Virginia Spammers Go To Jail, And Pay For It 326
An anonymous reader writes "A Virginia appeals court has upheld the first felony conviction under a state anti-spam law. In the process, the court also suggested that spam recipients might be able to sue spammers for money damages. According to the court, taxing a person's servers with unwanted e-mails is a form of trespass, little different than intruding on their land or making unwanted use of their private property. Perhaps because of this decision, spammers will soon find themselves on the receiving end of a million dollar class action suit."
Nine years for annoying AOL Customers.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So if we have VOIP (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still glad to see some spammers in jail though. I hope they all rot in prison then in hell.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been getting calls to my cell phone no less; they claim they got my # when I used a credit card at a gas station. They're calling to give me '$40 of free gas.' Now if they really wanted to send it to me, all they have to do is drop it in the mail. But for some reason they call and need me to give them my information. Oh no, they aren't trying to sell me something though..
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Since registering I can't remember getting a single telemarketing call. I don't think it applies to politicians though, surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't mind the political ones, because they make the elections way easier. I keep a list of every politician I get a call from, and don't vote for them.
The charity ones are very annoying though. I get at least a call a week from some charity wanting to know if they can count on my donation. Donations start at just $25. Surely
You have another choice (Score:2)
Telemarketers though, I have to choose between getting up during dinner / sleeping to answer the phone or dealing with the damn thing ringing every 5 minutes.
Another possibility is to leave your phone permanently connected to an answering machine. The message tells the caller to communicate with you by email.
You can take it off the machine if you are expecting a specific call.
I'd guess from your post that you would feel uncomfortable with this solution - you may feel that if someone wants to be able to
If they break the law! (Score:2)
There's an easy solution... (Score:5, Funny)
...just talk dirty to them. Ask them what they are wearing. If it's a girl, ask if she is wearing tights and whether she is menstrating just now. They won't be phoning you back ever again and it's not an obscene call as they dialed you. Everybody wins!!
Another classic would be a three-way call, though I've never done this with an incoming sales call. Simply put them through to the customer service desk of one of their competitors. Sit back and laugh as they argue with each other.
Other people suggested get an answerphone. That's just not practical for most people. If the volume of sales calls grows over the volume of personal ones then it might be worth it. But I don't want to spend the rest of my days listening to short "could you call me back?" messages from friends. If I'm going to be doing their tech support they might as well be paying for the call! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe my area is different than yours, but the number of telemarketers went from too much, to almost zero after I got a new telephone number _AND_ when I got the number, I paid an extra $1.50 or so a month to have the number unlisted.
About once every 3-5 months I get a charitable organiza
Re: (Score:2)
A more suitable punishment... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Trespassing (Score:4, Funny)
Does this mean if I receive spam from him, I'm legally allowed to shoot him?
Re:Trespassing (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Trespassing (Score:5, Funny)
You just have to say the magic words. It's very important to use your best Edward G. Robinson tone, of course: "He was trespassing, see. Yeah. And I was fearing for my safety, see. And the safety of my loved ones, see. Yeah, see."
It's important to be assertive about such statements. You can't sound hesitant, or imply any misgivings. That's why these are the two most useless words in the English language: "But, officer..."
Oh, and don't shoot them in the back. And if you do, stand them back up, and shoot them again in the front. Those CSI guys can figure it out, but once they've heard your Edward G. Robinson, they'll let it go.
Note: this is not good advice. Do not follow it, or taunt Happy Fun Ball, either.
Good, now adapt this to Regular Mail (Score:3, Insightful)
other assorted unwanted ads. Now if we could adapt this law to work on the physical mailbox, I
would not have keep throwing away junk mail and other stupid stuff, like how many DISH Network offers
does one really need, much less use.
I realise it may they be trying to make a living, but not at the expense of my peace of mind.
