Spammer Scott Levine Convicted 266
bani writes "Spammer Scott Levine was convicted of massive data theft from Acxiom Corporation. Prosecutors say his company, the now-defunct Snipermail.com, stole 1.6 billion customer records from Acxiom and sold the data. He faces a maximum of 640 years in prison under the law, though he will likely be sentenced to far less. One spammer down, several million to go?"
They should be lienient on him (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They should be lienient on him (Score:2)
Re:They should be lienient on him (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah no, i'd give the rapist 640 years. Spammer still deserves 64.
Re:They should be lienient on him (Score:3, Insightful)
But until rapists are given life sentences the law is being applied disproportionately. We all hate spam here, but no rational person is going to compare ANY amount of spam to something as hideous as a single rape or murder. I stress no RATIONAL person, because this being Slashdot there are undoubtedly a number of loons who'll argue that a rape is somehow less of a crime than persistent spamming.
Max
Re:They should be lienient on him (Score:2)
Re:They should be lienient on him (Score:2)
Uh-Oh. Don't try to weigh the intangible, unquantifiable damage to a person's life against the trivial damage done by spammers. Last checked, we don't have a money worth for human life, peace of mind, etc, there is no generally accepted amount or point at which people will agree that a crime against enough property is every bit as bad as a crime against humanity...
A more appropriate crime to compare spamming against would be grand theft, because it is a theft of time, resources, capitalizing a produ
Re:They should be lienient on him (Score:2)
You are a sick, twisted individual. Such views are fascistic. I bet you want to murder old people and the mentally disabled, like Hitler did, don't you? Oh that's right you "would never do such a thing", but you wouldn't mind so much if someone else did, eh? Sicko.
Re:They should be lienient on him (Score:2)
Re:They should be lienient on him (Score:2)
Undeniable or not, it isn't how normal human beings assess crimes or their punishment. Normal human beings know that crimes that cause real physical or emotional harm are far more evil than incidental fiscal crimes like spamming. Your view of the crimes in question isn't normal nor, in my opinion, psychologically well-adjusted.
Max
Re:They should be lienient on him (Score:2)
The issue at hand isn't "the well being of society", but whether or not the crime of spamming is somehow worse than the crime of rape. Your strawmen don't interest me.
The fact is that any normal human being would never equate the two, much less demand that the monetary value of the crimes should be their determining factor in how evil they happen to be. Rape is hands down a far greater evil than
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They should be lienient on him (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/ram/logic-c.html [pcguide.com]
Re:The problem with computers (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a good point. The law seems to be intent on treating computer-related offences identically with "physical" crimes, although the notion of number of counts makes much less sense in the electronic context
Re:The problem with computers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The problem with computers (Score:2)
Re:The problem with computers (Score:2)
Re:The problem with computers (Score:2)
Are you a member of congress?
What about blind people? (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder if there is a way to change email, so before any email is passed on, there is some visual confermation that has to be entered by the sender.
Then the League for the Blind presses charges, you go to jail for violating the Rehabilitation Act and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (or foreign counterparts), and once you're in prison, you get sexually assaulted by a blind man.
Re:The problem with computers (Score:3, Insightful)
Not one red cent. She was questioned in an investigation and lied to the investigators. At no time was she read her rights, at no time was she told she was a suspect and she was never charged with a crime because of the investigation. All she was charged with was lying to protect herself. She was set up just like the victims of AbScam and just like John Delorean. Entrapment, pure and simple.
Re:The problem with computers (Score:3, Insightful)
Lying to investigators is not entrapment, it is obstruction of justice.
Re:The problem with computers (Score:2)
Don't talk to the police. If they want to "ask you a few questions" just say "no, thanks". If they want to talk to you, they probably consider you a suspect, and they can and will use everything you say against you if they possibly can.
Refuse to answer any questions but your name.
Can we get his cellmate's (Score:5, Funny)
640 years? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:640 years? (Score:2)
Re:640 years? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:640 years? (Score:2)
A real prison sentence. (Score:5, Insightful)
640 years?! (Score:5, Insightful)
"We're very pleased with the outcome. We think it's the appropriate verdict," U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins said outside U.S. District Court.
As much as I dislike spammers, is 640 years appropriate for one man? He didn't even kill anyone. Maybe he should have gotten something more brutal, like 64000 hours of community service...as a tech support operator!
Re:640 years?! (Score:2)
Remember that the US legal system likes the idea of consecutive sentences. 640 years would be roughly 12 seconds per customer record stolen.
Re:640 years?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:640 years?! (Score:2)
I wouldn't be opposed to, lets say, breaking their fingers, or behaviorally programming them to crap their pants whenever they come within 5' of a computer input device (including keyboards, mice, keypads for ATMs, etc).
