First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

[Guest jim]

It's not a public hanging.....but its a start.....

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Virginia's Supreme Court on Friday upheld the first US felony conviction

for spamming. The spammer will serve nine years in prison for sending what

authorities believe to be millions of messages over a two-month period in

2003.

Jeremy Jaynes is the man who will make history. A Raleigh, North Carolina,

resident who made Spamhaus' top 10 list of spammers, Jaynes was arrested in

2003 even before the CAN SPAM act was passed by Congress. Jaynes was

convicted in 2005, but his lawyers appealed the conviction. This past

Friday, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld that conviction, but the vote was

a narrow 4-3. ..."

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

Read the whole thing at http://tinyurl.com/2xsebg.

 

jim

[Guest Holz]

Re: First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

 

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 01:46:06 -0500

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

> It's not a public hanging.....but its a start.....

 

Definitely a good one.

 

--

Live & let live, or leave.

:-)

[Guest PaulMaudib]

Re: First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

 

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 01:46:06 -0500, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

>It's not a public hanging.....but its a start.....

>

>-------------------------------------------------------------

>

>"Virginia's Supreme Court on Friday upheld the first US felony conviction

>for spamming. The spammer will serve nine years in prison for sending what

>authorities believe to be millions of messages over a two-month period in

>2003.

>Jeremy Jaynes is the man who will make history. A Raleigh, North Carolina,

>resident who made Spamhaus' top 10 list of spammers, Jaynes was arrested in

>2003 even before the CAN SPAM act was passed by Congress. Jaynes was

>convicted in 2005, but his lawyers appealed the conviction. This past

>Friday, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld that conviction, but the vote was

>a narrow 4-3. ..."

>

>-------------------------------------------------------------

>

>Read the whole thing at http://tinyurl.com/2xsebg.

>

>jim

>

I doubt this will stop hear. I"m sure his lawyers will petition this

all the way up to the Supreme Court, if it will hear it.

[Guest Timothy Daniels]

Re: First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

 

"PaulMaudib" wrote:

> I doubt this will stop hear. I"m sure his lawyers will petition this

> all the way up to the Supreme Court, if it will hear it.

 

 

I am uneasy about this conviction. It *is* an infringement of

free speach rights. Why wasn't his ISP convicted, too? Certainly

the ISP was aware of the high volume of traffic coming from

this guy's account. I think it would be much more effective to

simply charge for email. One tenth of a cent for each outgoing

email would put the spammers out of business and it wouldn't

impact 99.99% of normal users.

 

*TimDaniels*

[Guest Three Lefts]

Re: First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

 

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:49:24 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"

<NoSpam@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:

>"PaulMaudib" wrote:

>> I doubt this will stop hear. I"m sure his lawyers will petition this

>> all the way up to the Supreme Court, if it will hear it.

>

>

> I am uneasy about this conviction.

 

Awwww...

>It *is* an infringement of free speech rights.

 

Baloney. Spam is a violation of my privacy. I say string 'em up. These

guys are flagrant violators. They are parasites.

>Why wasn't his ISP convicted, too?

 

And let's prosecute GM for all drink driving fatalities in GM cars,

right?

>Certainly

>the ISP was aware of the high volume of traffic coming from

>this guy's account. I think it would be much more effective to

>simply charge for email. One tenth of a cent for each outgoing

>email would put the spammers out of business and it wouldn't

>impact 99.99% of normal users.

 

Maybe, maybe not. An even better solution is for the technical world

to solve it with software. But they won't do it because it would also

limit less flagrant spammers like Yahoo and Google. I bet the big

advertisers (ie, legit spammers) are glad to have these egregious

violaters out there so they don't look so bad.

[Guest jim]

Re: First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

 

 

"Timothy Daniels" <NoSpam@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message

news:%23PFNJnZfIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> "PaulMaudib" wrote:

>> I doubt this will stop hear. I"m sure his lawyers will petition this

>> all the way up to the Supreme Court, if it will hear it.

>

>

> I am uneasy about this conviction. It *is* an infringement of

> free speach rights.

 

You don't have the right to force your speech on me. You cannot come into

my home and toss flyers about or spray paint a message on my walls...and you

shouldn't be able to do it in my inbox either.

 

While we're at it, lets have a do not mail list to eliminate all of the

garbase sent to our snail mail boxes as well. We'd save trees, time and

aggravation.

> Why wasn't his ISP convicted, too? Certainly

> the ISP was aware of the high volume of traffic coming from

> this guy's account.

 

Most ISPs do stop these kinds of abuses (or try to). There are still ways

around systems and, even though the article does not give specific

information on "how" he did it, I would assume that he used AOL member names

that he did not own to send the emails. (Remember that AOL has had member

names and passwords stolen on many occassions and most security breeches are

not made public.)