Regards,
MBC1977,
(US Marine, College Student, and Good Guy!)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well.....sort of. They are separated from the government in that they are not subsidized by federal tax money, being required to support themselves on what they bring in. But at the same time, they are a tentacle of the federal government and can't raise postal rates without Uncle Sugar's permission, and you will stil
Re: (Score:2)
Prices go up anyways. I remember when it was 27c to send a letter, now it's about to be 41c. This is in a 15-year timeframe, FYI. Prices are skyrocketing, with or without the bulk advertising distribution. And there's already a reductio in service. Mailpeople won't bother to drop your mail off if there's as much as a tiny marble in front of your mailbox, all they'll do is l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have the right to refuse mail [usps.com]. I wonder what would happen if you just started refusing every piece of junk mail that came. Maybe they would decide it's easier to just not deliver any to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I emailed the USPS about this very thing, the ads with no address on them. They uselessly replied "You can write to each individual companys that are sending you the items or you can remove your name from common mailing lists [by writing to a few major mailing list mongers]". Well, gee, thanks, but there is no obvious "individual company" to write to. I heard a rumour that you can request that your postman not deliver these... I think I will try writing REFUSED on the next one I get and see what happens
Suing the spammer (Score:2)
So how will this work? Will it only apply if the spammer is in the US? I doubt I'd be able to sue someone from Korea...
Now that's what I call justice (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a totally spurious comparison. Firstly it is the confluence of internet/SM protocols, not the spammer, that puts the email on your server - although in the vast majority of these cases, you can believe that the recipient doesn't own the server at all. In those cases, the analogy would be more like "little different than sending them lots of junkmail which, when they feel like it, they can go down to the local post office to collect and bin".
For those who do own their mail servers - corporations, freelancers or other particularly tooled-up individuals - it's like dumping a shit-load of mail on their doorstep - again, through the postal service, which is an impartial, autonomous service that we deeply value!!
This spam is in no way infringing the rights or security of its recipients. It is a minor inconvenience, as is any form of junk mail, and when requested to desist it is illegal, just as is unsolicited junkmail when you so request (at least, in the UK). As such, yes, it should be punished. Is it entirely necessary, however, to confuse and inflame the issue with such shitty, uninformed, unqualified comparisons? And this from a court? Shit, they're supposed to be more responsible with language than anyone else in the country - what the hell does this guy think he's doing??
Re:Oh, come on! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, I would prefer large fines, internet restrictions, (maybe)house arrest, and a short prison spell (as a warning) as an alternative to spending the cost of a good college degree keeping him locked up for years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, come on! (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Christian, I find this appalling. It's a blatant attempt to appeal to religious sentiment, but it really backfires. First, if you are altering the information in the header to avoid retaliation, this means that you know up front you are sending your message to people who don't want to receive it. You certainly aren't going to win any converts that way. Second, you are sending the email at what ultimately boils down to shared expense with the recipient, so you are asking me to help pay for messages that I don't want to receive. Frankly, I'm insulted by his statement. Even as a Christian, I don't want to be receiving mass mailings from people I don't know, regardless of whether it is intended to be uplifting.Agreed. This is what REALLY makes me wonder how stupid the defense attorney thinks people are. From the article:
Wolf goes on to say that this is will be a shadow over free speech. I really don't see how. I'm not free to go to a business and tack up notices and advertisements without permission. And since it was being deposited on the mail servers of an ISP, this is exactly what the defendant was doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not exactly. The user leases a portion of the server for the purpose of recieving mail. The spammer, through his actions, has spam on your property. It's more like flinging baseballs at your mailbox several times a day.
Still, after the bluefrog debacle, I'm all for blood. Jail's too nice for these spammers (though as you said, getting ass raped by large men named 'rhino' is a good first step).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, in my state, there doesn't have to be any threat to safety, implicit or otherwise. Its merely defined as going onto someone else's property without permission. You could be there to give away sugar and spice, it doesn't m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Journalist was taking some pleasure in poking fun at the mayor'
Re:Oh, come on! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone with such an address that has to be listed for public contact suffers from spam, and they can't use aggressive filters because they can't afford to lose customer email.
Re: (Score:2)
Tresspass can be classfied as 'making unwanted use of their private property.' They are 'making use' of my computer when it downloads THEIR message, and their message is also unwanted. I think it fits nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh. So the message he wanted to send 'magically' appeared, with no effort from him. Your argument is that its ok to send mail bombs via the USPS. After all, its not the Unibomber, is the 'network of mail carrying stations that delivered the message to his mailbox.'
