'Spam King' Released From Prison, Now Lives In Seattle 275
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.
How about a second chance? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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:How about a second chance? (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
No, we do not need another Megan's Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about a second chance? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Nope, no information law (Score:5, Insightful)
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:How about a second chance? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, these days sex offenses aren't sex offenses half the time, they're stupid teenagers [msn.com] that some prosecutor wants to make an example of.
Re:Spammers Vs. Virus Writers (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
We should end "permanent punishment" (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Nope, no information law (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider how often you have been shot and consider how often you have been spammed and ponder the problem again.
Re:And notify all his neighbors with computers (Score:5, Insightful)
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?