Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam

Spammer Sentencing Guidelines 267

Posted by CmdrTaco from the anyone-here-read-legalese dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spammer Sentencing Guidelines More

Spammer Sentencing Guidelines

Comments Filter:

  • Disappointing... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:45AM (#8021125)
    I don't see the word 'castration' in there anywhere.

    • Re:Disappointing... (Score:5, Funny)

      by CaptnMArk ( 9003 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:51AM (#8021195)
      It's not castration when you do it at the neck level.
      • But what a waste of resources!

        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)

          by berzerke ( 319205 )

          ...Spammers are more plentiful than rats...

          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.

    • Maybe because some spammers are female?
      I'm personally liking the words "ants" "stake" "syrop"

      Alternatively, the words tar/feathers have a nice ring to them also.
    • Hey friends, let's try to keep focused on the topic being discussed.

      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)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:45AM (#8021131)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Well I say... (Score:5, Funny)

      by benlinkknilneb ( 708649 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:50AM (#8021181) Journal
      Imagine how much worse it is now that all the prisoners have responded to those enlargement ads...

    • Re:Well I say... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As a victim of anal rape, I'm disgusted at the poster and moderators who think this is funny. It's not. For shame, slashdot.

      • Re:Well I say... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mirko ( 198274 )
        Even though I was not that unlucky, I agree with you on this point.

        Soljenitsyne once wrote that "Civilizations are as evolved as their prisons are"

        Having such prison is a symptom, laughing at this is another.
        • Which is a meaningful critique of Soviet Communism in the era of the gulag, but generally it's a critique that fails because the concept of a prison purposefully implies seperation from society and punishment. How evolved can that concept get without actually being seen as a benefit and not a punishment or preventative?

          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)

          by ad0gg ( 594412 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:25AM (#8021505)
          Too bad its mostly a myth about getting pounded in the ass in prison. Everything is supervised including showers. They even seperate the gay prisoners from the straight prisoners due to violence against gay prisoners.

          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.

          • Too bad its mostly a myth about getting pounded in the ass in prison. Everything is supervised including showers. They even seperate the gay prisoners from the straight prisoners due to violence against gay prisoners.

            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.

            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

      • Well, see, the whole idea is that a lot of us want these scumbags _hurt_. Badly.

        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)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:31AM (#8021591) Homepage
      Sigh...federal prisons are not of the "pound-me-in-the-ass" type. If you misbehave in a federal prison you will very quickly find yourself isolated from all human contact for 23 hours a day. The feds do not tolerate shenanigans like this.

      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.

      • A good friend of mine had spent 8 years in the state system here in Washington state. According to him the closest thing to reality he could find is the HBO (or Showtime or whatever) series "Oz". The only things that were different were the size of the cell (the ones in Oz are bigger) and the all clear cell front instead of bars.

        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

  • Pirst Fost (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JTinMSP ( 136923 )
    Couldn't we just force them to use a mail client that gets a neverending stream of the same spam they sent? Try to find that all important meeting e-mail in the midst of all the Vi@gra@ ads...
    • I like it. Give them a dial-up account they must use to contact their laywer and parole officer by signing a GIF loaded from a HTML e-mail and sending it back. Failure to keep in touch means a violation and time. It'll give them an idea that spam wastes time, effort and resources. Be sure the daily download is buried in SPAM on dial-up with all the GIF's that have to be loaded. It would be best for the officers to dink with the subject line to make it spammy.

  • why does it matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nate1138 ( 325593 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:46AM (#8021136)
    Why do the sentencing guidelines matter? The law is so poorly written as to be unenforceable.

    • Re:why does it matter (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Snowbeam ( 96416 )
      No, this law will be revised when an unintended victim is prosecuted for committing a crime that falls within the parameters of the law, but was never intended to be the target criminal.

  • Decisions, decisions... (Score:5, Funny)

    by DreamerFi ( 78710 ) <.moc.ruetnis. .ta. .nhoj.> on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:46AM (#8021139) Homepage
    I wonder which kneecap to shatter first...

    • Wrong joint (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tau Zero ( 75868 )
      They can still spam from wheelchairs; I think you ought to go for the knuckles.
      • make sure to get the vocal chords too. Voice recognition software may not be perfect, but most spam uses 'innovative' spelling anyway...

  • Three little words... (Score:4, Redundant)

    by bc90021 ( 43730 ) * <bc90021.bc90021@net> on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:47AM (#8021142) Homepage
    "Punishable By Death"

    That oughta put some fear into them... ;)

  • Appropriate punishment... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .ettexut.> on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:47AM (#8021146) Homepage Journal
    Make them use the products they push. Each and every one...
    • Makes it easier to spot them as well, they all look like Fabio, only with a constant boner...
    • For instance: it wouldn't be an appropriate punishment to take a pusher of Viagra and stick him in prison if e.g. he were gay, though males who peddle breast-enlargement devices belong there.