> I think it would be much more effective to

> simply charge for email. One tenth of a cent for each outgoing

> email would put the spammers out of business and it wouldn't

> impact 99.99% of normal users.

 

Sure it would impact us. We'd be paying to stop you from breaking the law.

 

I am a huge advocate of using white lists with free products like

Spamfighter to block all email from all email addresses not in your white

list.

 

Of course I am also an advocate of the public hangings of rapists,

murderers, child molesters and spammers.

 

jim

[Guest Timothy Daniels]

Re: First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

 

"jim" wrote:

> While we're at it, lets have a do not mail list to eliminate all of the

> garbase sent to our snail mail boxes as well. We'd save trees, time

> and aggravation.

 

The junk flyers in my mailbox annoy me, too. BUT... I also

know that it's the junk flyers that keep down the cost of snail

mail delivery. You always gotta pay somewhere to get what

you want.

 

> Most ISPs do stop these kinds of abuses (or try to)...

 

Many ISPs give lip service to eleiminating spammers,

but when it comes to really doing something, they get real

slow. It seems that they make money off all the traffic...

I'm not talking about your measely residential retail

accounts that are the targets of spam. I'm talking about

the commercial bulk accounts that spammers pay big money

for to trunkline their junk onto the backbone networks and

thence to their mailbots.

 

>> I think it would be much more effective to

>> simply charge for email. One tenth of a cent for each outgoing

>> email would put the spammers out of business and it wouldn't

>> impact 99.99% of normal users.

>

> Sure it would impact us. We'd be paying to stop you from breaking the law.

 

 

Why do you now speak as if *I* am a spammer? I am

not a spammer, but I *am* more interested in adherence to the

constitution than to junk in my emailbox. If it costs me 5 cents

more per month for my outgoing email in order to keep spam

out of my emailbox, it's certainly a lot cheaper than hunting down,

prosecuting, and imprisoning spammers. It has probably cost

millions of dollars to convict the currently touted spammer, and

he's still not in prison, and his colleagues are still spamming. Was

it worth those millions of dollars? Like I said, you always gotta

pay somewhere to get what you want. If you pay for anti-virus

software, why not pay a tiny bit more to send email if it will cut

down the spam?

 

*TimDaniels*

[Guest jim]

Re: First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

 

 

"Timothy Daniels" <NoSpam@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message

news:uLY80rkfIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> "jim" wrote:

>> While we're at it, lets have a do not mail list to eliminate all of the

>> garbase sent to our snail mail boxes as well. We'd save trees, time

>> and aggravation.

>

> The junk flyers in my mailbox annoy me, too. BUT... I also

> know that it's the junk flyers that keep down the cost of snail

> mail delivery. You always gotta pay somewhere to get what

> you want.

 

<snipped - on advice of legal counsel>

>> Most ISPs do stop these kinds of abuses (or try to)...

>

> Many ISPs give lip service to eleiminating spammers,

> but when it comes to really doing something, they get real

> slow. It seems that they make money off all the traffic...

> I'm not talking about your measely residential retail

> accounts that are the targets of spam. I'm talking about

> the commercial bulk accounts that spammers pay big money

> for to trunkline their junk onto the backbone networks and

> thence to their mailbots.

 

Most spammers now use the legions of bots put out by spammers to accomplish

thier goals. Its more effective, faster and a hell of a lot harder to catch

and prosecute the offenders. This guy was just stupid (or really greedy)

and got himself busted.

>>> I think it would be much more effective to

>>> simply charge for email. One tenth of a cent for each outgoing

>>> email would put the spammers out of business and it wouldn't

>>> impact 99.99% of normal users.

>>

>> Sure it would impact us. We'd be paying to stop you from breaking the

>> law.

>

>

> Why do you now speak as if *I* am a spammer? I am

> not a spammer, but I *am* more interested in adherence to the

> constitution than to junk in my emailbox.

 

What you really mean is that you are willing to pay a little if government

makes everyone else pay a little more too - which is so unconstitutional

that I don't even know where to begin in criticising this email tax you are

dreaming of.

> If it costs me 5 cents

> more per month for my outgoing email in order to keep spam

> out of my emailbox, it's certainly a lot cheaper than hunting down,

> prosecuting, and imprisoning spammers. It has probably cost

> millions of dollars to convict the currently touted spammer, and

> he's still not in prison, and his colleagues are still spamming. Was

> it worth those millions of dollars? Like I said, you always gotta

> pay somewhere to get what you want. If you pay for anti-virus

> software, why not pay a tiny bit more to send email if it will cut

> down the spam?

