backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Dec 11 at 6:18 AM

Spammer gets up to 37 months in prison thanks to $250,000 profits recorded from spam acts

In 2003 congress passed the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 aimed at making it possible to prosecute and fine or impose prison terms on people convicted of spamming. In January of 2007, Jeffery Goodin was the first person in America to be convicted for spamming.

Later the same month MySpace filed suit against Scott Richter, dubbed the “Spam King,” for sending spam to millions of MySpace users.

In June of 2007, another top spammer had been arrested on multiple charges relating form his criminal spam activities. Today NetworkWorld reports that spammer Min Kim has received a longer-than-average prison term when convicted of spamming due of the amount of money earned as a result of the illegal activates.

Kim kept detailed business records that showed a profit of over $250,000 USD as a result of spamming activities. The normal sentence for a convicted spammer is 24 to 30 months in prison. However, thanks to Kim’s admitted $250,000 profit the judge bumped the sentence up to 30 to 37 months even though Kim was a first time offender.

This case could set a precedent that sees spammers serving longer prison terms than before when convicted. The sentence was handed down by U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock. According to Aaron Kornblum, senior attorney with Microsoft’s Internet Safety Enforcement Team this is the first time that CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 laws were used in this manner.

The judge used a CAN-SPAM stipulation that says in the absence of direct proof of the amount of monetary loss a spammers activities caused a judge could base a sentence on the amount of profit a spammer made.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Finally!
By leidegre on 12/8/2007 5:06:41 AM , Rating: 4
The amount of hate towards SPAMers is next to nothing, when compared to the joy of finally seeing them behind bars.




RE: Finally!
By wordsworm on 12/8/07, Rating: -1
RE: Finally!
By arazok on 12/8/2007 10:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
Give me you address. I'm going to knock on your door 4 times a day and try to sell you Viagra, and your kids porn.

I expect you to be ok with this, as I'm just exercising my rights.


RE: Finally!
By amanojaku on 12/8/2007 12:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
Freedom of speech still has its limits. Go to a movie theater and yell "Fire!" when there isn't one. Better yet, go to the airport, start foaming at the mouth and yell "I have a bomb!" I'll bet you don't go home that night.

Freedom of speech was originally intended to allow public criticism of the government without punishment. Freedom of speech has been expanded beyond that, but it does NOT allow people to harass each other or endanger lives. Freedom of speech is supposed to facilitate transfer of ideas, but no spam I am aware of has anything but money grubbing ads.


RE: Finally!
By afkrotch on 12/8/2007 12:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't help that spammers uses infectious software to create a bot network to spam the internet with their ads. These adware and spam not only uses storage space on your computer, company computers, and opens up security holes in networks, but also wastes valuable bandwith on ISP networks.

Last I checked, Freedom of Speech didn't allow you to come into my home, setup a microphone and speakers, use my electricity, then scream out your ads. All the while, leaving all my windows and doors open so that others may come in and do the same.

Freedom of speech. Pfff. What a lame arguement.


RE: Finally!
By masher2 (blog) on 12/8/2007 3:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "Freedom of speech still has its limits"

This isn't a freedom of speech issue at all. These spammers aren't violating law because of the content of their speech; their transgressions is in using consumers own computer resources to conduct commercial transactions.

When someone sends me an advertisement in the postal mail-- they paid the entire mailing fee. When they send me one via email, I'm paying part of that fee, in both ISP fees and computer time. The cost for one such email is trivial....but when thousands of spammers sends hunreds of millions of such emails every day, the aggregate losses are enormous.


RE: Finally!
By madoka on 12/9/2007 3:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
Lest ignorant people like wordsworthless think that spam is harmless:

"Drawing particular attention from the prosecutor and judge were Kim’s sophisticated measures employed to avoid first-line spam defenses, including proxy servers, falsified subject lines and the use of DarkMailer, all of which increase the level of countermeasures that ISPs must deploy and the expenses they incur."

Which of course means higher fees for us users.


RE: Finally!
By wordsworm on 12/9/2007 7:53:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
When someone sends me an advertisement in the postal mail-- they paid the entire mailing fee.