Re: (Score:2)
THE LAW ALREADY COVERS THESE THINGS - if such crimes were subject to trespass law (or whatever), these laws about spamming, mail fraud in the mail etc WOULD NOT EXIST. There would be no need for them!
The mail-bombing thing is an e
Re: (Score:2)
Trespass to chattels [wikipedia.org] (personal property) is what they are probably referring to, which is different than trespassing on real property. Another way to think of it would be "interference with personal property." In other words, by spamming these servers, the spammers have deprived the owner of the full use of his property and therefore he should be compensated appropriately.
Similar to the argument made by Intel in Intel v. Hamidi [findlaw.com]. Although, I th
Re:Oh, come on! (Score:5, Interesting)
I couldn't disagree more. When you say it is little different from 'lots' of junkmail. Imagine if 6 18wheelers pulled up to your house and dumped TONS of junkmail on your doorstep, literally so much junkmail that you cannot open your front door. In fact, you have to hire an expensive service to remove the junkmail, as well as buying a larger house to accomodate the junkmail as it arrives. Oh and by the way, some of that junk mail contains anthrax, which if it gets missed by the service which you had to hire, will infect your family.
It is definately trespass.
My small companies email server has to block/process 247,000 spam emails in just the past two months, totalling 67 percent of all the email on the server. On some days the percent of spam reaches 90 percent. Even though it is blocked, this costs my bandwidth and my servers memory/cpu. It costs my company money.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't throw anthrax into the argument (or "thinking of the children" FFS) - that'
It is NOT postal mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Joke? Troll? This is a terribly misguided analogy, as I shall demostrate by haiku:
We pay for bandwidth
consumed by inbound e-mail
but don't pay postage
Big difference. This is why junk faxes are illegal; they use toner, paper, and they tie up the phone line. There are actual real expenses involved with receiving spam. we need more bandwidth and bigger servers. And yes, in cases where end customers are involved, the expenses are passed on to them as well, even though it's not their servers or bandwidth.
Re:Oh, come on! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, "making unwanted use of their property" is a form of trespassing, known as Trespass to chattels [wikipedia.org], which is a well defined legal concept that has been around for hundreds of years. "Chattel [wikipedia.org]" is the archaic legal term for personal property, in contrast with land or real estate.
Having watched the talks given at the last several years of MIT Spam Conferences [spamconference.org], I can safely say that the people involved with drafting Virginia's anti-spam laws and prosecuting this particular spammer have a very good understanding of technology in general, and email in particular. They probably have a better understanding than than the average slashdot user. As horrible as it may be for some geeks to imagine, yes, there are a lot of lawyers that are very smart and can learn very technical stuff.
You seem to have a very fuzzy concept of the internet and protocols. When someone puts a packet out on the net, they are, indeed, knowingly creating a process that will result in the packet ending up on the receiving computer's network port. It may not be the same exact electrons, but that is irrelevant. And, I assure you that AOL owns their servers and they are the ones that received the spam. Yes, customers of AOL rent the mailboxes from them, but AOL still has legal rights to the servers. This is no different than a hotel or apartment owner that rents out rooms/apartments. They still have legal rights to their property.
Not everyone likes the idea of applying the age old concept of Trespass to Chattels to the internet, for example, the EFF sees problems with it [eff.org]. I agree with the EFF on most things, and have contributed money to them, but in the area of spam, they act too much like chicken-little. The Virginia anti-spam law was narrowly taylored and well thought out. It is a shame that it large parts of it have been overridden by the much worse federal CAN-SPAM act.
Re: (Score:2)
spamming steals people's time. if it takes one minute for reach recipient to delete a spam, then he only needs to have sent 4.7M spams to have wasted nine years of people's lives in deleting his crap.
spamming also uses network and computer resources that *could* more usefully have been used (though, I'll admit, chances are it doesn't).
Re:Oh, come on! (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking as someone who runs mail servers for multiple domains (yes, I work for an ISP), let me just say that I, for one, think the comparison is apt and accurate. Maintaining a server environment where our paying customers are not inundated with the 80,000+ spam messages a day that we end up filtering out at our mail gateway takes MUCH time and money (both for personnel and equipment/software).
