Slashdot Log In
"Spam King" Pleads Guilty in U.S. Federal Court
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jun 12, 2007 09:14 AM
from the going-down-with-the-ship dept.
from the going-down-with-the-ship dept.
Monty writes "It looks like 'Spam King' Adam Vitale has finally plead guilty to violation of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 in federal court in New York City. 'The indictment said that in less than a week in August 2005, Vitale and Moeller sent e-mails on behalf of the informant to more than 1,277,000 addresses of subscribers at AOL, the online division of Time Warner Inc. Vitale will be sentenced on September 13 when he faces a maximum sentence of 11 years in prison. Moeller, who lives in New Jersey, faces the same charge.' We discussed Vitale's arrest back in February."
Related Stories
[+]
Spam King Busted by Secret Service 247 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Adam Vitale, aka Batch1 aka Baxter, 25, of Boynton Beach, FL, and his partner Todd Moeller, aka M3rk, of New Jersey, are accused of sending nearly 50,000 pieces of spam e-mail to more than 1.2 million AOL subscribers.
US Secret Service agents used a confidential informant to hire Moeller and Vitale to deliver spam, which advertised a computer security product."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
believe it when I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:believe it when I see it (Score:5, Informative)
(d) Presentence Report.
- (1) Applying the Sentencing Guidelines. The presentence report must:
- (A) identify all applicable guidelines and policy statements of the Sentencing Commission;
- (B) calculate the defendant's offense level and criminal history category;
- (C) state the resulting sentencing range and kinds of sentences available;
- (D) identify any factor relevant to:
- (i) the appropriate kind of sentence, or
- (ii) the appropriate sentence within the applicable sentencing range; and
- (E) identify any basis for departing from the applicable sentencing range.
(2) Additional Information. The presentence report must also contain the following information:
- (A) the defendant's history and characteristics, including:
- (i) any prior criminal record;
- (ii) the defendant's financial condition; and
- (iii) any circumstances affecting the defendant's behavior that may be helpful in imposing sentence or in correctional treatment;
- (B) verified information, stated in a nonargumentative style, that assesses the financial, social, psychological, and medical impact on any individual against whom the offense has been committed;
- (C) when appropriate, the nature and extent of nonprison programs and resources available to the defendant;
- (D) when the law provides for restitution, information sufficient for a restitution order;
- (E) if the court orders a study under 18 U.S.C. 3552 (b), any resulting report and recommendation; and
- (F) any other information that the court requires.
Cornell [cornell.edu]Parent
Re:believe it when I see it (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus, I can think of a few things he could do for community service:
1) since people once referred to the net as the info superhighway, make him the highway dept's official roadkill scraper for a few years
2) make him clean out some tubes...that's right, get them sewers real clean, boy!
3) let him go work at a nursing home where they give the old men free v!agr4 -- while dressed up as the girl from St Pauli Girl beer bottles. Ouch!
4) he has to clean all the restrooms in NYC's entire subway system.
Cruel? Unusual? Yes! Fitting? Yes!
Parent
Cell Next To Paris Hilton (Score:4, Informative)
2 cents,
QueenB.
Parent
Re:believe it when I see it (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Justice is as justice does (Score:5, Funny)
He may want to ask for more years and just stay in - If I run into him on the street...well, let's just say he will need more than self-healing plastic skin to hold him together until he can be put out of his misery by Kevorkian.
Re:Justice is as justice does (Score:5, Funny)
What are you going to do, fart in his general direction?
Parent
pfft (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but.. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Spammers: 1,305,931,426,569
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
5 Minutes (Score:5, Insightful)
Maximum of five minutes in prison for each of the people he spammed. Seems a little light.
Re:5 Minutes (Score:5, Funny)
Well, talk to the judge, maybe he'll give you have your five minutes alone with Vitale and let you to bring your own baseball bat.
Parent
but does the punishment fit the crime? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course he won't serve that. And of course, spam is bad. But 11 years?
