Virginia Arrests Man for Spam

User Comments: 42

1. December 13, 2003 6:00 PM
   StormBringer said:
   Crazy, your solution is unacceptable for me, probably for others as well. 10+, try 300+ a few times a day before the filters became available, now its not as bad but its still a real pain, and wastes much of my time having to delete the junk.3 years is not something that people will fear. The way most cases go in the US courts is that people only get a fraction of the max, and only serve a fraction of that. So this 20 years max, means very little. The guy will likely get a coupl of years and a fine and will probably serve less than a year of that.
   Reply
2. December 14, 2003 11:01 AM
   poertner_1274 said:
   Very true Storm. The possibility of parole in the US is very large. If someone gets a murder sentence and gets 25-life in prison, they could still be elligible for parole in 10 years (for example) on good behavior. And I'm sure that someone who goes to jail for sending spam isn't going to be causing any trouble in a prison, and will definately get out on good behavior in a fraction of the time.
   Reply
3. December 14, 2003 11:08 AM
   XtR-X said:
   20 years is a very long time. I also think its in violation of the ammendment that states "No cruel and unusual punishment." Well yeah, he may cause many people arround the world 2 more minutes at their inbox deleting the spam, but 20 years is too much.I know some people who have been to jail for a year, even less, and it's changed their view. Just like my good cousin, his newborn baby choked on his own bottle when sleeping and died, he totally had nothing to do with it, as we all know he wouldn't hurt anyone. His wife pressed charges and at the last minute she realized it was an accident and tried to stop the charges but the authorities said it was too late. He was sentenced for 4 years to prison. It's really sad.
   Reply
4. December 14, 2003 11:11 AM
   poertner_1274 said:
   That is very unfortunate. I'm sorry to hear that XtR-X. It seems that sometimes people act before they think things through because they are upset, and it could very well be for a misled reason.My best regards to your cousin and his wife.
   Reply
5. December 14, 2003 12:12 PM
   khosw said:
   "Roughly 50 percent of the world's Internet traffic passes through Virginia"This sort of gives you a clue where to look, no.?-Another scumbag down the tubes.
   Reply
6. December 14, 2003 3:12 PM
   SNGX1275 said:
   I think maybe some of you didn't read the article. [quote]Jaynes was charged with violating limits on the number of messages a marketer can send and falsifying routing information, both illegal under the Virginia law that carries penalties of 1-5 years in prison on each count. [/quote]So he's not getting 20 years for sending a SPAM e-mail, he's violating the amount and routing information, and he did that multiple times, apparently is being charged for 4 said violations. There is a chance this dude can be sentenced to 4 years and get out in less.
   Reply
7. December 14, 2003 3:18 PM
   agrav8r said:
   No matter what this begs the question of whether he could do this in prison. Some get TV, libaries, records, and books. I thought i had seen an article on giving them computer training(can't find it now, so I will just run with it and be proven wrong), which if they have access would allow them to do this from prison.unlikely but possible
   Reply
8. December 14, 2003 4:04 PM
   Vehementi said:
   [quote][i]Originally posted by agrav8r [/i]No matter what this begs the question of whether he could do this in prison. Some get TV, libaries, records, and books. I thought i had seen an article on giving them computer training(can't find it now, so I will just run with it and be proven wrong), which if they have access would allow them to do this from prison.unlikely but possible [/quote] Him being able to spam from prison? Yeah right. People thrown in prison on computer crimes don't get access to computers even much less the internet. It's like giving a weapon to a murderer (in the sense that they're giving them the means to do what they were imprisoned for).Plus I'm sure he was only spamming for money, and now he won't get any and I'm sure it isn't worth it to get caught. His prison term would only get longer.And XtR-X, that is truly horrible. I wouldn't wish that happened to anyone. I do hope your cousin gets out soon, because that really is unjust. I wonder how, on such flimsy evidence, it even got passed on in court?
   Reply
9. December 14, 2003 4:53 PM
   MrGaribaldi said:
   [quote][i]Originally posted by SNGX1275 [/i]I think maybe some of you didn't read the article. [/quote]Guilty as charged :blush: I just took what was written in the thread as what the story said... I think I'll start reading a bit more carefully before posting... :blush:[quote][i]Originally posted by SNGX1275 [/i]So he's not getting 20 years for sending a SPAM e-mail, he's violating the amount and routing information, and he did that multiple times, apparently is being charged for 4 said violations. There is a chance this dude can be sentenced to 4 years and get out in less. [/quote] When that's the case, I think the law is reasonably good... Or at least it isn't as whacko as I thought at first... But I still prefer community service and fines instead of prison..
   Reply
10. December 15, 2003 9:24 AM
    poertner_1274 said:
    But the only bad thing about that Mr. G is that the person that is guilty, and sentenced to community service and fined, will still have access to the internet and the means of doing it again. It's just like someone who is a theif. Once they start stealing things it will be in their blood and they will keep doing it, even if they get jail time to 'think' about what they have done.I feel this would be the same way. If the guy is making, for example, $100,000USD a year, and gets community service and a fine of $50,000USD, what is to keep him from continuing to send spam and just pay the fines and do the service, if he is still making a reasonable amount of money (after the fines and such)?Something needs to be done to show that what has been done is wrong, and take them away from what got them in trouble in the first place(the internet).
    Reply
11. December 15, 2003 2:42 PM
    MrGaribaldi said:
    Well, let's include a visit from a parole officer (or someone similar) on a daily basis, and limit his access to computers to just a lap-top.. Granted, that won't do the trick entirely, but it'll hamper the persons ability to spam...But think about it... It really shouldn't be that hard to find a way in which (s)he no longer has the ability to spam, and still keep the person out of prison... Just because we haven't come up with an idea of how to do it, doesn't mean there isn't one... Just that we haven't thought of it yet...By saying that just because I didn't come up with a plan on how to stop the guy from spamming whilst doing community service it isn't possible, you limit yourself to a very in-the-box thinking... Which is imo a very defeatist way to think... Just like a total ban isn't the best answer to everything potentially criminal, prison isn't the best answer to every punishment... But it requires more thought to find those solutions....02$
    Reply
12. December 15, 2003 4:21 PM
    Mictlantecuhtli said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by SNGX1275 [/i]point 1 - spam is not THAT BAD come on now guys, you spend a few seconds a day decidign whether to read something or not, if not you delete it, its over, done.point 3 - we are going to send people to jail for spam? yet at this identical time the majority of the people are against the death penalty. well I'll tell you what - I'd rather get SPAM filtered by my [b]already in use SPAM filter[/b] (and delete it later) than have my tax money supporting some do0d that didn't do anything with his life and is now getting free food and housing. While I, at the same time, am struggling to get a master's degree and pay my heating bill.Overall point - get a spam filter, have it filter the stuff you don't want, delete the stuff you don't want after its filtered [b]automatically[/b] and be done with it. Everyone is getting pissed off about something that is fairly controllable. [/quote] It's true that consumers can install spam filters, but that won't help the main problem here: sending spam hogs the network bandwidth.It doesn't hurt people (at least directly) but companies might have server slowdowns & crashes because of this, thereby possibly causing financial losses etc. I have nothing against people who want to send me a free digital camera or a ticket to Bahamas, but every time I click those ads they either redirect me somewhere else or are for US residents only ;)
    Reply
13. December 15, 2003 6:49 PM
    agrav8r said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MrGaribaldi [/i]Well, let's include a visit from a parole officer (or someone similar) on a daily basis, and limit his access to computers to just a lap-top.. Granted, that won't do the trick entirely, but it'll hamper the persons ability to spam...But think about it... It really shouldn't be that hard to find a way in which (s)he no longer has the ability to spam, and still keep the person out of prison... Just because we haven't come up with an idea of how to do it, doesn't mean there isn't one... Just that we haven't thought of it yet...By saying that just because I didn't come up with a plan on how to stop the guy from spamming whilst doing community service it isn't possible, you limit yourself to a very in-the-box thinking... Which is imo a very defeatist way to think... Just like a total ban isn't the best answer to everything potentially criminal, prison isn't the best answer to every punishment... But it requires more thought to find those solutions....02$ [/quote] Why not a small emp device that goes off if they get near a computer....I think that if he had to hand write apology letters to each person he spammed, one for each occurence, would be enough to make him stop. i figure a minimum of a page a letter, and he can't go free until he is done writing them. The more you spam the more time you get. and snail mail is so fun.
    Reply
14. December 15, 2003 9:51 PM
    XtR-X said:
    He's out of jail now, he's been out for a while (few years). He divorced his wife. And he's married to someone else and he has another baby due soon. Lets hope the same thing doesn't happen... oh God no don't let it happen, he's had plenty of time of misery for something he didn't intend to happen, he's not going to even risk leaving the baby alone with any food.... or even out of his sight.Have you guys ever heard that even one year in jail is a VERY long time? Well it truly is. I've been to jail for 2 hours before just for street racing and it was horrible! DONT GO THERE!!! Finnally my parents came to pick me up! Phew. And thank God that I was caught before July's street racing law that stated that any street racer caught in the act will have the car and license permanently confescated, and [the car] auctioned off.I still think it was wrong for them to put me (a minor) in jail! I mean a waiting room or something but a temp. jail! WTF.Well, I'm derailing the topic, I'm sorry, continue on everyone.
    Reply
15. December 16, 2003 4:01 AM
    Adron said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by MrGaribaldi [/i]But doesn't it also risk giving of a punishment that is [i]way to big[/i] for the crime commited? What about the next case where the guy had spammed 100 million people every day for 4 years? (just an example)Shouldn't be be punished harder than the one who'd only spammed 1 million people in a year?[/quote] I'm not saying this to bash you in particular, but did you all actually read the article referenced? It does say that the penalty might be up to 20 years, but that'd be an application in 4 instances of a 1 to 5 year penalty. Presumably if this guy spammed a little, he will end up at the lower end of the spectrum, and if some other guy has spammed a lot, he might have more than 4 instances. This should scale just fine for any spammer. Newspapers write about "20 years" in big letters, but that's just the maximum penalty. You'll have to trust the courts to pick a proper sentence for each particular offence. You do trust the law, right?
    Reply
16. December 16, 2003 5:07 AM
    MrGaribaldi said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Adron [/i]I'm not saying this to bash you in particular, but did you all actually read the article referenced? It does say that the penalty might be up to 20 years, but that'd be an application in 4 instances of a 1 to 5 year penalty. [/quote] If you'd have read a bit further, you'd see that you are correct, and that I hadn't read the article... :blush:But even if I based my ideas on different punishment on the wrong basis (that you could get 20 years in prison for spamming), they still stand...
    Reply
17. December 16, 2003 4:56 PM
    agrav8r said:
    Sort of a side note, Bush signed the anti spam law today. all the dirty spammers will burn, burn, bur... sorry having a moment there. i will post an article in the news section as this thread seems to be getting a bit long.
    Reply

Recently commented stories