Sentence? Just Hit Delete! (Score:5, Interesting)
He didn't? Let's assume (conservatively), that he sent out one spam per customer record he stole. 1.6 billion spams. Let's further assume that it takes a human being one second to "Just Hit Delete". 1.6 billion person-seconds wasted. 444,444 person-hours wasted. 18,518 person-days wasted. 50 person-years if you're working 24/7. At 8 hours a day, that's the entire productive lifespan of three people. Three lives - stolen just as effectively as if he'd killed them.
> Maybe he should have gotten something more brutal, like 64000 hours of community service...as a tech support operator!
64,000 hours, at 8 hours a day, is 40000 days, or 218 years, so you're not too far off the 640-year mark.
640 years ought to be enough for anybody, but what I'd really like to see is to have him locked in a cell, "Just Hitting Delete", once for every spam he sent, for 16 waking hours a day.
Four or five times a day, an email with a From: line like "Your Warden", "Health Services", or "Cafeteria" with a Subject: line such as "Extended recreation hours!", "Take a break!", or "Lunchtime!" will appear.
He has to reply to this mail to get an hour of exercise, have his medical checkups, or his meals.
Hey, it's just spam, right? Doesn't hurt anyone, right? Just delete it, right? Well, if he hasn't starved to death when he runs out of 1.6 billion spams on which to Just Hit Delete, he can walk away a free man.
Re:Sentence? Just Hit Delete! (Score:3, Informative)
Your numbers are off. 64,000 hours at 16 hours a day is 4,000 days, or 11 years. That's a reasonable sentence. The work could be laying bricks in Siberia or digging irrigation ditches in the Sahara. Five minute water/food break at lunchtime. Perhaps a toilet break mid-afternoon.
Re:Sentence? Just Hit Delete! (Score:2)
Re:Sentence? Just Hit Delete! (Score:2)
Re:Sentence? Just Hit Delete! (Score:2)
Yes, it's true for lots of people. There's a catch, though. Sometimes one "ham" mail gets misclassified as spam. You should always make a quick check to make sure that you have no false possitives. That somehow defeats the purpose o
Re:640 years?! (Score:2)
Anyway, this is Slashdot. A few years ago when people here actually understood computers, they might have agreed with you (spamming isn't murder, it isn't rape, it shouldn't be sentenced as severely as either).
It'd still be a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, spammers are cowards - and greedy cowards, for that matter. They do what they do to get rich quick, so the prospect losing their money in lawsuits and possibly going to jail afterwards will scare them quite a bit.
Re:It'd still be a victory (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's what every criminal thinks before they commit a crime: "I'm not gonna get caught. I didn't get caught last time, I won't get caught next time either. They're never gonna catch me."
That is, if they even think at all. Most of the time, you'd actually have to ask them in person beforehand.
And moreover, they're not cowards, they're sociopaths. Like used car salesmen. Or Dogbert.
640 years? (Score:2)
Re:640 years? (Score:2)
sentencing (Score:2, Funny)
"You are hereby sentenced to 640 years in jail, with parole in nine months"
ah, the law is an ass..
Federal Parole was abolished.... (Score:2)
From LectLaw URL [lectlaw.com] (emphasis added):
Far less?? (Score:2)
250 years?
Not Millions (Score:5, Informative)
Heh. (Score:2, Funny)
Billy says... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Billy says... (Score:2, Redundant)
To boot Microsoft Vista or just to wait for Longhorn to come out?
POLL: what do you call 50 spammers in jail? (Score:4, Funny)
2. Not nearly enough.
3. What's wrong with a firing squad?
4. You mean those Pen1s En1argement Pi11s don't work???
Re:POLL: what do you call 50 spammers in jail? (Score:2)
Re:POLL: what do you call 50 spammers in jail? (Score:2)
6). Just Hit Delete!
7). A change on the lunch menu.
8). But Warden, I don't have anythig to do with all the spam you get today. Just click remove me, OW, OW that's really rough, OW, wow, OW, oh you're in a mood today...
Thanks, I'm here all week,
-- RLJ
The problem (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as their is money in it, people will try their hardest to do it. It will be very hard to stop in the end, as for every spammer who goes down... 10 new kids with a copy of a mailing script pop up.
What would be better is taking down the companies who fund the illegal mail by paying comissions on the products advertised, no spammer would risk jail if they weren't getting paid.
And Acxiom was charged with..? (Score:5, Insightful)
How much did they pay consumers for not protecting their data..?
What new standards did they have to agree to with the government..?