You may see this individual as merely taking advantage of a situation - "the confluence of internet/SM protocols, not the spammer, that puts the email on your server" - but I certainly do not. That would be like saying that the bank robber is not guilty because it was Smith & Wesson that built the firearm, and the gun dealer that sold it to him (legally), and the cab driver that drove him to the bank (unknowingly) all allowed him to rob this bank, so therefore he is not guilty of it. That is a confluence of EVENTS that leads to the same end. Criminal trespass and robbery.
Don't know much about bandwidth, do you? (Score:2)
Are you a spammer or what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Both here and at home it takes bandwidth, time, and system resources to deal with. All without my permission. Since my time is my most valuable commodity, it's worse than trespass; it's theft of my life.
Since it's virtual trespassing... (Score:2)
Wow, now the taxpayers of Virginia have to pay for (Score:4, Insightful)
Garnishing their wages for the rest of their lives and a significant period of house arrest either without an internet connection or with a heavily monitored connection(with restrictions on the services they can use) are both cheaper and more humane without letting the spammer go off scott free.
Re:Wow, now the taxpayers of Virginia have to pay (Score:2)
A spammer should be made to pay for the resources and timet he has cost every victim. Have him send five bucks to every resident of Virginia and let him make an honest living after that.
Re:Wow, now the taxpayers of Virginia have to pay (Score:2)
Jailing spammers (Score:3, Insightful)
Jailing people is expensive, and it should be reserved for persons who are a danger to the safety of others. Jailing a spammer is a waste of money--those tens of thousands of dollars would be better spent on funding technological anti-spam measures.
Re: (Score:2)
Spam is as much a social problem as anything - it's the willingness of people to buy things from unknown sources, and the willingness of the greedy to make a fast buck, that causes the problem.
Tech hasn't solved spam despite the massive amount of time and effort put in; it's a moving target. If anything, the advance of technology has also made it easier for authori
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you are telling that the recipient of the mass mail should bear the cost, while the spammers can do it with impunity and get away with it ? Or simply take the monetary damage as a cost of doing business.
This is a great precedence and hopefully a few more spammers wil
Hmm (Score:2)
Also what are these "damages" for exactly? Having to use 10 seconds of your time to delete an e-mail and use up a tiny bit of extra bandwidth?
Sorry but this just doesn't make sense to me. Yes I hate spam, yes I
Re: (Score:2)
I put my number on the national and state do-not-call registry. I haven't heard from even one telemarketer since. Even when I did get telemarketing calls, they were never for porn or drugs and were rarely phishing scams. SPAMers have no such inhibitions. The medium makes it far easier to deceive, cajole or harass. The vast majority of telemarleting these days are from legit businesses.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I couldn't agree with you more about the telemarketer end of the house. I worked for a telemarketing company for approx. 2 years and ran one of their teams. I taught the team about ethics and true marketing and knowing their "target audience". They were not allowed to call at dinner time (5 to 7 pm in whatever time zone they were dialing). I re-worded "prepared scripts" to be less deceptive and to make it easy for the call receiver to know that this was a marketing call. In the end, my marketi
Too long. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He's still on bail. I'll be surprised if he ever sees the inside of a cell. And if he does, he'll probably be out in a year or two, rested and fit and start all over again.
This guy made MILLIONS. If he'd been prosecuted for each act of fraud he committed he'd be in jail till the sun went cold.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For murdering, that's not true. If you're refering to manslaughter, there's a reason you don't go to jail as long; you didn't intentially kill the other person.
In Virginia . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Really... I never knew it until I moved here!
Score 1 (Score:2)
And I am glad to see Robert McDonnell (Republican) is doing the job I elected him for last november.
When in jail, Jaynes should be required to help anti-spam software companies make better filters in exchange for a shorter setence.
He didn't "go to jail" (Score:2)
He's still on bail. Let me know if this fucker ever does go to jail. And even if he gets a judgment against him, you know he'll never pay a cent, like OJ.
