Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Spam Crime The Courts IT Your Rights Online

A Spamming Attorney Gets Sentenced To 40 Months 131

Posted by timothy
from the should-have-to-pay-rent dept.
www.sorehands.com writes "While one spammer, Robert Soloway, gets released on probation, the Feds send another, Robert Smoley, to the slammer for 40 months. I know about Smoley because I tracked him down, and beat him in court. Not only was he an attorney, he still has not lost his license, yet. The IRS contacted me as a result of seeing my web site, and I gladly assisted the IRS in tracking his business. He not only bounced a check on me, but stiffed his local counsel and one of his ISPs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Spamming Attorney Gets Sentenced To 40 Months

Comments Filter:
  • Not for spamming (Score:5, Informative)

    by HLJ76 (2007462) on Sunday March 06, 2011 @02:25PM (#35398624)

    According to the linked Miami Herald article, he got sentenced for running an online pharmacy, not for spamming. Big change in tone of the article. Spamming just lead to some one being annoyed enough at the guy to help the IRS track him down.

  • Re:idiotic laws (Score:4, Informative)

    by tomhudson (43916) <barbara...hudson@@@barbara-hudson...com> on Sunday March 06, 2011 @02:45PM (#35398800) Journal
    He went to jail for purchasing half a million dollars in pharmaceutical drugs from a DEA undercover agent.

    He was running an illegal online pharmacy.

    The writer of the article had previously gotten a judgment against the guy for spamming.

  • Re:bounced checks? (Score:4, Informative)

    by micheas (231635) on Sunday March 06, 2011 @02:51PM (#35398872) Homepage Journal

    He sued the spammer and won.

    The spammer wrote a bad check to him as payment.

  • Re:bounced checks? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 06, 2011 @02:56PM (#35398916)

    Link to the court-ordered judgement, please. I don't think you're following exactly what happened.

    I'm starting to think you're trolling, as you're coming across as deliberately dense, but here ya go. [barbieslapp.com]

  • Re:Why is spam evil? (Score:4, Informative)

    by mewshi_nya (1394329) on Sunday March 06, 2011 @04:08PM (#35399528)

    For starters, all that spam is basically junk mail where the sender didn't pay any postage. It's an abuse of the system in a lot of ways:
    1) the strain it puts on the network (all those e-mails take up a good chunk of space)
    2) the strain it puts on the mail servers (both in terms of processing to remove junk mail and in terms of hard drive space)
    3) the fact that a significant portion of spam is sent by botnets without the users' knowledge

    As to why people on /. hate it more... just think of how many people on this site have to spend hours trying to fix/update/manage their server's spam filters.

  • Is spam really an epidemic?

    Yes, it is

    We have simple means to block almost all spam

    But we pay a nontrivial cost for those filters. Even if you only use gmail for email, and you trust the "free" google filters, you are still paying for them. The cost is passed down to the consumer to pay for bandwidth, CPU time, storage space, and of course updates to filter rules.

    If everyone is inoculated against something, so nobody is thereby being infected with said virus, is it really still an "epidemic"?

    That is not a fair comparison and I'll tell you why.

    When we began inoculation against polio, we eventually wiped out the virus from the main population. The virus could not spread and could not infect (of course now it may be coming back but that is a different situation). The cost of polio dropped to almost nothing because in the developed world people no longer were infected by the virus.

    On the other hand, people all over the world are constantly paying the cost of spam. Just because they don't see (much of) it doesn't mean it no longer exists. Spam still consumes bandwidth, storage, and CPU time. And of course we need to also consider the false positive rate of spam filtering; the lost productivity and economic progress that we pay for as a result of legitimate email that is errantly thrown out as spam by filtering techniques. Those who believe in filters have to update their filters because the spammers are constantly finding new ways to get around them. Even if the average person sees very few spam emails in a year, it doesn't mean they don't have to pay for them.

    And the fact that so many people are oblivious to what spam costs them may in some ways be even worse.

    So in other words, yes. Spam is still very much an epidemic. It will cease to be an epidemic when spam is no longer sent; regardless of whether or not it is viewed.

All this wheeling and dealing around, why, it isn't for money, it's for fun. Money's just the way we keep score. -- Henry Tyroon

Working...