Spammer Sentencing Guidelines 267
actaeon169 writes "The Register is reporting that the Feds are seeking public comment on a proposal to amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to deal with those convicted of violating the law set forth in the CAN-SPAM act. Here is what the Feds have to say."
Disappointing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Disappointing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Disappointing... (Score:3, Funny)
Think what medical research could accomplish if they could use spammers instead of rats as test subjects.
Spammers are more plentiful than rats. The scientists are less likely to get sentimental about them. Best of all, there are some things even a rat won't do.
The only problem is that the experimental results would be harder to extrapolate to human beings.
Re:Disappointing... (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose it's good in a way that the above statement isn't true. According to spamhaus [spamhaus.org], about 90% of all spam is due to just 200 operations. It wouldn't take too many prison cells to hold all of them.
Personally, I feel giving the spammers a year in jail and giving their cell mate a steady supply of v1agra would be a fitting punishment.
Equal Opportunity (Score:2)
I'm personally liking the words "ants" "stake" "syrop"
Alternatively, the words tar/feathers have a nice ring to them also.
Re:Disappointing... (Score:2)
Trying to break through the obsession that Slashdotters have with their butt-holes is like trying to herd cats.
Since spamming is analogous to polluting a common resource for private gain, then I suggest that the penalities for spamming parallel those for polluting public lakes and rivers with hazardous materials for private gain.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well I say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well I say... (Score:2)
Why would that matter? (Score:2)
Although I suppose they could be especially upset about them not working and seeking revenge...
Re:Well I say... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well I say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Soljenitsyne once wrote that "Civilizations are as evolved as their prisons are"
Having such prison is a symptom, laughing at this is another.
Re:Well I say... (Score:2)
Basically I see the most civilized prisons as being like the "SuperMax" prisons, where inmates spend 23 hours a day in their cells and are almost entirely seperated from other prisoners. I
Re:Well I say... (Score:5, Interesting)
That myth isn't all bad, it keeps people out of prison. There's good reason why the prison system doesn't try to dispel that myth.
Re:Well I say... (Score:2)
Too bad. Perhaps they can pay Turkey to put the spammers in their prisons? I've watched Midnight Express [imdb.com], I'd think it would work.
It would even take care of the
Re:Well I say... (Score:2)
I'll take your word that anal rape isn't fun. Well, we don't want these scumbags to have fun in the first place. Hence proposing it as a punishment.
Actually, forget anal rape. What I'd want to happen to all the spamming retards and script kiddies is more along the lines of a slow painful death.
Cancer comes to mind, but that's not available for executing someone in any country.
Failing that, I say bring back the middle ages. B
Re:Well I say... (Score:5, Interesting)
State prisons are where you find inmate rape. Just because movies say it's true doesn't mean it's so! Unfortunately despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, people still believe everything they see in the cinema. Sad really.
Re:Well I say... (Score:2)
News flash: Rape: Real. Daily beatings: Real. Corrupt guards: Real.
If you have not seen the show, do so. While I have only seen about three episodes that were rented on DVD th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not firing squad (Score:3, Interesting)
According to most of the references I've found, it's the other way round. One person gets a blank, everyone else gets live rounds (sometimes everyone gets live rounds and there are no blanks). The idea is that even though an experienced shooter can tell the difference, there are psychological reasons not to pay attention or to believe that you truly drew the blank round. Also, no one person can stop the execution
Re:Well I say... (Score:2)
Given that it is thought there are 200 or so major spammers, is stealing/vandalising $100 Million worth an imprisonable offense?
Re:Well I say... (Score:3, Funny)
Not in America. The punishment for that kind of crime is more stock options, bonus pay and the eternal friendship of the Republican party.
Re:Well I say... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, there are much better options.
1.) Community service -- 1 hour per message
2.) Ban from all computing resources -- 1 day per message
3.) Fine -- $1 per message
That should do it.