The spammer paid for his/her bandwidth in the same way as the advertiser with the junk mail. Now, when I get that junk mail, it piles up and I have to stick it in the recycling box and get rid of it every week by carting it to the sidewalk. With the junk spam I get, I just hit delete. How many trees had to die for some pointless flier? Then the delivery method ends up using gasoline, which uses up a non-renewable resource. Since there's a supply and demand ratio to gasoline, that ends up causing an increase in the cost of gas and oil. It creates more congestion on public roads. Spam doesn't do nearly the damage that those pointless fliers do. Consider your red herring butchered.

You just don't like spam, and you want to take away someone's ability to earn a living from it. Not only that, but you're happy to see that the person who's making a living from it is in jail.

Someone threw in the argument that spammers sometimes use malicious software products to create unwitting delivery-people. That's a different issue altogether. If someone is hacking computers, then that should be an issue altogether separate.


RE: Finally!
By dluther on 12/9/2007 10:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
So do tell us, Wordsworm, are you a spammer or a retailer that uses spammers?

I'm curious, because for the life of me and my friends who have analyzed your post, those are the only two people who could possibly believe spammers are not a detrimental and dangerous influence.

No, I don't like spam, and I decidedly want to take away someone's ability to earn a living from it. And if their freedom, assets, pride and dignity are taken as well, then all the better.


RE: Finally!
By mindless1 on 12/10/2007 11:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
Dangerous? That's stretching a point pretty thin. It's more like a nuisance, but to such a grand scale that we can't just see it as a small burden per person but rather as the total impact upon mankind, like a minor plague.


RE: Finally!
By dblind1 on 12/10/2007 2:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Spam doesn't do nearly the damage that those pointless fliers do.


Well, based on your argument, actually the paper 'junk mail' actually helps stimulate the economy of valid businesses and actually helps keep the postal service running. That 40 cents per letter actually pays for the gas and postal service employees that deliver and sort the mail, so 100% of the cost of the bulk mail is shouldered by those that want to send it. That is the problem with spam email. As an employee at a large educational institution, I know how bad the spam problem is and how much tax payer money goes into preventing this spam.

First off, every institution that houses their own email server has to pay for the bandwidth that email comes in on. That bandwidth is also used for internet access, research, remote server access, etc. If the 'pipes' get so clogged with the unsolicited email, you have to buy more bandwidth with the state/fed moneys that could go to educating the kids or even to your salary! However, these institutions have to pay every employee to delete hundreds of these emails (for each user). They also have to buy the devices that filter and reduce spam just so it remains useful for work purposes. Right now, spammers are crawling webpages and just signing up people for everything. I get breast enhancement emails, and I'm not a female. Why should I suffer because it cost this drug company $1000 for a list and they spend .00000001 cents to email it to me everyday? If all the spammers didn't violate the opt out policies then sure, it wouldn't come down to throwing people in jail for it. Spam has become a modern day plague. It has to either be wrestled down to a illegitimate business or punished with criminal repercussions. As far as I'm concerned, these are like spam messages to cell phones. I don't want my cell phone going off all day long with jamster messages wanting me to sign up for joke of the day or ring tone stuff. Email is the same way. If I'm paying to receive the service, keep the crap out.

As far as the content, there are some measures that can be taken, but why should parents have to buy software to protect their children from the content of these criminals. After all, if you took the initiative to show a playboy to my kid, I would have you on contributing to the delinquency of a minor and any other charges I could. I'm starting to wonder if you don't work for a company making the filtering software or devices since you deny that your a spammer.

And finally, you scare me as a parent. You cannot just expose a child to sex or violence and expect it not to take a toll on their mental health. The world is a ugly place and you have to teach them morality before exposing them to things in this world. You are one of the people that will lead us into that "Brave New World" where it is encouraged for the children to have multiple sexual partners at 13 and call it playtime. Morality doesn't have to be all about Christianity or any other religion, but I will be the first one to say that religion at lease teaches us to to consider society as a whole and teach us to better ourselves and strive for greatness instead of do what feels right. After all Dommer was just doing what felt right to him!

As for the spam, I remember a time before when a new message in my inbox was a nice little present from family or a friend. Now, it is a meaningless beep to let me know that there is a 5 percent chance it is from an individual that actually knows my name. I say confiscate the equipment and give it to a school and put the bugger in jail. Even better yet, make him pay 50 cents to every victim of spam on his lists for each email he has sent.


