First Convicted Spammer Gets 9 Years

[Teutatis]

Sat Apr 9, 3:01 AM ET

By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer

LEESBURG, Va. - He was once considered among the top 10 spammers in the world, using the Internet to peddle pornography and sham products and services like the "FedEx refunding processor," prosecutors say. Convicted in the nation's first felony case against illegal spamming, Jeremy Jaynes, 30, on Friday was sentenced to nine years in prison for bombarding Internet users with the junk e-mails.

Full article:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&u=/ap/20050409/ap_on_hi_te/spam_sentencing&printer=1

[waheed]

serves him right.

[fritzi93]

They shoulda cut his nuts off.

[JohnnyCNote]

I can see giving him a large fine, but I think prison is best used for confining violent criminals, or those who've stolen large amounts of money, not sent annoying e-mails....

[Rippermac]

I can see giving him a large fine, but I think prison is best used for confining violent criminals, or those who've stolen large amounts of money, not sent annoying e-mails....

Agree with you 100%...what I found ironic was one the same page that I read this story was another about a drunk driver who killed someone getting a 2 year sentence for involuntary manslaughter...justice served?

[plcpower]

great at $40 dollars a day,which tax payers have to pay

[JohnnyCNote]

Agree with you 100%...what I found ironic was one the same page that I read this story was another about a drunk driver who killed someone getting a 2 year sentence for involuntary manslaughter...justice served?

Precisely!

[handyguy]

"or those who've stolen large amounts of money, "

That's what he did. Read the article.
e.g.
"and sham products and services like the "FedEx refunding processor,""

[JohnnyCNote]

I missed that part, where he was scamming people out of money. Still, I think it would be more productive to require him to make restitution....

[spiderman2k1]

If he was ripping people off then I have no problem with nine years.

I do not like it when some kills some and only get two years.

[AlecWest]

I can see giving him a large fine, but I think prison is best used for confining violent criminals, or those who've stolen large amounts of money, not sent annoying e-mails....

Well, "stolen large amounts of money" is a relative concept. His emails did involve scams ... and according to court documents, quote:

Prosecutors say his operation grossed up to $750,000 per month.

Is $9,000,000 a year a large amount of money? Or, put another way, is one year in prison for each million dollars he scammed excessive? Still, he is a young guy. Were I the judge, I'd have done what a lot of judges did during the Vietnam era ... given him a choice of the prison time or enlistment in the Army for 9 years of service.

[handyguy]

Could have just made up what he makes. People in that kind of employement can't be considered honest.

[JohnnyCNote]

I never take law enforcement's word on how much a suspect has made. They nearly always inflate the figure for PR purposes. They've been doing it for many, many years....

[af895]

I can see giving him a large fine, but I think prison is best used for confining violent criminals, or those who've stolen large amounts of money, not sent annoying e-mails....

This misses the point. Spam DOES cost money. Even "legal" spam.

Bandwidth costs money. Your internet bills are indirectly higher because of people like this spammer.

Add up the indirect costs - leave out the actual scams pitched in the spam emails - there are statistics that suggest spam costs BILLIONS or TRILLIONS of dollars every year in lost productivity and bandwidth costs alone.

His sentence may seem tough but it sends a message and is justified.

C.

[Rippermac]

I can see giving him a large fine, but I think prison is best used for confining violent criminals, or those who've stolen large amounts of money, not sent annoying e-mails....

This misses the point. Spam DOES cost money. Even "legal" spam.

Bandwidth costs money. Your internet bills are indirectly higher because of people like this spammer.

Add up the indirect costs - leave out the actual scams pitched in the spam emails - there are statistics that suggest spam costs BILLIONS or TRILLIONS of dollars every year in lost productivity and bandwidth costs alone.

His sentence may seem tough but it sends a message and is justified.

C.

Oh give me a break..as much as I hate spam..it's not costing me a thing...just like any other inconvenience..I learn to work around it(spam filters) and I never read/reply/use or buy anything from a spam link!! If everyone quit buying crap from these spammers the problem would'nt be a problem...spam and it's off shoots have become another political buzz issue...so this spammer gets 9years....lets see if this really reduces the spam load in the In Box.....and you want to talk about justification!! Justify this http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=84683&ran=56202 ...mother of 3 dead and this idiot gets 2years!!

[adam]

You can't compare one involuntary manslaughter case to one spam case. The US has a jury system, so naturally sentences are going to be all over the map. There are always mitigating or aggravating factors that the jury gets to hear that you don't. A HUGE factor is that the manslaugter case involved a crime resulting from recklessness, whereas the spam case involved an intentional act. Also the victim in the auto accident chose to ride in a vehicle being driven by someone who she presumabably knew was intoxicated.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think spam costs you money. Whether you read it or not, it costs isp's substantial amounts of money...hell more than HALF of all e-mails sent everyday are spam. That means half of their server resources are spent shuffling crap that their customers don't want, not to mention the money they spend creating and customizing their spam catching software. There is substantial legislation regarding spam, both in effect and in the works, and it is your tax dollars that fund the implementation of these acts.