What happened to Axciom? (Score:3, Interesting)
The article seemed to imply that the snipermail spammers initially got access to more records than they were supposed to have because of something Axciom did (this isn't clear) before they started breaking passwords to get even more data. Where are the 600+ year prison terms for the Axciom management?
Spam conviction or Theft? (Score:4, Insightful)
While i agree with most here that spam sux, there is a difference between being convicted of spamming and convicted of being a common thief.
So dont get too happy yet shouting 'spammers are toast'.
"One spammer down, several million to go?" (Score:5, Informative)
According to spamhaus only about 200 individuals are responsible for nearly all the spam in the world. I know that seems incredible but they are in a position to know.
Re:"One spammer down, several million to go?" (Score:2)
95% of spam from a small number of people. (Score:4, Interesting)
"One spammer down, several million to go?"
I heard that less than 200 people account for about 95% of all spam.
They should hand out these punishments.... (Score:2)
Re:They should hand out these punishments.... (Score:2)
It has to be said... (Score:3, Funny)
ant mound (Score:3, Insightful)
As bad as they are, a violent criminal only disturbs a small segment of society.
So a data 'thief' is like a lawn mower and a violent criminal is like an ant eater.
From TFA, stolen from an unprotected computer? (Score:2, Interesting)
"There is no evidence that any individuals are at risk of harm due to the breaches," the company said. "It is also important to note that only one external server was accessed, and there was no intrusion of Acxiom's internal security firewalls or internal databases."
"The 1.6 billion records included names, home addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, bank and credit card numbers"
HAhaahahhahhahhaahahahaha. Yeah. what an excuse, no internal server was breached. And WTF was an "external" server d
The economics of spam (Score:2)
I was talking with a friend of mine who runs a mortgage brokering business. He does NOT advertise online, he mostly does it by word of mouth and trade shows (especially the bridal ones, people getting married seem to be in the house market more often than not).
Each client earns him a little over $1000 US on average (I hadn't realized it was so much, I always assumed it was a few hundred), in other words each person he closes a mortgage with is worth quite a bit of money. This means that for a spam run of
Re:Oh did he really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most children know that stealing is taking something that does not belong to you, regardless of whether it is a copy or the original item.
Stealing has a lot to do with intent as well. If I take the wrong coat at a restaurant, I deprived it from someone else, but I didn't have the intent to do so, so it isn't stealing.
Besides, even by your deifinition, it IS stealing. The records were private, once they were copie
Re:Oh did he really? (Score:2)
OK, quote some laws then, because that opinion looks a lot like bullshit to me.
For example, the Theft Act 1968:
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly."
Re:Oh did he really? (Score:3, Informative)
"OK, quote some laws then, because that opinion looks a lot like bullshit to me."
You're losing your way by -- as many, many Slashdotters do -- ignoring colloquial use and making the assumption that a law book is the only valid source here. This argument falls down when you think of all the other colloquialisms that are out there: for example, no lawbook will contain the phrase "kiddy porn" but we all know what it means.
English is a great, big, colorful language. We have "stolen kisses," "stealing yo
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Very likely, you and I both have been affected by this man Scott Levine. Even our mothers have been spammed directly or indirectly by this greedy crook. But do you have any scars? Are any of us haunted from the experience and receiving therapy for what he's done? He's been convicted of personal data theft, but have you been any more than inconvenience in an ancillary way? I doubt it.
Yeah, he deserves time in the
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Each of these scenarios still cost somebody (a user or ISP or some company's IT department) some money & time per message to handle, however.
Even with a VERY conservative estimate of $0.001 per message (a bit lower than wha
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Informative)
From what I've read, I have it pretty easy. Many people get a lot more than 50 a day. The time loss goes up when you count the mental context switching. Without the filters, I'd lose about an hour a day. I bill clients $125/hr for doing real work. That's a loss of $45,625 in billable time per year. With the filters active, I only process about 7 a day, so I only lose around $5,300 in billables.
Yeah, me too.Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
If you really take a whole freaking minute per spam mail to tweak your mail filters, you might want to improve your spam "workflow". Modern mail filters don't need anywher
Great. Another JHDist. (Score:2)
Perhaps you missed the point about mental context switching. Or perhaps you're just an apologist. Whatever.
The salient point is that any time lost to spam is too much. Spam is trespass and theft of services. It eats my time, my CPU, my bandwidth and my diskspace (because I have to be able to recover from false positives). Even with your optimistic time projections, the loss
Re:Great. Another JHDist. (Score:2)
And like I said earlier, I'm certainly not defending him, all I'm trying is to inch towards a reasonable estimation of the damages. And the original posters estimation was just way off - or at least badly reasoned. I don't want
Re:Great. Another JHDist. (Score:2)
No, these are not equivalent. Both the phone network and the postal service have effective measures in place to at least reduce unwanted traffic. The national Do Not Call list and postal policies restrict junk mailers and callers, and they have legal teeth that can be (and have been) used to penalize offenders. Notably, both th
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Come on people. No one here seriously believes this fool is going to get 640 years. Realistically he might get 10 years and be out in 2 or 3. Wouldn't surprise me if he got 10 years and a suspended sentence with a big fat ass fine that he can't pay.