      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)

        by mirko ( 198274 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:08AM (#8021377) Journal
        Lemme get this straight :

        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.
        • As long as it wasn't haiku [slashdot.org], my condolences.
        • Insightful, my butt.

          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.

        • 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.

          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)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:47AM (#8021149) Homepage Journal
    If they want public faith in these iniatives and participation in tracking down spammers, how about fining the spammers and turning a portion of the procedes over to the victims? I'd be all over that in a heartbeat. If you don't sign on, you get zip, otherwise it'd be about 0.05 cents for each of us, know what I mean?

    One of my general bitches about Fed/State/Local laws is that the goverment fines vermin and keeps the money for itself.

    • One of my general bitches about Fed/State/Local laws is that the goverment fines vermin and keeps the money for itself.

      That's what civil court is for.

    • Well, I don't know that turning the profit right around and giving it to the victim is the best course of action. It would be pennies and no one has the time to deal with that.

      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)

      by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:27AM (#8021534)
      One of my general bitches about Fed/State/Local laws is that the goverment fines vermin and keeps the money for itself.

      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.

    • Who exactly are the victims? Everybody that received the spam? That's a lot of people

      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)

    by princewally ( 699307 )
    How about "drawn and quartered" as a fitting punishment?

  • yes . . . this is it . . . from bash . . . kinda (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Their prison mates should have used generic viagra, have their penises enlarged and are looking for a relationship

  • I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaptainAlbert ( 162776 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:50AM (#8021186) Homepage
    ...how long will it be before the definition of spam is extended to include not just email, but any electronic medium?

    What I'm getting at is, will they be prosecuting people who troll on /. any time soon? :)

  • CAN-SPAM (Score:4, Funny)

    by asobala ( 563713 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:50AM (#8021189) Homepage
    Is it only me who thinks that calling the law CAN-SPAM seems fairly inappropriate? I'd have more faith in one called CANT-SPAM. La di da,
  • Put them to Guantanamo Bay as "Unlawful Mailers"!

  • Go after the advertisers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GerbilSocks ( 713781 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:53AM (#8021211)
    Why go after the spammers (ie. the bulk emailing services). It's like shooting the messenger; instead, go after the advertisers of such spam emails, since their whereabouts are easier to track down than anonymous spammers.
    • > Why go after the spammers (ie. the bulk emailing services). It's like shooting
      > 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)

    by Mysticalfruit ( 533341 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:53AM (#8021216) Homepage Journal
    That's an easy one...

    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.
    • Here's an extension of that:

      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)

    by stretch0611 ( 603238 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:54AM (#8021228) Journal
    Honestly though, since the law took effect on Jan 1, the amount of spam I have recieved has almost doubled. It must be thanks to the part that supercedes state laws for spam.
  • One proposal is a formula that would sentence deceptive spammers to more time in prison for each e-mail address spammed. Considering that spammers can get thousands of addresses in one swoop, that should put most spammers in prison for a long, long time.

    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
    • Forget prison. What we need to do is give each recepient of a spam by them a thumbtack, and then let them form a big line in some public place like an stadium, and stab the spammer exactly once, in an arm or a leg or the torso.

      When everyone's done with them, they can get medical attention.

      If they're still alive.

    • Now that's what I call some damn fine karma-whoring. Way to shuffle the paragraphs of the article around and not actually add any of your own thoughts to the comment.
    • the general problem with most sentencing guidelines is that they dont allow the judge to use his/her own judgement. a lot states, for example, have mandatory sentencing for things that dont really require prison for most people.

      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
  • that the words "rusty garden shears", and "offending members" are included in the guidelines.

  • Dietary Restriction (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vexler ( 127353 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @10:59AM (#8021298) Journal
    From now on, each spammer convicted is required to eat one slice of spam for each email that he/she has ever sent. And eat nothing else.

    Let's see that slice multiplied by 200 million or so and see how the spammer likes it.

  • Wow, nice precident... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by qtp ( 461286 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:01AM (#8021314) Journal
    First we legitimize the government's "right" to regulate our internet based communication, then we applaud them when they push for jail time based on the content of your communication.

    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].

    • 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

      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)

    by Mazzie ( 672533 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:07AM (#8021367)
    Bonus points should be given for:

    - 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)

    by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:08AM (#8021378) Homepage
    Why don't we do something similar to what was done to Alex in A Clockwork Orange. We can strap them down, keep their eyelids open, and force them to watch Gigli every day until they are "rehabilitated." Then again, maybe castration and breaking kneecaps is more humane.

  • Don't gripe, comment! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FuzzyDaddy ( 584528 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:08AM (#8021379) Journal
    This seems to be a golden opportunity for the /. community. This is a call for public comments on how to punish spam offenders, and many people on this board know first hand the various techniques that are used.

    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.

    • OK, let's try to build an exhaustive and organized list:

      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

  • Just mandate that spammers be shot on sight. Saves paper and time, and our representatives can get back to figuring out how to prosecute 13 year old filesharers.
    • I'm sure this makes a nice battle cry for the uninformed professional protesters out there, but our legislators and police departments have nothing do do with the cases you are referring to. They are NOT criminal cases, they are civil cases. Civil cases are brought by one party against another , directly without any charges, complaints arrests or investigations by any government entity.

