone comes out with any respect for the law or property rights of others.

Today when someone is released from prison it is around 70% chance that within five years they will be back. It is a revolving door and not just because former prison inmates have a hard time finding honest work. So what do we do with these people? Just keep cycling them through the system, over and over? Because that is what we are doing now. The minor problem with that is the "collateral damage" to the victims in between visits to the prison. You take a person that has learned nothing but crime and has no respect for law or property rights of others and put them on the street - they are going to rob someone. Now maybe the last time they were caught their victim was able to testify against them. So when they get out they have learned that leaving the victim around to testify is a bad idea. This takes a certain toll on the victim population.

The same problem occurs for nice, friendly white-collar crime. You take someone that has learned not to respect other people's property rights over, say, their email inbox. You put them in a prison with other people that have somewhat stronger feelings about property rights, along the lines of "I want what you have. Give!" End result is the nice white-collar spammer has learned that respecting property rights is a losing game and the next time they are in prison they want respect. Respect in prison has to be earned and doing hard time for holding up a store with a gun is certainly a few steps along the road to respect. Such a fine educational system we have instituted in our prisons don't you think?

So you can't really separate people at the beginning into piles divided by "violent" and "non-violent" crimes. If you mix them up in prisons - which is certainly going to happen - likely as not the non-violent crime ones learn all about violent crime and respect in the prison yard. So then you have turned someone from a one-time criminal into someone that is pretty much going to rely on crime as a way of life from then on.

I don't know how you separate the one-timer "oh I didn't mean to do it" sort from the folks that have a major attitude problem from the beginning. I don't think mixing them up in prison is doing anyone any favors at all. I would be in favor of pushing all the crimes that we can't allow to occur into a group and putting the folks that commit those crimes on an island somewhere. Probably a small island with lots and lots of population pressure and no guards or wardens. They would soon things out for themselves one way or another. Then we could have prisons for the one-time "oops" sort of people that were not criminal universities and could actually be structured in a way so as to make sur

Re:We should end "permanent punishment"

[Legion303]

"So, the only way they have to support themselves is through continuing their membership in the criminal class. That isn't to say they can't cross over between different subspecialities - like a mugger becoming a rapist [...]"

I'll probably regret asking, but how does one support oneself through rape?

Re:We should end "permanent punishment"

[nosferatu1001]

The UK has the rehabiliation of offenders legislation, which DOES mean you can, legally, not note any "spent" conviction even if someone asks for any and all.

Neighbors?

[devnullkac]

All his neighbors? You mean everyone on the Internet? World's way smaller when your definition of harm (e.g. spam) can be accomplished without leaving home.

Re:Neighbors?

[PetiePooo]

That's what I was thinking. As someone once said about the internet, "You're less than 100ms from every creep out there."

Re:Neighbors?

[fishexe]

All his neighbors? You mean everyone on the Internet? World's way smaller when your definition of harm (e.g. spam) can be accomplished without leaving home.

On the other hand, if all the world is his neighbor, and he's obligated to contact all his neighbors in a timely manner to notify them he's a serial spammer, and the only efficient way to do that is email...don't we have a name for emailing everyone on the planet?

This may be a better idea than we thought!

Focus, people...

[TiggertheMad]

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.

I find it disappointing that people here are joking about killing a guy who basically annoyed them with some e-mail. Yeah, spam is annoying, but really? Where were you people when wall street ruined the economy, and the government opened an illegal prison in Cuba?

Re:Focus, people...

[spun]

Did you simply skip to that line and ignore the rest of my post?

Re:Focus, people...

[qc_dk]

Where were you people when wall street ruined the economy, and the government opened an illegal prison in Cuba?

I was trying to rid my inbox of spam.

Re:Focus, people...

[jwhitener]

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.

I find it disappointing that people here are joking about killing a guy who basically annoyed them with some e-mail. Yeah, spam is annoying, but really? Where were you people when wall street ruined the economy, and the government opened an illegal prison in Cuba?