RE: Finally!
By dblind1 on 12/10/2007 3:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
ok .. I reread my post for the third time and yes, I know I made several booboos, but wordsworth got to me.
quote:
They also have to buy the devices that filter and reduce spam just so email remains useful for work purposes.

quote:
It has to either be wrestled down to a legitimate business or punished with criminal repercussions.


I'm sure there are others, but I'm sure everyone gets the point. I'm an IT guy and have an engineering degree, so please understand, english isn't my speciality.


RE: Finally!
By wordsworm on 12/11/2007 5:53:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
but wordsworth got to me.

quote:
please understand, english isn't my speciality.

You're the first person to figure out where half of my nick comes from... a combination of the poet Wordsworth and bookworm became wordsworm.


RE: Finally!
By wordsworm on 12/11/2007 6:18:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You cannot just expose a child to sex or violence and expect it not to take a toll on their mental health.

I never suggested that I'd slip a Playboy or any other pornographic material to my child. I said that if my child sought it out and got it on his/her own, I would not freak out or try to take it away if they wanted it. I would probably want to give them something a bit more educational in the hopes that they could learn something more helpful than what the porn would offer. If they're very young, something like Where do Babies Come From would come to mind. If they're 16, then I would be considering something more like a manual with a lot of information about safety and pregnancy so that when the teenager decides to move forward to that next stage of trial and error, there's more trial than error. I think most pornography is terrible. I don't dislike it from a moral standpoint. I just think it's really boring. There seems to be no plot to it at all. At least with 70s porn you could have a good laugh - I remember laughing at it with my buddies when we were in our teens, watching my friend's father's 'borrowed' VHS tape. These days there are 2 words before the bump and grind. Not that the 70s was particularly good, but certainly I haven't seen anything decent in a long time.

quote:
children to have multiple sexual partners at 13
If my children choose to have a life like this, then it is imperative that they are aware of the risks involved and that they've been taught how to do so responsibly. There's always risks, but I'd hope that I could help mitigate those risks. I think that education, not scare tactics, would probably help a lot though.

The fundamental reason I object to laws against spam is in the case, though perhaps not done yet, of where, say, an independent voice of reason wants to spread his thoughts via the spam channels because he or she doesn't have the money to do an expensive ad campaign. I don't want more viagra or penis enlargement ads any more than you do. I have no need for either product. I probably get about 60 pieces of junk mail every week. I have no problem deleting them. If I did, I would create a new email account and close down an old one. I don't mind doing that. I have another email address I use for friends and family, and that one gets very little spam. I get maybe 1-3 pieces of spam per week on it. So, beating the system for me has been easy. I don't know why it's so complicated for you. I don't know why people should be seeking to set up a system that could be a very effective way of distributing important information. Imagine that a president in the near future does something really bad, like faking a terrorist attack so that he can use public funds for a war on another country. The media won't report it because they are wealthy and therefore support the president regardless of the truth. Then that purveyor of truth will be found guilty of spamming and sent to prison. That's my fear - when will the power to convict people for spreading 'spam' become corrupt to the point where the problem in the past is less than the problem caused by trying to solve the other.

I do not object to laws against hijacking methods of spamming, where hosts are created through worms and the like. In this case, I say throw the book at them. If they distribute child porn or something of that nature, roast them for it.


RE: Finally!
By mindless1 on 12/10/2007 11:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
No, the spammer did not pay for the bandwidth. The spammer only paid for outgoing internet account(s), not the bandwidth to deliver it nor the computer or power or HDD space or receiver's account.

Yes, we don't like spam. You are not entitled to come to my mailbox and stuff a flyer in yourself. See the difference? It's not about YOU, it's about the receiver. You don't get to force your will upon another, or it will catch up to you.

The problem with spam is that it does not cost the sender nearly enough. With physical mail we have limited exposure to unwanted junk due to the cost, but if physical mail were free we would also pursue abusers of that system.

The key difference is the rate at which the majority feels it's a problem. Understand that it does not matter if you think it's ok, because the majority rules. Some people think it's ok to drive 100MPH on the freeway but that too goes against the majority and the majority wins!

If you can't accept this, you'll have to find another place to live where the majority doesn't find spam enough of a problem to create laws against it.


RE: Finally!
By dluther on 12/8/2007 3:35:08 PM , Rating: 1
Oh no you did not!!!