Who was harmed in the process of his sending spam? How many people did he physically hurt? Even, how much money did he take from people? Ok, so the spam consumed bandwidth and wasted people's time. And he gets 11 years for that? Seems a little inappropriate given the crime, don't you think?
I could a large fine, community service, and a year in prison. But, sheesh! A manslaughter charge won'
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if the was convicted on spamming 1 million or so email addresses, I doubt that caused enough financial damage to warrant 11 years. Clearly an example is being made of him.
Not that I mind in any way.
Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who has ever had to swap a hard-drive out of a mailserver due to increased wear or disk space requirements, or upgrade a data pipe to the next size up, has been financially harmed by spammers. And if you slipped with the screwdriver and injured yourself while undertaking this otherwise unnecessary work.... It is not the victimless crime that supporters of spam like to make out.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope you aren't putting words in my mouth.
As for the rest of your post, you've gotta be kidding. As I said, spam is bad and nasty. I never said he didn't hurt anyone. I said he didn't physically hurt anyone. Financial restitution is in order.
Maybe some jail time is in order. I mean, the punishment seems a little excessive. But as another poster replied to me, they are making an example out of him. That's the only thing I can
Re:but does the punishment fit the crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
If judges keep letting Spammers get off light, without ever setting a heavy-handed precedent, why would they ever even consider stopping the SPAM?? Sometimes a little scare is good.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or perhaps the collective time of the people involved to filter out the incoming junk. I see at least 1000 per month caught by my filter. A filter that _used_ to be entirely unnecessary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would be willing to bet he sent at least ten spams to each person, which works out at 27 minutes in prison per spam. If it takes 2-3 seconds to check if an email is spam, then the prison sente
spam has caused a HUGE cost to society (Score:5, Insightful)
That deserves to be punished.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess a few factors must be considered:
a) As spam (and the act of spamming) cost almost nothing, so if it is so "ok", then it could get much worse if unchecked. So, as we can not add much cost to bandwidth, the problem is that it might land you in jail. That's the spammer "cost" or "risk". Basically, why would be a requirement for me or my employer that I must gi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, though at the same time it's not necessarily the job of the government to rehabilitate people (and I'd be skeptical about what they would rehabilitate people into if they did). The idea of prison is to keep people from harming others in society. For someone like a spammer, locking them up while keeping them from harming others could be done in much better ways. Simply keeping him away from computers for X years would be more appropriate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've hand-picked a combination of laws which are all either illegitimate (e.g. vice laws) or brand new (spamming, copyright) in order to make your point. I'm not impressed. It's only natural and proper that vice laws get flaunted (but even then, you'll observe that the fear of punishment
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If anything, the courts should put him in jail for a few years, take away all the money he's made and make sure he's never allowed near a computer again.
That would seem more fitting.
Re: (Score:2)
(must.. not.. resurrect.. stale.. AOLer.. jokes..)
Too Many Kings (Score:5, Funny)
There sure are a lot of guys who get the title Spam King. Can't we get more creative with these titles? Spam Lord. Spam Queen. Spam Prime Minister. Spam Court Jester. I'd prefer more Batman-style evil nemesis names like "The Green Viagra" or something.
I mean, who votes for these Kings? I didn't vote for him!
Re:Too Many Kings (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"Spam King"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Too true. "King" is a royal and regal word, watered down enough by a bunch of potentate wannabes, without subjecting it to the likes of this moron's ilk. I'm thinking "Chief Spam Weasel" is more in keeping with what he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Alan Ralsky [detnews.com]
Scott Richter [securityfocus.com]
Ryan Pitylak [msn.com]
Sanford Wallace [com.com]
The first ten results on Google give four different Spam Kings, none of which is the guy here, one of which involves Burger King and real Spam.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently a "Spam King" is like a hydra; cut off one head and a bunch more pop up. Until there's some kind of live monetary cost for sending out emails, the profit in spamming outweighs the possible penalty, especially if you live outside the US. Then you can thumb your nose at CAN-SPAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother sending him to jail? (Score:5, Informative)
Awesome, but will do little to curb spam (Score:3, Interesting)
Cool (Score:2, Insightful)
unuseable email (Score:2)
Care package to his cell mates (Score:5, Funny)
I'll send one to him as well, but the penis enlargement pill bottles will be emptied and refilled with breast enlargement pills, instead.