[kirpen]

Where cases go to court also determines how much time you get along with countless other things such as a high profile case or the crime rate.

[Nilfennasion]

Oh give me a break..as much as I hate spam..it's not costing me a thing...

Wrong. Wrong. WRONG.

Every time your ISP downloads a piece of SPAM, that is a piece of bandwidth they could have given to their users for faster internet access. The ISP has two options when the SPAM adds up to cutting a fast DSL or cable modem link to the speed of a 28.8 - they can either let you cope with slower access (and risk losing your business), or they can shell out more money to get a faster link. Which they then have to pass on the cost to you.

Given that SPAMmers want us to think there is no difference between their material and regular postal mail adverts, here's an analogy the less technologically inclined will get. SPAM is like getting an advertisement in your mail, postage due, with no option of refusal.

I don't doubt for a second that this top-ten SPAMmer was making millions of dollars a year. For an investment of $20 in ISP fees, one can send out billions of these mails. All it takes to make a profit is one response. Some former SPAMmers who have seen the light have indicated that they used to get a response rate of one in a thousand. From that one response, they made enough money to be considered making a profit.

You only need to steal a dollar from half a million people in order to be able to afford a Lamborghini. This man, given that he is supposedly one of the top ten in the world, probably stole enough to buy half a dozen Lamborghinis at the minimum. Given the immense burden he was placing on every level of the Internet, nine years prison sets exactly the right kind of example. I hope he gets put in a cell with a 6'7", 300 pound man called Bubba who gets violently angry when his computer slows down to the pace of a dead slug. It would serve him right.

[adam]

I generally agree except that I believe it takes much more than $20 to really become a spammer. Spam is BIG business. The lists they use sell for 10's of thousands of dollars. The fact that they only need maybe 1 sell in 1000 emails just shows the insane amount of emails they send out.

[Rippermac]

Oh give me a break..as much as I hate spam..it's not costing me a thing...

Wrong. Wrong. WRONG.

Every time your ISP downloads a piece of SPAM, that is a piece of bandwidth they could have given to their users for faster internet access. The ISP has two options when the SPAM adds up to cutting a fast DSL or cable modem link to the speed of a 28.8 - they can either let you cope with slower access (and risk losing your business), or they can shell out more money to get a faster link. Which they then have to pass on the cost to you.

Given that SPAMmers want us to think there is no difference between their material and regular postal mail adverts, here's an analogy the less technologically inclined will get. SPAM is like getting an advertisement in your mail, postage due, with no option of refusal.

I don't doubt for a second that this top-ten SPAMmer was making millions of dollars a year. For an investment of $20 in ISP fees, one can send out billions of these mails. All it takes to make a profit is one response. Some former SPAMmers who have seen the light have indicated that they used to get a response rate of one in a thousand. From that one response, they made enough money to be considered making a profit.

You only need to steal a dollar from half a million people in order to be able to afford a Lamborghini. This man, given that he is supposedly one of the top ten in the world, probably stole enough to buy half a dozen Lamborghinis at the minimum. Given the immense burden he was placing on every level of the Internet, nine years prison sets exactly the right kind of example. I hope he gets put in a cell with a 6'7", 300 pound man called Bubba who gets violently angry when his computer slows down to the pace of a dead slug. It would serve him right.

Good point...makes sense..but hopefully Bubba doesn't have access to a high speed internet connect!!
I still say if that 1 idiot in a 1000 or 100 or whatever does not respond to spam...problem solved!! Or maybe we should do what microsoft suggested a few months back and charge to send emails and watch the quanity of crap fall....

[Rippermac]

You can't compare one involuntary manslaughter case to one spam case. The US has a jury system, so naturally sentences are going to be all over the map. There are always mitigating or aggravating factors that the jury gets to hear that you don't. A HUGE factor is that the manslaugter case involved a crime resulting from recklessness, whereas the spam case involved an intentional act. Also the victim in the auto accident chose to ride in a vehicle being driven by someone who she presumabably knew was intoxicated.

You are kidding yourself if you don't think spam costs you money. Whether you read it or not, it costs isp's substantial amounts of money...hell more than HALF of all e-mails sent everyday are spam. That means half of their server resources are spent shuffling crap that their customers don't want, not to mention the money they spend creating and customizing their spam catching software. There is substantial legislation regarding spam, both in effect and in the works, and it is your tax dollars that fund the implementation of these acts.

Though I agree with some of what you wrote I offer the following cases in point

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=84571&ran=31828
The jury recommended 10 years for this crime and you tell me this is comparable to spam?

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=83067&ran=49790
This guy got 5 years for abusing 2 kids!! How does this compare to spam!


http://www.sptimes.com/News/052501/NorthPinellas/Ex_mayor_s_prison_sen.shtml
This guy got 4 years for money laundering involving millions! A former freaking mayor!!

And these are just a few in my neck of the woods...I'm sure they are hundreds more instances of the time not fitting the crime!! I'm in no way condoning spam...but no way is 9 years for spam comparable to 5 years for sex abuse on kids....variables or not!!