 

In your pious posting about your willingness to pay to stop spam, I noticed

that you completely ignored the free solution of a white list and

Spamfighter (which is free for home use). Why? Why is yet another tax the

solution?

 

You remind me of the millionaires (like Warren Buffet) that piously claim

that they don't pay enough taxes, yet, when invited to write a check to the

government to ease their burdened souls, they fall strangely silent (and

stingy).

 

There is an alternative to this ever-increasing email tax of which you

speak....publicly hang the offenders convicted of spamming. The more you

hang, the less spam you'll see - especially from repeat offenders.

 

People do what they can get away with (or feel that they can get away with).

If they really believe that they will be caught and hanged, they'll be less

likely to engage in this behavior.

 

At least in the hang-the-spammer model, after a brief spike, the costs

eventually go down. With your email tax (as with every other government

program in history) the costs only rise while the effectiveness wanes.

 

jim

[Guest Timothy Daniels]

Re: First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

 

"jim" wrote:

> What you really mean is that you are willing to pay a little

> if government makes everyone else pay a little more too -

> which is so unconstitutional that I don't even know where

> to begin in criticising this email tax you are dreaming of.

 

 

Never in this thread or others did I ever propose that

*government* impose a tax on sent email. You imagine

so much more than you actually read. Since the ISPs

spend to much money shipping spam around the country

and they spend so much money to pay services to filter it

out of their customer's email, and that spam bogs down their

mail servers, it would be very simple, cost effective and

appropriate for the ISPs to charge 0.01 cent per email that

they send for their customers. That would allow them to

keep down the direct cost of their service while eliminating

the incentive to spam.

 

> In your pious posting about your willingness to pay to stop spam,

> I noticed that you completely ignored the free solution of a white list

> and Spamfighter (which is free for home use). Why? Why is yet

> another tax the solution?

 

 

"Pious"? You imagine so much more than you actually read.

And if white lists were so easy to use and so effective, why hasn't

it stopped spam?

 

> You remind me of the millionaires (like Warren Buffet)...

 

 

Correction: "Billionaires". But I'm flattered. Thank you.

 

> There is an alternative to this ever-increasing email tax of which you

> speak....

 

 

Again, you imagine so much more than you actually read.

 

> publicly hang the offenders convicted of spamming.

 

 

Ummm. yes... Off the deep end, I see. Take care.

 

*TimDaniels*

[Guest C.Joseph S. Drayton]

Re: First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

 

I have to start by saying that I hate spam as much as most people.

 

Unforutnately, the implications of this ruling are going to create a

lot of argument and discussion.

 

About 20 years ago, you could tell your mailperson that you did not

want any mail that did not have your name on it. Bulk mail advertizers

had a fit. Their position was that what the Post Office doing that was

'restraint of trade'. The USPS capitulated. Since then my mail box

always has unsolicited ads and flyers in it. Even my 'private mail box'

refuses to block mail addressed to 'resident' pieces of mail.

 

I hate spam, but where does my right to be left alone 'end' and where

does a retailers right to market their goods 'begin'.

 

Right now I would just like them to make the sending of unsolicited

'adult' material illegal since the spammer has no way of knowing

whether the e-mail address they are sending the unsolicited spam to

belongs to an adult.

 

--

 

Sincerely,

C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T

 

CSD Computer Services

Web site: http://csdcs.tlerma.com/

E-mail: csdcs@tlerma.com

[Guest Three Lefts]

Re: First spam felony conviction upheld: no free speech to spam

 

On 05 Mar 2008 19:10:12 GMT, "C.Joseph S. Drayton" <csdcs@tlerma.com>

wrote:

>I have to start by saying that I hate spam as much as most people.

>

>Unforutnately, the implications of this ruling are going to create a

>lot of argument and discussion.

>

>About 20 years ago, you could tell your mailperson that you did not

>want any mail that did not have your name on it. Bulk mail advertizers

>had a fit. Their position was that what the Post Office doing that was

>'restraint of trade'. The USPS capitulated. Since then my mail box

>always has unsolicited ads and flyers in it. Even my 'private mail box'

>refuses to block mail addressed to 'resident' pieces of mail.

>

>I hate spam, but where does my right to be left alone 'end' and where

>does a retailers right to market their goods 'begin'.

 

In a society that is not run by commercial special interests, your

right to block unwanted mail, ermail, phone calls, doorbell rings,

etc., would be 100% up to you -- with the exception of police and fire

people and the like.

 

In this society, if you do not have money to donate to (ie, purchase)

a politician, you have no rights, so find something useful to do with

the junk mail.

>Right now I would just like them to make the sending of unsolicited

>'adult' material illegal since the spammer has no way of knowing

>whether the e-mail address they are sending the unsolicited spam to

>belongs to an adult.