First Felony Spam Trial Gets Underway 43
Iphtashu Fitz writes "Three people faced a judge in Virginia today to answer felony charges for allegedly sending millions of spams touting to AOL users. The defendants are being tried under a 2003 Virginia anti-spam law that prosecutors say is the harshest of its kind in the nation. If convicted on all counts they each face up to 15 years in prison. Prosecutors allege that one of the defendants attempted to send 7.7 million spams in a single day that touted penny stocks and software to let people work at home as a "FedEx refund processor". Defense lawyers contend that the prosecutors will be unable to prove that the defendants intentionally masked the origin of the spam nor that it was unsolicited. The defense was also concerned that the jury pool might not be objective if it was filled with AOL users."
AOL (Score:5, Funny)
Judge: Has the jury reached a verdict?
Spokesperson: We have.
Judge: How do you find?
Spokesperson: LOL! gUiLtY like totally! ROFL! wanna cyber?
Re:AOL (Score:2)
Re:AOL (Score:3, Funny)
Or even...
Juror #1: Guilty...
Juror #2: Me too!
Juror #3: Me too!
...
Re:AOL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SEC (Score:2)
Only if there is a misrepresentation or fraudulent intent involved.
If the email consisted of "I bought this stock with my own money because I'm convinced that it will go up. I think that you should purchase it too."
Where is the SEC violation?
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SEC (Score:2)
And I'm sure that the SEC took every one of them seriously. But as long as there is no misrepresentation, there isn't anything that the SEC can do.
LK
Re:SEC (Score:1)
It's pretty much impossible to do a pump and dump without misrepresentation, duh.
Impartial jury? (Score:5, Insightful)
But this is one case where I wouldn't mind having the defendents tarred and feathered...
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop putting people in jail for smoking a joint or sending spam.
Does someone, regardless of the amount of spam they send, really deserve a decade or two in prison? Take out the "I hate spam" part of it. Just based on crime versus punishment. Does this punishment really fit that crime? Considering 80% of the spam was probably filtered directly to
If so, I want to start sticking advertisers and door to door solicitors in prison, right now.
Prison sentences for the heavy-handed fraud which was mentioned, makes sense. That's an existing crime that deserves punishment. But not for faking a damn SMTP header and sending it to people who didn't want it.
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:2)
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:2)
She then got caught and nailed to the wall. Rightly so.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:2)
Nope...
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/
"Stewart avoided a loss of about $51,000 by selling nearly 4,000 shares of ImClone stock on Dec. 27, 2001, rather than the next trading day, when the stock tumbled after regulators rejected the company's application for a key cancer drug."
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:1)
There should be some punishment though. Some serious punishment. Maybe not years in prison, but definitly some prison.
1 second from millions of people is 30+ man days. If you stole a month's pay from your company, you'd be in trouble, so how is it much different, just because the theif spread it out?
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:1)
There should be some punishment though.
In civil court, maybe. Punitive damages, sure. But putting someone in jail for what is essentially a nuisance? No, I don't buy it.
Sure, you can go to jail for other nuisances, obscenity, public nudity, panhandling, public intoxication. But those are bad laws too.
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:1)
It's more like someone running a garbage company and dumping garbage illegally on your property. Except they just dump one bag of garbage on every lot in town. If a company did that, they would be in jail in a second for trespass and illegal dumping.
Spamming is not a victimless crime.
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:1)
The ones you listed are not going to cause anyone to directly lose money, they are mostly victimless.
While they might not cause anyone to lose money, they are most certainly not victimless.
It's more like someone running a garbage company and dumping garbage illegally on your property. Except they just dump one bag of garbage on every lot in town.
I don't think that analogy captures the fact that the whole point of an email account is to receive email. It's more like putting ads on people's windshiel
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:1)
- - - - - - -
Let's forget about WMD for a bit and tackle WMA, WMV and SPAM!
Re:Impartial jury? (Score:1)
Dude, nobody has gone to jail yet for spam. (I haven't been keeping track, maybe it's one or two. Doesn't change the argument.)
Three quarters of a million people were arrested for marijuana posession last year alone.
Sending spammers to jail will not add any noticeable stress on the system for quite some time, if ever. What percentage of the population is likely to engage in spamming, compared to the number likely to engage in pot smoking, o
On defense worry over AOL (Score:2)
If the user only wiretapped fooBell could the defense say fooBell customers cannot be in jury? no I don't think so.
It is stupid, spam is spam is spam, unless it spam spam spam spam spam spam beans and spam, but again , we haven't got beans today.
I hope they give them the CHAIR!!! yes the electric one! and stream it over the internet...
Han
Re:On defense worry over AOL (Score:2)
If the user only wiretapped fooBell could the defense say fooBell customers cannot be in jury? no I don't think so.
It is stupid, spam is spam is spam, unless it spam spam spam spam spam spam beans and spam, but again , we haven't got beans today.
No no no - it's nothing to do with that - they will be worried that AOL users are too dumb
Re:On defense worry over AOL (Score:1)
Re:On defense worry over AOL (Score:2)
no hang on, I thought they were obvious.
Yes, I agree 15 years would cost the tax payer too much, just sling a rope over the dock and pull the chair away as the sentence is read
Just kidding! Fines for sure, and the defense lawers shouldn't be allowed to profit from this... I dunno... there is something about the people who send spam will figure a way of making money from getting convicted...
Could they find defense lawyers... (Score:2)
These guys are the first dude on the firing line with 10 years of pent up frustration.
Perhaps the Judge is modestly endowed and got suckered up by some enlargment pill spam, WHO KNOWS!
[ok could be a judgess, how sexist]
In German do they use er/inn for the title Judge? hmmmm.
I clicked my first email authentication link [someone had an email using antispam somthingorother] which I thought was a good idea.
UNTIL som
15 years is unduly lenient (Score:3, Insightful)
If a spammer was this active for more than 21 days, then they are going to be spending less time in jail than they stole from other people.
Re:15 years is unduly lenient (Score:2)
Re:15 years is unduly lenient (Score:1)
if it takes an AOL user an average of just 3 seconds of their time to see this, decide what to do with it and delete it
But it certainly doesn't. Many of the AOL users don't even bother checking their AOL email, and those that do usually know what to delete just by looking at the header, we're talking more like 1/3 second.
If a spammer was this active for more than 21 days, then they are going to be spending less time in jail than they stole from other people.
So when you net it out I guess they gaine
Felony? (Score:1)
Re:Felony? (Score:1)
They're probably actually reading the article.
What does manslaughter get you? (Score:1)
How about grand theft?
Attempted murder?
The Enron guys?
Betty Loren-Maltese(president from Cicero, IL- stole millions, is in the mob, etc.)
Jail time for spammers. (Score:1)