  • How To, Snail Mail (Score:5, Funny)

    by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxruby&comcast,net> on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:16AM (#8021430)
    It would seem the uncivilized chaps over at this government office haven't yet gotten something called email. That or they're deathly afraid of getting mailbombed by spammers.

    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.
    • My Congressman says there is a 3 week delay before he sees snail mail while it is checked for anthrax. He has trouble with email due to the volume of Spam, and huge number of low cost of entry emails from places like vote.com. When you call on the telephone, the staff person ignores your brilliant explanations, and just writes down "for" or "against" some bill (and hopefully doesn't get it backwards). That leaves fax as the only political communication medium that still works.

  • Let's be realistic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Complicity ( 30481 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:19AM (#8021464)
    As much fun as it is to vent and say "death to spammers" or even "one year in prison for every 100 spammed addresses", we have to be realistic. Prison is for hardcore criminals... eg: murderers, rapists, etc. and not for someone like spammers.

    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 /. crowd, federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison is not the answer here. I'm not sure what the answer is, but that isn't it.

    • Re:Let's be realistic (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Steve B ( 42864 )
      However, and this opinion probably won't be popular with the /. crowd, federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison is not the answer here.

      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?

    • I'm prepared to compromise on forcing the spammer to copy out by hand every spam they are convicted of sending.
    • I wholeheartedly agree - I can't see the benefit in sending someone with lax morals to a prison where the only likely outcome I can envision is to provide an education in other criminal activity. Wouldn't it be best to associate the punishment with the crime? The real crime here is the wilful manner in which spammers misappropriate resources and waste users' time. I would advocate a fine equivalent to first class postage for each individual instance of spam, combined with a one-minute community service o
  • Spam is only a problem because people think that its "free" advertising.

    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)

    by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@NosPAM.etoyoc.com> on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:38AM (#8021662) Homepage Journal
    Let the punishment fit the crime. If Gilbert and Sullivan (sound's like a lawfirm nowadays, doesn't it?) came up with a verse to describe the plight of spammers it would be something along the lines of spending a few years reading unsolicited manuscripts at a trash-novel publishing house.

  • Punish Filter-Cracking (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Steve B ( 42864 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @11:47AM (#8021770)
    The law needs to recognize a blindingly obvious point -- anti-spam filters are a form of computer security, and the use of filter evasion techniques is therefore a form of computer cracking. Thus, filter evasion is criminal in and of itself, and each additional enhancement to the filter evasion technique should map to a corresponding enhancement of the sentence.

  • Double standard? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuperDry ( 636335 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @12:16PM (#8022073)
    It's amazing how much vehemence against spammers is shown in the posts above. "Let's castrate them" "I hope they get raped for years on end." Yet, whenever there's an attempt to do anything to stem the tide of illegal file sharing or other content theft, the same federal government is portrayed as a bunch of out-of-control jackbooted monsters. The contrast is amazing to me.

    • Re:Double standard? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Queuetue ( 156269 )
      There are a whole lot of reasons for that, but one of the largest is that:

      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)

    by suso ( 153703 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @12:26PM (#8022186) Journal
    Despite how emotional I can get about spam and spammers. I think a reasonable sentence would be maybe a year in prison but then have your computer use suspended for 5-10 years. That would hopefully at least get rid of some of the spam for a while.
  • One lash for every spam sent out.

    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)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @01:04PM (#8022600) Homepage
    A basic truth about white-collar crime is that even short jail terms are a huge deterrent. The important thing is not to just impose fines. Those are considered a business expense by crooks. But a few sentences of a year or two of prison, and word gets around.

    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.)

  • 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!

  • Here are a few sugestions
    • Take a cue from our overvelous drug laws and allow the seizure of all equipment used to violate the CAN SPAM act and/or purchased with profits from said violations.
    • Prohibit ISPs (US Based ones at least) from offering net access to convicted spamers for a significant period (i.e. 5 years for the first violation, 20 years for the second, life for the third)
    • Crippling fines (i.e. $10,000 per message)
    • Prison terms for repeat offenders
    • If any other laws were violated in the process o

  • Seriously (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tacocat ( 527354 ) <tallison1 AT twmi DOT rr DOT com> on Monday January 19, 2004 @01:24PM (#8022807)

    Nothing is going to take any affect until they incorporate at least some of these items into the CAN SPAM law

    1. Recipients of SPAM can take legal action, they do not have to wait for their ISP to do it
    2. Spammers can be charged on a per incident bases of a minimum of $1,000 each
    3. ISPs who do not close down OpenRelay and Proxy mail servers within their subnets can be fined $10,000 for each incident server that is not removed from service within 24 hours of discovery.
    4. ISPs shall incorporate 24-hour based port scans of all their customer computers. As part of the DHCP process, they shall conduct an OpenRelay and Proxy check against their customer computers.

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close