But don't let me stop anyone making "pound him in the ass federal prison" jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the penitentiary... (Score:2, Funny)
Murderer: What you in for, boy?
Spammer: Uh... I... I, uh... sent people spam emails... lots of 'em...
Murderer: That make you feel tough, boy?
Spammer: Oh no... no... not at all... got pretty rich though...
Murderer: That so? Well, Daddy's gonna make you his pretty little rich boy... [resting arm on Spammer's shoulder and winking]
Spammer: Guard!!!! Help!!!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Expected listing on EBay (Score:3, Funny)
Judgement against spammers Sergey Popovich, Kiev, Georgia and Chi Xiangjung, Nanking, PRC. For 1,000,000,000 $. Awarded by Virginia Commonwealth Supreme Court. Buy-now price 5$. Opening bid 1 cent.
Also you will get emails like this:
Allow me to please introduce myself. I am Michael Dewy of Dewy, Chetham and Howe, attorneys at law, Richmond, VA. I have recently won a judgement for 1 billion dollars against two spammers in Taiwan. This is my proposal to you. Please advance me the money needed to finance an expedition collect the said sum from Taiwan and we can share the proceeds 25% to me and 75% to you.
Spammers go to Jail? Fine with me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Spammers steal your time: Sure, it's just 10 seconds to read a mail, make a decision and press the delete key. But it's not just *your* time, any other recipient also wastes 10 seconds.
So, if a spammer sends 10.000.000 mails per day and every recipients wastes 10 seconds, you get
10.000.000 mails * 10 sec/mail ~ 3 years, 2 months of wasted time.
In other words, every month this spammer wastes more than a full human lifetime. In my eyes, that's the same as if they would kill someone every month with their own hands.
Spammers steal computers to send their spam: Most spam is sent by trojaned machines. A small botnet able to send the 10.000.000 mails/day would likely consist of ~10.000 machines. Assume 3 hours to clean a machine and prevent it from being re-infected. Assume 10$ per hour. Total cost:
10.000 machines * 3h/machine * 10$/h = 300.000$
Spammers steal bandwidth: Though many people believe that bandwidth is free (flat-rate), it really isn't. ISPs or anybody with more than a DSL line do have to pay per GB. Even flat rates are just hybrid costing, basically an amount $x for the DSL line plus $y/GB multiplied by an average usage of z GB/month.
Now, for the spammer:
10.000.000 mails * 20 KByte/mail * 0.50 $/GB = 100$/day ~ 3.000$/month
Spammers steal ressources from the recipients: 75% of all email is spam. Without spam, all mailservers could be sized significantly smaller. Assume 500$ savings for smaller hardware. Assume 3 years (36 months) lifetime. Assume 1.000.000 mail servers.
1.000.000 server * 500$ savings/server / 36 months ~ 460.000 $/month
And that's just the beginning. There are the costs of spam-filtering software, costs of maintenance for hard- and software, costs of lost business due to false-positive filtering (be it manually or automatically), costs, costs, costs....
And let't not forget the costs of psychiatric treatment for admins suffering from burn-out syndrome due to constant nagging of their PHBs that they either a) receive too much spam or b) didn't receive an important email
Re: (Score:2)
Yayyyy! The sons of bitches are getting some punishment for being sons of bitches! I wonder what the buzz on the spammer boards is now (hehehe).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
ObBash (Score:5, Funny)
We're getting there.
Re: (Score:3)
In a perfect world, spammers wouldn't get caught, because there wouldn't be any. Spamming would be impossible, and nobody would want to do it anyway.
Re:ObNelson (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's trespass when you send enough emails to affect the functioning of someone's server. A single email wouldn't cause this problem.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Appropriate Response (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yeah. Religious spam is still spam, you hick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue, and the one that keeps spam in your real mailbox at a certain level, is that espam costs a negligible amount to send whereas dead tree spam has a signiciant cost in both postage and printing. Perhaps you might view it differently if you look at the relative c
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA. He forged his address. He didn't give away pizza, he defrauded tens of thousands of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell it to the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Before this shit-eating moron did this, I got maybe a couple of dozen spams a week, and I couldn't care less about them.
That's my
Re: (Score:2)