You're right of course, but I think the reaction you see is because many people actually were affected by spam daily for years. The ruined economy and some folks locked up hasn't really impacted the daily life of the majority of slashdot posters.

Now, it it was your relative laid off, or your relative locked up without trial......

I'm guessing that nothing is really different historically. People in general have a fairly low level of empathy. I'd like to think that our corporate owned politics, unconstituational jailing, torture, etc.. would actually stir people to action, but it seems like the combination of our campaign finance laws, political system, and the concentrated media ownership, form a system that has mastered pacifying the masses. And that system has certainly mastered the ability to convince people to support ideas that are not in their best interest.

Re:Focus, people...

[MrVictor]

Just like TiggertheMad, no "side" of me thinks he should die in a fire. Get your priorities straight and save you vitriol for more worthy criminals.

Re:Focus, people...

[mjwx]

I find it disappointing that people here are joking about killing a guy who basically annoyed them with some e-mail. Yeah, spam is annoying, but really?

As a sysadmin, it makes my life hell, I get yelled at and threatened by my boss because he's annoyed at Viagra spam.

We have to spend thousands on email filtering software, even if the software is free, hundreds of man hours per year are still spent on maintaining it and that is never free. Spam has a real economic cost and a noticeable impact on the lives of many people. It's not just a little annoying, it's hell for the sysadmin's tasked with fighting it and it certainly isn't simply annoying for it's victims.

So kindly sod off with that kind of thinking.

Where were you people when wall street ruined the economy

December 2003: "the US is going to have to pay a lot to maintain this war" (shortly after, GWB said to the banks, "we cant afford a recession during a war", in retrospect the US couldn't afford not to).
July 2006 "I don't want to buy a house, the market is flooded, I'm only going to lose money" (referring to the Australian and US markets)
September 2007 "The US banking sector is unsustainable"
February 2009, "Why am I not surprised that I am only getting 24 Baht per AUD"

Hindsight is wonderful, foresight is even better.

and the government opened an illegal prison in Cuba?

Protesting all along. Not that the US ever listened to people like me, the people going into these secret prisons were all "enemies of freedom" I was told. I was called "ungrateful" for suggesting that we don't actually know this, a "terrorist sympathiser" for suggesting that trials should be open and not conducted by the US military and a "traitor" for suggesting perhaps we (the entirety of the western world) shouldn't be invading other nations and spiriting away their people to secret prisons where they were tortured for information.

So, you were saying.

Re:Focus, people...

[SharpFang]

I've lost some actual money due to spam. Some usenet newsgroups I frequented died due to spam. I lost two email addresses due to spam and admin inflexibility. Not to mention days of my life, when due to a filter failure I had to dig through some 10000 spam messages to get some 5 emails from an obscure account.

I don't want to kill him. For all the annoyance and grief he caused me, let me, just as a means of revenge, to prick him with a pin, once.
Then let every person he ever annoyed prick him with a pin, once.

Re:Focus, people...

[spun]

Please try to understand what the phrase "rhetorical technique" means. It should have been obvious from context that I don't really want him to die in a fire, otherwise, why am I defending him at all? I said it to "build a bridge" (note! not a literal bridge. Not sure what rhetorical techniques I have to explain here...) with the people who do want to punish him. It is a way of saying "See, though I am like you, and have a vindictive side, I choose not to listen to it."

Can't believe I actually have to explain this.

Re:I was not notified

[sjwest]

FBI/us court system prefers the msm for 'big headlines about doing stuff' than talking to the little people.

Re:Spammers Vs. Virus Writers

[Dan541]

Virus writers need some for of skill. Spammers just hit send.

Also the /. crowd isn't very susceptible to viruses, compared with spam. In fact malware probably keeps allot of us employed.

Prison is not the answer anyways

[damn_registrars]

So when he was in prison, spam went down how much?