Of course I really doubt that I would lose any sleep if they frog marched him in front of a firing squad.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
1) In what US city are you not within blocks of an elementery school? There are 2 schools within 1/4 mile of my house. That doesn't count 1 high school and 1 middle school.
2) Many sex offender lists are hopelessly outdated. People have had to post signs or move because their house is on the list and they are constantly harassed.Link [hamptonroads.com]
3) Most people on the sexual offenders list were lis
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
There crime is not selling the product, it's how they choose to market it. If I hire a thug to threaten people unless they join a union isn't that illegal marketing of a legal enterprise? By paying the spammer they are complicit in the crime.
Re:Well, if the dude (Score:2)
Re:Well, if the dude (Score:2)
I know I wouldn't trust any eMail related to financial services and would prefer calling over clicking some links for anything worth worrying about.
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
Yes, 640 years is extreme. But, prison is totally appropriate for the crime.
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
His goal here in spamming is to get money quick. Take away his fortune - lesson learned. What would removing his freedoms for 5 years do? If you try him in court, remove his assets, that's punishment enough.
Trust me, a millionaire couldn't STAND to be separated from his money - that is punishment enough.
I mean really, prison shouldn't even be a consideration for something like this.
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
I don't think prison will stop him. He'll just find some other scheme when he gets out.
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
We put other people who commit fraud and steal things in jail. He is no different. End of story.
Or, do you propose that everybody who steals things and commits fraud not be in jail?
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
It's vigilanteism - and you just proved my point.
Thanks!
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
Next time, instead of working yourself into an indignant rage and looking like an uninformed asshat, at least take the time to know what you
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
If you weren't such a dumbfuck and would take your head out of your ass for just ONE minute, you might take a second to think and wonder why the fuck they came up with 640.
Regardless, my point is perfectly valid.
Next time think about your response before typing it out only to look like a complete fuckup.
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
I dunno, but something like 45,000 hours of community service shoveling shit at the local police department's mounted unit or cleaning sewers of "obstructions" would be something that most people would be happy with. Of course, if you skip town or whatever, throw them in the clink.
Fine? Fuck no, but perhaps jail isn't the best thing for all situations.
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
2. Civil penalties have consistently demonstrated to be completely ineffective against spammers. They are either unintimidated by civil penalties, or there is no real incentive for civil prosecution of spammers because in most cases it costs more to take legal action than you can collect from the spammer under any circumstances.
You do the crime, you do the time. This guy deserves to
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
Trust me, you think it's "only" 2.5 million, but if you have that much money, you become accustomed to living a certain way, spending certain amounts, etc. If you take that foundation away from those people, TRUST me, it would be a complete mindfuck.
Take all of YOUR assets, your li
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
Talk to a lawyer about civil penalties. Ask him how easy it is to dance around and get out of paying things. In situations like this, these people don't have the money to pay the fines. They are specialists and hiding their income and resources. Civil penalties don't mean squat
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
Actually, I in fact, do. If you cannot play nice in soceity, then get fucked.
I would also make sure they were in a population of murderers and rapists who were fairly modern and had used the internet.
Then I would give a carton of smokes to any convict who ass-raped the spammer so badly that said spammer had spend a week sleeping on his stomach with his ass elevat
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
Sorry you fit the mold oh so well.
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
I have never prettended to beleive that i do not think spammers should rot in jail.
Definitions:
hypocrite: A person given to hypocrisy.
hypocrisy: when someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:
more Definitions:
Dumbfuck: A person that throws words around with exclamation points that only have a vague idea what that word means.
Re:You people are hypocrites. (Score:2)
I agree that he should not be "sitting in a prison". He should be put to hard labor, so that even if he somehow got hold of a computer he would be too physically exhausted to press the key to initiate a spam run.
Re:A question about the justice system (Score:2)
Re:Free Speech (Score:2)
It's commercial speech that is forced upon us... Forced in the sense that the speaker is asking you to pay for the infrastructure and the resources required for them to speak.
I have no issues at all with free speech. However, I do have an issue with someone's speech not being free (as in beer) for the recipient. This is why Junk Faxes [keytlaw.com] are illegal.
Re:640 years isn't that long (Score:2)
Thanks,
Billy G