Trying to defend spammers by arguing freedom of speech is like protecting child molesters using freedom of religion -- it doesn't work in any sense.


RE: Finally!
By mindless1 on 12/10/2007 11:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually religion is a defense for some pretty horrible acts in some countries, but your idea of trying to suggest one is like the other is just a load of BS.

I don't think we should protect child molesters at all but you're just trying to make inflammatory statements instead of dealing with the actual content written.

Spammers are entitled to free speech, but as a way of not limited what is said, not as a way to insist others have to be an audience.


spammers = *angry face*
By Quiksel on 12/8/2007 8:44:50 AM , Rating: 4
We all wish for spammers to have a special place in hell that one fine day.

This is a small start for such a big problem. I can't help but liken these guys to people that spread infectious diseases knowingly. While spammers don't kill anybody, the propagation of this BS to millions of people just for his own selfish gain is enraging.

I hope his jailmates all have received spam from him in the past. ;) Bubba would never be as violent as he would be on that guy.




RE: spammers = *angry face*
By wordsworm on 12/8/2007 9:20:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope his jailmates all have received spam from him in the past. ;) Bubba would never be as violent as he would be on that guy.


What the hell is wrong with you? You insinuate that somehow it is justice that someone who sends junk emails to people warrants the violence and rape from this stereotyped inmate, Bubba? You're sick.


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By ZaethDekar on 12/8/2007 1:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think he means it like this:

If you are a child molester and you get sent to jail, there will be parents in that prison, and they will know why you are in there, and they won't be friendly.

Thus:

If you sent spam to Bubba about some drug that would enlarge him and that women will be attracteded to him. It doesn't work so then he will rape some drugged girl, be sent to prison, and then there you come along, the one that sent him the false information.

Wouldn't you be mad at him as well?

For some reason I think I am quite lucky. I have two email accounts and neither of them get spam mail. I get my newsletters that I want and that is it.


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By dluther on 12/8/2007 3:53:22 PM , Rating: 4
No, justice is achieved through the initial fact of the spammer being in prison.

That he would be violently sodomized by "Bubba" and passed around more than a joint at Dennis Hopper's birthday party is just an extra special layer of icing on the cake.


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By jamdunc on 12/8/2007 9:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
Why does Wordsworm keep defending spammers? Is he a spammer and making profits like the guy above? Hmmm, makes me think....

I always thought spam had died in the 70's and then the Internet brought it back, only this time it taste's so much worse :(


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By wordsworm on 12/9/2007 12:28:54 AM , Rating: 1
So if I defended women's rights, you would call me a woman. If I defend homosexual's right to marriage, I must be gay. I'm defending spammers because I think they should have a right to spam. I defend women's rights because women aren't chattel. I defend homosexual's right to marriage because I don't like discrimination.

Fact: I'm an English teacher, not a spammer. I'm getting married in a few months to a woman I love. I don't spam because I have no interest in it. I get spam, and I delete it. Problem solved. If a telemarketer or anyone else calls me while I'm eating dinner or in another way busy, I don't answer the phone - I turn it off.

In another post someone mentioned that one doesn't have the right to yell 'fire' in a movie theater, as if the two are even vaguely related. If you get too much spam, it's time to get a new email account. I've had the same account for years that I use exclusively for friends and family, and I have another account that I use for websites, so that if I do get too much spam, it's easy just to create a new email account and to close down the other.

What I'd like to see is actual legislation made to protect the public. Anti-gun legislation - disarm America for its own good. Speeding - if you get caught speeding, your car is impounded and your license suspended for 1-5 years. Mandatory deposits on all consumer goods, like we do for soda cans. ie, You buy a TV? Then you pay a deposit of $50 that you get half of it back when it's trash, and then with the other $25 the company has to dispose of it with the best technology known to man. You go to a gas pump, you should pay a 25 cent tax per gallon to help fund research into alternative sources of energy. Schools need to be providing all American kids with meals so that the families who prefer drinking beer to feeding their kids properly (or forced to live off of KD and white bread diets) still have kids that they aren't at the mercy of poor parenting in respect to nutrition. These are real issues. Spam is a non-issue. I hit delete. The environment, the horrendous number of senseless deaths attributed to bad drivers, the 1000s of people murdered by guns, malnourished children in schools, these are real issues that legislators avoid while pointing to spammers and working against them.