Oh, right, it went up. Yeah, that worked really well, didn't it?

And when other spammers are thrown in prison - or murdered as many people here would like to call for - the same thing will happen. No amount of criminal response will slow down spam, no matter how much you might want it to be the case.

If you want to stop spam for real, you need to go after the driving force behind spam - money. Disconnect the spammers from their revenue source and spam will stop. Until then, spam will continue to flourish because spammers make money sending spam. Everything else is at best a feel-good or knee-jerk approach that makes no meaningful difference.

Re:Prison is not the answer anyways

[fishexe]

So when he was in prison, spam went down how much?

Oh, right, it went up. Yeah, that worked really well, didn't it?

Go figure.

Re:Nope.

[icebraining]

Not really, just free storage space.

Lots of people killed with spam

[rsilvergun]

have you seen how much fat that stuff has? And don't get me started on cholesterol!

Bah! You know nothing of bad driving!

[Xaedalus]

Her in New Mexcico, they are insanely aggressive and simply BAD at the art of driving. Here, you NEVER use your signals, as people will close ranks to prevent you from getting in if you signal first. Everyone here is looking to screw everyone else on the road, driving around in a perpetual state of road rage, their machismo threatened by every driver ahead of or beside them on the road. If you are not rapidly receding in their rear view mirror, you are an enemy who must be destroyed.

In Las Vegas, we called that Sunday driving! During rush hour in Sin City, you'd get curbstomped by Mormon bushwhackers just for daring the onramps! Once on the freeway you were allowed forty feet of acceleration, and then required to come to a dead stop and go nowhere for the next two hours-in 127 degree feet (in Kelvin no less, there is no Celsius or Fahrenheit on the concrete... only Kelvin). Then there were the unlicensed illegals who would purposely try to insert themselves AND their cars up your tailpipe (your choice of entrance) for the sole purpose of trying to hide from the State Patrol - who'd just ram you off the road and sodomize you anyway for kicks (the troopers left the tourists alone, it's the natives they're after). And if you dared to take the normal streets, then it'd take you four times as long to get your destination (minimum 20 minutes, even if it's the next block) and you risked death by: a) doddering senior citizen off his alzheimer's meds, b) ricers, c) unlicensed illegals, or d) worst of all, mini-van moms (who think nothing of cutting you off, stomping on the brake right there in traffic to stop you, leaping out of their car, and lunging through your driver side window to kill you-glass or no glass).

Now get back in your pit, Old One, and tend to yer infernal lawn.

Re:Bah! You know nothing of bad driving!

[fishexe]

Her in New Mexcico, they are insanely aggressive and simply BAD at the art of driving. Here, you NEVER use your signals...

In Las Vegas, we called that Sunday driving! During rush hour in Sin City, you'd get curbstomped by Mormon bushwhackers just for daring the onramps...

Tianjin for the win!
As they say in China, "Chukou jiu bu fangbian." ("exits are not convenient")

Re:Bah! You know nothing of bad driving!

[Xaedalus]

Yeurrrrrgh... you may indeed have the win there.

Re:Spammers Vs. Virus Writers

[fishexe]

But then Virus writers steal and destroy.

That depends on the virus.

Re:Seriously?

[fishexe]

The Slashdot post makes it sound like the guy is evil.

What makes you think he's not?

Re:Retribution

[fishexe]

Why did you have to post anonymously, and thus deprive me of the chance to give you Karma?

Megan's Law variation

[fishexe]

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 think that kind of law is a good idea. Except, instead of his physical neighbors, he should have to notify all his virtual neighbors. That is, everybody he's capable of conveniently spamming. And he should be required to notify them by email. I really, really like where this is going.

That makes one of us

[Dracophile]

I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.

I sure hope that he has reformed. That's the point of penal servitude, isn't it? Otherwise, why bother with it? I mean, why not just execute him if doing his time isn't good enough for you?