I know, I know... they don't work... but I can dream can't I?
Re: (Score:2)
He better hope his bunkmate in prison isn't one of his former customers who got the penis enlargement pills but found out sadly they didn't work...
Now if only they'd nail his brother Dick... (Score:2, Funny)
Now if only they'd nail his brother Dick. He must be violating a noise ordinance somewhere.
Truly Perplexing (Score:2, Interesting)
Jail Not Warranted (Score:5, Insightful)
This jailing of people for computer crimes that did not cause physical injury and do not present a continuing danger is ridiculous. Take the money they made illegally away and then have them do something to make it up to the community while on probation. Now, if they make a second attempt and get convicted again at whatever they were convicted of originally... then let's reestablish public gallows and hang them, then mount their head on a spike somewhere preferably near a webcam. The point is, either way, they don't go to prison and we save money.
In serious, this whole idea of throwing people in jail for things they did on a computer (including copyright violations) that didn't result in someone being bodily harmed or killed is totally out of proportion and a short-sighted way of dealing with the problem. You can beat the living crap out of someone, enough to give them some minor form of permanent disability for the rest of their life, and get a year in most states - and that's the maximum, which will only be applied if you are a chronic repeat offender.
Re:Jail Not Warranted (Score:5, Insightful)
People who commit burglary while the owners are away are non-violent offenders. Serious fraudsters are non-violent offenders. Drug dealers are non-violent offenders. Violence is not a prerequisite for jailing criminals, nor should it be. Harm to society is not always physical.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you like to spend your entire life from birth to death deleting spam? It doesn't take long to delete a single spam, just a second or two. In the US alone, just deleting spam has taken the manhours of several peoples entire lifetimes. Just because it isn't all stacked up for a few individuals to use their entire life deleting spam but spreading it out cross the entire US population instead does not remove the fact that spam has t
The damage is done (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with CAN-SPAM is that it's a reactive measure. While allowing spammers to collect your e-mail addresses, the government is feeding the beast they're supposed to kill in the first place.
To those who say you only have to press 'delete' (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Overkill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
It's not like he's committed a violent crime or put people out of work.
This plague costs the economy billions in lost productivity, otherwise unecessary system capacity expenses... do you REALLY think that a company looking to grow and compete and hire/retain the best people at whatever they do wouldn't rather spend all of that time and energy on things directly relevent to what they DO for a living? Huge expenses - otherwise unrelated to a business's actual line of work - absolutely DO cost jobs. How many schools could better spend that money on lower tuitions or newer labs? Just think it through.
But wouldn't a far more appropriate response be to seize his assets and slap him with fines amounting to the damage he's caused?
The damage he's caused involves WAY more money than what he's collected. That he's willing to cause that sort of damage should tell you everything you need to know about the guy. He wants someone else's money, and is willing to cause damage and participate in fraud to get it. It's not very different than committing insurance fraud for cash... and then watching the rest of us pay higher premiums to cover it.
More to the point, though: he's already demonstrated a willingness to knowingly break the law and abuse other people's systems and networks. Physically stopping him from doing it again by locking him up is the only way you'll prevent him from just putting on another hat/identity and doing it again, more carefully, through a surrogate. Or "consulting" for someone else who does. What do you think he'll do at night after he clocks out of the community service work you'd rather he was doing? Hopping online somewhere, or talking someone else through doing so, and doing something he knows will generate some cash.
Parent