Am I the only one on DT that thinks the courts have their priorities screwed? Am I the only one that thinks spamming should be a right granted to every American who wants to send an unwanted email?


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By madoka on 12/9/2007 3:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's right. Since the government is doing something about spam, I guess they completely ignore crime and starving kids. Get off your soapbox. Nobody likes spammers. You don't think it's harmful to have kids get sent unsolicited porn?


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By wordsworm on 12/9/2007 7:38:18 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's harmful for kids to see naked bodies. It's just a natural thing for people to have sex. If kids don't like it, then they won't look at it. If they're curious, they'll investigate. That's the way it was with me when I had a smuggled Playboy when I was about 10 or 11 years old. Was it really so different for you?

These days the Playboy girls are as boring as all H-E-double hockey sticks. I don't see why so many men are drawn to the naked Barbie dolls. It's funny seeing grown men drool over them.

If kids see really bad stuff, hopefully they'll tell their parents about it and it'll be one of those things called a 'life lesson' if the parents handle it right.

You're the one with a problem. You've had that sex=bad unless it's for babies or heterosexual adults that you don't realize that kids have a curiosity for sexuality. A lot of parents freak out when they see it, causing the children to think that there's something wrong with it. Now that's dysfunction.


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By dluther on 12/9/2007 10:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think it's harmful for kids to see naked bodies.

Luckily, the courts and general society disagree with you. Now, that's not to say that nudity is bad. Michaelangelo's David or the Venus De Milo are examples of nudity I don't mind my kids seeing; but when it comes to spam, a picture of a naked woman is usually accompanied by a massive cock in her mouth, and that I *do* have a problem with in regards to my children witnessing.

quote:
Was it really so different for you?

Nope. But it was my parents' responsibility to make sure I wasn't exposed to that kind of material, just as it is my responsibility today. And back then, it was quite a bit easier than it is today, with porn available by a few mouse clicks. Having porn sent directly to my children adds yet a layer of complexity I'd rather not deal with.

quote:
These days the Playboy girls are as boring as all H-E-double hockey sticks.

All evidence to the contrary. One has to wonder at what you would consider "exciting".

You've stated that you're an English teacher that is about to be married. Well, all I can say is that I hope you're not my child's teacher. I find it both disheartening and alarming that there's a person we trust our children with having such an unconventional attitude toward early development and pornography. I'm sure the board of education at your school would take a great interest in your views.

Sorry pal, your arguments supporting spam seem to drift further afield, and you're entering territory that is dangerous, if not outright reprehensible.


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By wordsworm on 12/9/2007 8:50:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sorry pal, your arguments supporting spam seem to drift further afield, and you're entering territory that is dangerous, if not outright reprehensible.

My arguments supporting spam are going adrift because people have commented that the contents of the spam should make it illegal. This in itself shouldn't be considered a strong argument since now it is a comment about content rather than unsolicited email. It would be kind of like banning magazines because some of them are pornographic.

quote:
I find it both disheartening and alarming that there's a person we trust our children with having such an unconventional attitude toward early development and pornography.
I have no problem with it because I don't think kids are going to be terribly interested in it until they start becoming curious. I don't think a 5 year old, for example, would understand what he or she was seeing. Furthermore, I would have to ask the question as to how he or she got onto a porn spam list in the first place. To be honest, I've never gotten sexual images via spam. My spam contents are for Viagra, penis enlargement, and links to porn as opposed to direct images.

Your problem, along with so many Christian/Muslim/et al religions is that you see sexuality as a sin. I'm more disturbed by other things, such as poor nutrition, religious indoctrination/brainwashing, propaganda, than I am about raw sexual images. When, perhaps 5 or 6 years from now, when I feel ready to have my own children, I will try to make sure that I don't stunt their curiosity in any regard. I think curiosity is a natural thing that is quickly followed by learning. I don't believe in sheltering at all. I believe that my hypothetical children will come to me with questions if they have concerns. I trust that I won't freak out on them if they should ask something about sex. Hopefully I'd have a good book lying around: http://www.amazon.com/Where-Do-Babies-Come-Learnin...
That's a good one for the very young. When they get a little bit older, and they start wanting to have sexual intercourse, hopefully they'll feel confident about approaching me about the matter because I'm relaxed about it rather than avoiding me because I freak out every time I see them engaging with the topic.

quote:
Luckily, the courts and general society disagree with you.