[Supreme2k]

Say what you want about hangings, nut-cutting (eeew!) or other such nonsense, but spamming and other such money crimes should be strictly restituion. It does no good that white-collar criminals are sitting in prison (on MY dime), while they could be paying the "victims" back.

I also agree about the numbers being pulled out of the prosecutors ass. In my youth, I had a friend who got caught for possession (2 small pot plants, worth about $150) and they tried to ring him up at "street value of $25,000"

[vitualis]

Some of these things could be somewhat self-regulated if there were a system of micropayments across the net.

For example, YOU sending ME an e-mail requires you also sending me 0.5c. If you were on my "white list", then the charge is automatically refunded. If you are not on my white list, I may or may not "refund" you depending on the contents of the e-mail...

Or something similar...

Such a system heavily penalises people who send bulk e-mail to people they don't know while is near transparent to "ordinary" e-mail users.

Regards.

[fritzi93]

nut-cutting (eeew!)

Okay, that was too flippant, but the bastards have stolen plenty of MY time and bandwidth. So I don't feel at all sorry for him. And don't "non-violent" offenders generally go to minimum security, depending on an assessment of flight risk? Martha Stewart did her time at "Club Fed". Not exactly hard time.

[Nilfennasion]

1) While I agree that the sentences for some crimes such as child abuse or armed robbery are a little light, there is nothing anyone can say to make me sympathise with a man who steals millions of dollars worth of resources in a year and goes to prison for nine years. I also agree that restitution should occur. But not instead of prison. I believe that prison *and* restitution should be the least this guy does.

2) The best way to stop SPAM would actually be tighter control of account information. Not to mention the prevention of address forgery. If a person has to prove exactly who they are in order to send email, period, then there will be less SPAM, simple as that. Those who have a history of abusing the system should be required to prove who they are with a credit card so that ISPs can start charging them automatically as soon as they begin abusing the system. $5 per attempt to send SPAM would soon add up.

[proxyx99]

You can't compare one involuntary manslaughter case to one spam case. The US has a jury system, so naturally sentences are going to be all over the map.

This is exactly the blind and screaming stupidity of US jury system where pure ignorants are given the power that they almost always misuse (like possible 40 years for Michael Jackson... utter crap, compare to Nurnberg 25 year sentences for crimes related to mass murder, genocide...).

Where are the regulations prohibiting renting broadband to spammers? First they collect the money and then send the guy to the slammer. Even though I hate spam as much as everyone else there has to be some sanity here. If broadband providers (that know full well what is going on...) were held reponsible (to some extent) for their actions we wouldn't have the problem grow so fast.

[deadskullz]

Good i'm very greatful he is in prison I hate spam anyways. I hope they arrest all of them and put them in jail spammers are the bottom of the barrel them skum.

[Nilfennasion]

Where are the regulations prohibiting renting broadband to spammers?

They are voluntary, although with good reason.

Every ISP and commercial entity on the 'net knows that being considered a willing participant in a SPAMming operation is the kind of blow your business may never recover from. ISPs in particular have a lot to lose if they are blacklisted as SPAM relays. It generally means a boycott and even blacklisting by other ISPs. Hence, they do everything they can to ensure they would be just as angry as you or I that their resources are being used to transmit SPAM.

[adam]

Rippermac like I just said, we have a justice system that allows varied sentences. Naturally you are going to get a wide variety. If you insist on finding consistency across the board then your definition of justice is unworkable.

I can respect your opinion that 9 years is too much for spamming, but I personally think its very naive to base this conclusion on a comparison to a completely different case involving a completely different crime. Obviously the sentences you cited are the exception to the rule. On the whole, 9 years would be a relatively light sentence in most jurisdictions for the other crimes which you have raised.

[proxyx99]

Yet someone is renting the lines and spam is taking close to 40% of Net's traffic (most often used estimation...). 40% is not done by just couple of guys and access they get must be pretty substancial. If what you say was true who's renting those lines... if not ISP's (and I'm talking big ones like MCI)? There is huge hipocrecy involved here...

Rippermac like I just said, we have a justice system that allows varied sentences. Naturally you are going to get a wide variety. If you insist on finding consistency across the board then your definition of justice is unworkable.

Really? Penalty should be proportional to committed crime... That is one of most basic rules of the law. That of course does not apply to systems that sentence PPL to 6 consecutive life sentences for example (what a bizarre logic is this, (like kill the guy by hanging him 3 times, one after another, so that sonofabitch gets it finally...))

I can respect your opinion that 9 years is too much for spamming, but I personally think its very naive to base this conclusion on a comparison to a completely different case involving a completely different crime.

Anyway you want it, any comparison you prefer will clearly show how absurd these sentences are. And yes you have to compare just like Rippermac so that the law like Criminal Law is uniform and consitent in serving its ultimate purpose. Personally I think (following your position) that US courts would serve justice better by just conducting a draw (minimum to max penalties mixed in a ballot jar... that would be as much fun (or more) as I have today...). Then at least I could connect those sentences straight out of the comic book with comitted crimes and the level of guilt. This connection escapes me now... like in the example above.