Pirst Fost (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Try to find that all important (Score:3, Interesting)
why does it matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why does it matter (Score:2, Interesting)
Decisions, decisions... (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong joint (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wrong joint (Score:2)
Re:Not funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Spammers are people and some of them have a family and kids, too.
Sure, but spam generates a lot of emotion, frustration, and hatred because of the unrepentant nature of the crime. If you deal with spammers at all they tend to be self-righteous and have an attitude of "I'm doing nothing wrong and I'll never be punished", even as they steal resources and damage reputations.
Spammers shouldn't be killed, tortured, raped, or any of the other things many posters here are suggesting (and those suggestions are mostly joking) - but those kinds of sentiments are a natural reaction on the part of those who are victimized with no recourse. Spammers need to go to jail and make reparations.
Re:Not funny (Score:2)
1) Somebody gets popped for breaking into a company server of say, an e-commerce site. Millions of dollars of business at stake. Possibly credit card info. They are sent up the river for two years. Story appears on slashdot. People are outraged this person is sent to jail for so long.
2) Somebody sends some spam. Wastes $50 worth of bandwidth and 3 seconds of your time. "String him up!", "Off with his head!", "Execute him!" the ne
Re:Not funny (Score:2)
Re:Not funny (Score:2)
I'd rather have him get a bamboo plant up his ass. (earlier thread suggested it)
Amen, with a caveat (Score:3, Insightful)
What I want is for them to wear that electronic ankle bracelet and be denied all internet access. Let them have a computer, but no internet hookup. Let them use a computer at work, as long as there is no internet access.
See, I don't want to pay taxes to hold people in prison if they can hold d
Re:Decisions, decisions... (Score:2)
Three little words... (Score:4, Redundant)
That oughta put some fear into them...
Appropriate punishment... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Appropriate punishment... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Appropriate punishment... (Score:2)
Only if you put them in the right prisons (Score:2, Offtopic)
The sellers of compounds containing Ephedra or related herbs would probably be killed if they took enough. Sounds like a fitting punishment to me!
Last, the people who hijack other people's computers for use as either spam relays or HTTP proxies for spam sites ought to have to perform technical support to clean up thos
Re:Only if you put them in the right prisons (Score:5, Insightful)
You are modded +1 interesting for proposing to torture convicts ?
My father spent 5 years in a Goulag for writing poetry, he'd be sorry to know the occidental mentality is not any better than the one that he fought behind the iron curtain.
Re:Only if you put them in the right prisons (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Only if you put them in the right prisons (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything that has ever been funny has also been painful to someone else at least once.
"I slipped on the ice in front of the girl I was trying to impress! Hahaha!":
"My mother slipped on some ice and broke her neck. Insensitive jerk!"
"I walked around with my fly down all day. Hahaha!":
"I walked into a client meeting with my fly unzipped and got fired. Insensitive jerk!"
"Boy, was I embarassed! Hahaha!":
"I spent 15 years in therapy for the same thing. Insensitive jerk!"
To be blunt, it's the height of arrogance to assume that the particulars of a situation always map to something similar that happened to you. Your negative experience doesn't mean that noone else is allowed to make jokes about a similar situation.
I feel bad for you dad, seriously. That's awful, and he has my sympathy. That has no bearing whatsoever on the joke you were replying to.
Re:Only if you put them in the right prisons (Score:2)
So because one person in a different country was wrongly imprisoned for violating a bad law, you're saying we shouldn't enforce laws or imprison or punish people? That's some pretty stupid logic.
Spammers are criminals who don't care about the harm they create as long as they profit. They deserve to be punished for it, commensurate w
Want Public Faith and Participation? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of my general bitches about Fed/State/Local laws is that the goverment fines vermin and keeps the money for itself.
Re:Want Public Faith and Participation? (Score:2, Informative)
That's what civil court is for.
Re:Want Public Faith and Participation? (Score:2)
A better solution would be to add it to a fun for spam research or something.
Re:Want Public Faith ... MOD DOWN (Score:4, Interesting)
Umm, every transfer or distribution of money costs money. if you try to distribute $1m to 1000 people, each will get about (say) $950 after the costs of actually distributing the money are factored in. when government keeps fines, etc, this is revenue that they get to keep *instead of* raising taxes. So, if we listened to you, net taxes would be higher, as we'd lose out on the stupid anduseless distribution costs of first getting the fine money to the people, and then re-collecting it from the people in terms of taxes.
Why "mod down?" not only does the poster show lame logic that I have addressed before, but his proposed solution hardly calls for "justice"--rather, it rewards those with information. I can't see any use in that whatsoever. We want public faith and participation in choosing leaders and making community policy--not in filling out forms to collect what most would agree is owed equally to all victims, not just the most able.
Re:Want Public Faith ... MOD DOWN (Score:2)
"Studying" something at greater than a high-school level has to do with positive analysis. "should never be included in a planned governmen budget" is a normative statement. No "student" would ever make such a statement without substantial corroborating data.
As it were, your statement is tin-foil-hat bul
Anti-spam department (Score:2)
What they need is an "anti-spam" department. Partially gov't funded to start things off, but also supported by the proceeds of whatever spammers get busted/fined. I don't think I'd see part of the pie for nailing spammers, but I wouldn't mind donating my portion to nailing some more.
Too lenient. (Score:2, Insightful)
yes . . . this is it . . . from bash . . . kinda (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
What I'm getting at is, will they be prosecuting people who troll on
CAN-SPAM (Score:4, Funny)
Guantanamo (Score:2)
Go after the advertisers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Go after the advertisers (Score:2)
> the messenger; instead, go after the advertisers of such spam emails, since
> their whereabouts are easier to track down than anonymous spammers.
Because the messenger can say anything they want.
Imagine a spammer sends out ads claiming you personally are selling some crap, and give your personal information to 'buy' from.
Then the law cracks down on you and not the one annoying people.
Wouldnt be much fun, i'd imagine.
Spammer sentencing guidelines... (Score:5, Funny)
Once a spammer is found guilty they're put into a work camp. In this work camp they're seated at a computer with a red and a green button.
On the screen will flash up an email. They're then forced to choose spam or not spam.
Hesitation will result in a cattle prod to the privates.
Re:Spammer sentencing guidelines... (Score:3, Funny)
They're in a prison. Not a bad prison, perhaps even lower security. BUT, all of their food and water comes to them in boxes. Small, unmarked boxes. Along with hundreds of other, identical unmarked boxes. The ratio of rocks(or whatever) to actual food is about 1000 or more to 1.
To get fed, you gots to find it. Thats your task, every day. Spend all day opening tiny little boxes, mostly filled with junk, but if you don't find the ones with the morsels of food and water,
Where is the Death Penalty? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting proposals (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines limit judges to a narrow ranges of sentences a court can choose from when punishing violators of federal criminal law. The guidelines work off of a point system that sets a starting value for a particula
Re:Interesting proposals (Score:3, Interesting)
When everyone's done with them, they can get medical attention.
If they're still alive.
Re:Interesting proposals (Score:2)
Re:Interesting proposals (Score:2)
Result is you end up with a bunch of people in prison for 10+ years for possession/using pot on a first offense. While I'm not in favor of legalizing pot, that type of punishment is usally too much for a first time offender - a fine and/or probation would usally suffice for a majo
Re:Interesting proposals (Score:2)
Leaving aside your misreading of the poster's surname, there simply isn't any contradiction between punishing spammers (all of whom are thieves and most of whom are fraudsters in addition) and libertarian principles.
i hope (Score:2)
Dietary Restriction (Score:5, Funny)
Let's see that slice multiplied by 200 million or so and see how the spammer likes it.
Wow, nice precident... (Score:5, Interesting)
Real bright folks, aren't we.
I dislike spam as much as anyone, but the can-spam act has done little more than set legal precident for the government regulating internet based communications based on content, legitimized entire classes of spam (that are no less irritating) as "protected" from regulation (again based on content).
I never thought I'd see the day when geeks would cheer at the idea of a government censor, but I guess I was wrong. Now that the floodgates are open, I'm sure that we can expect future laws to regulate the sending of email containing "terrorism related" subjects such as communications protocols, encryption techniques, security implementations, and basic networking technology. Of course, those who are employed by "authorized" companies will be exempted from these regulations, as only they will have the "legitimate purposes" and "need to know" to be allowed such "dangerous" communication [slashdot.org].
Re:Wow, nice precident... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not too familiar with that particular act, but it seems to me that most anti-spam legislation (such as it is) in many countries do not consider content (other than exempting certain types of messages), but only the means of delivery. Most laws are quite specific in that regard.
You are allowed to deliver any public speech, bu
Keep it simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Using harvesting software.
- Not providing means to opt out.
- Using stealth email address verifiers.
- Forging headers, etc, etc.
- Using spam as an ends to break other criminal laws.
I also feel that ISPs should take some of the heat, if not criminal, at least financially, if it can be proved they had knowledge of the operation, or are blatantly spam friendly. Sure most spammers are off shore, but lots operations start off at US ISPs before they get smart, or are forced offshore.
One last thought. I swear I get more spam now than I did before the law went into effect. Anyone else have this feeling?
Just like A Clockwork Orange (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just like A Clockwork Orange (Score:2)
For shame.
Don't gripe, comment! (Score:5, Interesting)
A big part of the sentences guidelines is, what is the relative harm? "Hang 'em all", while satisifying, is not realistic. How would you rank the damage done by the various things spammers do? What would you tell the federal government on the relative seriousness of various aspects of spamming?
Consider:
Joe Jobbing
Using viruses to hijack other people's computers
Attacking anti-spam websites
Using spam to sell viagra vs. using it to defraud people out of thousands of dollars
I don't work with the internet on a technical level, but there are many, many people here who do. And rather than griping about spammers or the law, it would be great if this article and discussion could actually provoke some intelligent public comment. If we want the technical community to be taken seriously in the policy world, we need to give them our input when it's asked for.
Re:Don't gripe, comment! (Score:3, Informative)
1. "Computer Cracking" (i.e. evasion of security measures in order to gain unauthorized use of other people's computers).
1a. Creation or distribution of computer viruses designed to open a "back door" into infected computers so that they may be used to relay spam.
1b. Use of computers infected by spam viruses (see 1a above) as spam relays.
1c. Evasion of spam filters by disguising spam messages with forged headers, misleading subject lines, disgu
Waste of Congress' Time. (Score:2)
Re:Waste of Congress' Time. (Score:2)
How To, Snail Mail (Score:5, Funny)
Regardless, they need snail mail, AKA a written letter for public input. Since the statistical odds are that many here have forgotten how to implement this outdated technology, I have a how to:
Write your email, explaining why the death penalty for spammers is warranted.
Instead of sending your email, print it out on your printer.
Remove printed email from printer and ask an older colleague for something called an "envelope".
Insert statement of reasoning for the death penalty for spammers into the envelope. Crumpling does not work as well as folding it 3 evenly spaced times perpindicular to the vertical axis of the paper. Make sure you seal envelope after inserting letter, avoid temptation to use duct tape to make sure it doesn't fall out.
Print an envelope in your printer with the envelope feed slot. If you can't find one of those you'll have to hand print the address on the envelope.
At the top left corner of the side without the flap write your name on the first line. Write your street address on the second line. On the third line write your city followed immeadiately by a comma. Follow this with the two letter acronym for your state or residence and then your zip code.
In the middle of the same flap of the envelope put the following in the same format.
United States Sentencing Commission
One Columbus Circle, NE. Suite 2-500
Washington, DC 20002-8002
Attention: Public Affairs
Then travel to a post office, you can locate one off the Internet by going here. At this post office give the person your letter and explain you want to buy a "stamp". This will cost you 39 cents. Pu this at the top right corner of the envelope on the same side as the writing. The people at the post office will then take care of delivery. Pop3 not available.
Re:How To, Snail Mail (Score:3, Informative)
Let's be realistic (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate spam as much as the next guy, and would surely love to vent my fury on those doing the spamming. However, and this opinion probably won't be popular with the
Re:Let's be realistic (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not? People who commit other forms of computer cracking (and that is the correct description of spammers' practices of filter evasion and relay hijacking) go to prison. People who commit fraud in other communications media go to prison. Why should not spammers, who routinely do both of the above, get the same punishment?
Re:Let's be realistic (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's be realistic (Score:2)
Screw the spammers, Sue the clients... (Score:2)
But if you sue the butt off of somebody because he caused somebody to you spam, I don't think that the problem will last long...
If I ordered Viagra from every mother f*cker out there who's spamming me, I'd have priapism.
Enough is enough. My spam box is utterly filled with it. I refuse to buy anything from anybody who sends me span (not the spammers but their CLIENTS) and I wan't the damn sh*t stopped.
I like the Mikado Approach... (Score:3, Interesting)
Punish Filter-Cracking (Score:5, Insightful)
Hanover Fiste would say... (Score:2)
Yeah. I guess that'd do...
Double standard? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Double standard? (Score:3, Insightful)
Illegally sharing media annoys a large, amoral (and sometimes immoral) company that relies upon those it is attacking for it's very popularity and survival.
Spamming is an example of a large, amoral (or immoral) company going out of it's way to pester millions of people, in support of another amoral (or immoral) company that survives by preying on the stupid or uninformed.
In other words, in the eyes of most thinking people:
Governme
A reasonable sentence. (Score:3, Insightful)
Flogging (Score:2)
Sent 10 million emails? Well, then it just gotta be 10 million licks with a cat 'o nine tails...
Even short jail terms are a big deterrent (Score:3, Insightful)
Andrew Fastow [usatoday.com], Enron's CFO and chief crook, is finally going to jail. He just pled guilty and got a 10 year sentence and a $24 million fine. That's just the beginning. He has more charges hanging over him (over a thousand years worth), and he has to fully cooperate with prosecutors or face even more jail time. (So Fastow gives up Skilling and Lay. The big question is whether they give up Bush.)
Great Solution (Score:2)
Since they cost upwards of 20 Billion dollars in damages to the US Economy every year, label them as Terrorists and put them all in Guantanimo Bay as Enemy Combatants.
That'll remove the problem AND keep them out of the legal system. And no one has to bitch that the US is continuing it's inhumane practice of capital punishment!
Seizure of Property and Loss of conectivity (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing is going to take any affect until they incorporate at least some of these items into the CAN SPAM law
Of course these last two items also mean that the ISPs will enforce that no customer can run any kind of service on their computers. This will kill dyndns.org and others as a viable business. Nothing in here requires them to do this, but the marketing engine will. Everyone that they knock off the system is a risk mitigation at the minimum and a potential revenure generator if they sign up for static IP business accounts (that typically can run services).
No matter how you figure it, spammers will be the death of the publicly available internet.
Re:THE CHAIR!!!!!!!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Gods sake man - talk about cruel and unusual punishments!
To cap it off make them watch Paris Hilton getting it on.
And the spammers die from sudden loss of blood flow to the brain.
Re:Confusing headline (Score:2)
Cognative dissonance. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Prevent further damage (Score:2)
I still think that a better solution would be to cane the people whose products are spam-advertised. Make it illegal to advertise via spam, then you can kick the crap out of anyone who uses it. Such users *have* to be relatively easily locatable, or people couldn't actually buy their products...