That wouldn't be the first time or the only topic upon which I disagree with society as a whole. Just because everyone believes something doesn't make it true. Most people think tomatoes are a vegetable, and the courts agree. It doesn't change the fact that it's a berry, and therefore fruit. Just because people think that children shouldn't be interested in sexual things doesn't mean that kids aren't. I didn't spontaneously come up with my opinions about kids and sexuality. Here's a little tidbit of information on the subject: http://extension.missouri.edu/xplor/hesguide/human...
Children know when they're ready. If they're not, those images that come with the spam should be blocked automatically if it's not from a trusted source. All 3 of the email companies I use: Yahoo, Hotmail, and Gmail, automatically block all images. So, if some porn actually manages to make its way into my 'kids' mail box, I fully believe that if they want to know more, they'll hit the link and look at the pictures. If they don't want to know more, they'll hit the delete button. I'll leave them in control over what they want to know, and what they don't want to know. I'm not going to censure their curiosity.

quote:
All evidence to the contrary. One has to wonder at what you would consider "exciting".

The last actress that I found physically exciting was Gillian Anderson. I think Sheryl Crow is pretty hot, too. Did you secretly play with your sister's Barbie dolls when you were growing up?


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By madoka on 12/9/2007 6:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
WTF! First you think spamming is cool. Now you think it's okay for young kids to receive unsolicited porn? What's next? Are you going to start advocating kiddie porn?


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By mindless1 on 12/10/2007 11:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's not what was written, you are either trolling or lack reading comprehension.

What was written was correct. It is not sexuality that is the problem, it is the OUTSIDE CONTACT that is the problem because sex is only one way an outsider could harm a child, among very many ways.

However, the TRUTH is, any parent who thinks they can completely shield their child from this kind of (usually) perverted sexuality, is deluding themselves. They can ban their child from the internet, keep them from watching TV, and still they'll just come in contact with it at school or playing with friends. You can't block out the world, but you can help the child understand it instead of trying to make them ignorant.

There is a difference between being hyperparanoid and having a middle ground where one is not trying to introduce negative influences but also realizes sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

A child does need sheltered from porn/etc, but shelter also has to mean they are not oblivious to it, that they develop coping skills and that needs to happen with a parent's supervision. If you just keep them ignorant they will be put in a position where they don't know how to deal with situations that will inevitably arise. You can't just lock them in the cellar with blinds and earplugs forever.

On the other hand wordsworm is quite wrong about freedom of speech, freedom of speech does not allow for one to impose an audience, that audience has be be volutary.


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By wordsworm on 12/11/2007 5:46:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's not what was written, you are either trolling or lack reading comprehension.
Thanks mindless1.

quote:
On the other hand wordsworm is quite wrong about freedom of speech, freedom of speech does not allow for one to impose an audience, that audience has be be volutary.


This is where we diverge: I don't consider an unopened piece of junk mail to be an imposition. I don't even read them. I toggle a box, and hit delete. I think the right to be able to distribute this junk mail should be protected since getting rid of the offending article is so easy. Furthermore, mail service providers seem to have adapted quite well to the issue. I don't feel bothered by junk mail at all.

A lot of people make a lot out of the sexual Internet predators. But, statistics makes it clear that the uncle and father of the children still remains the most dangerous sexual predator. I think the odds of children being victimized against their will, online, is extremely low if they really don't want it. Exceptions will always happen, but that is the same for everything. In general, the hockey coach is pretty good, but one of them molested one of his players. There are the priests, teachers, and many others, caught with their hands where they shouldn't be. I just don't see spam as a major threat to kids' psychological, sexual health.


RE: spammers = *angry face*
By Hase0 on 12/10/2007 11:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
how would you like your kids watching 2girls1cup lol


a question
By astrix on 12/8/2007 12:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
there is something i don't get , are those people doing spam activities for a certain fees or for there own business/websites ...i mean there is even a difference between both types ?




RE: a question
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/8/2007 8:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
There's outlets for both. The bulk of spam you'll see is actually just a 3rd-party service for lowbrow outlets or for pump and dump scams.

However, things are changing as its very rare for the originating party to also solicit spam in house (unless you're Vonage I guess). There's starting to be too much risk in that!


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki