It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Judge Sentences Spammer to Nine Years

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Jeremy Jaynes, who, using sixteen high-speed lines, sent out over ten million spam E-mails a day, was sentenced to nine years in prison. Because the law is new and involves Constitutional issues, the judged deferred his prison sentence until such time as the appeals court can rule on the case. Jaynes said that, regardless of how his appeal is decided, he is done with the bulk E-mail business. Jaynes remains on a one million dollar bond. He is said to have grossed over three quarters of a million dollars per month in his endeavors.
 



news.yahoo.com
A Virginia judge sentenced a spammer to nine years in prison Friday in the nation's first felony prosecution for sending junk e-mail, though the sentence was postponed while the case is appealed.

Loudoun County Circuit Judge Thomas Horne said that because the law targeting bulk e-mail distribution is new and raises constitutional questions, it was appropriate to defer the prison time until appeals courts rule.

A jury had recommended the nine-year prison term after convicting Jeremy Jaynes of pumping out at least 10 million e-mails a day with the help of 16 high-speed lines, the kind of Internet capacity a 1,000-employee company would need.

Jaynes, of Raleigh, N.C., told the judge that regardless of how the appeal turns out, "I can guarantee the court I will not be involved in the e-mail marketing business again."




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Spam is more than a nuisance for consumers, it is also a strain on the servers that must process this junk. I doubt that this sentence alone will slow down spammers very much, as much originates from countries whose enforcement might be less effective or lack such laws. Regardless, it is good news to hear that at least this one will be out of business for awhile, at least.

Related News Links:
www.sfgate.com
news.webhosting.info
www.hindustantimes.com
www.keralanext.com

[edit on 05/4/8 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
So was he indeed sentenced, or was it postponed?

Not clear from the post.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I'm glad to see something being done about Spam. I can hear internet servers all over breathing a sigh of relief. It surprises me that he was making that much money, $750,000 a month. I thought everybody filtered out spam, or immediately tossed it into the trash. You would think after a while, they would take a hint.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   


Loudoun County Circuit Judge Thomas Horne said that because the law targeting bulk e-mail distribution is new and raises constitutional questions, it was appropriate to defer the prison time until appeals courts rule.

yahoo.com


To defer means to postpone, so according to the article, he will remain out on a million dollar bond until his appeal is heard.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Face it this is about small time operators who get "too big," while others get a free pass. You have to be very cautious about this kind of infringement of free speech, and consider the idea where "spam," is some pertinent political message and then is suppressed by this test for case law.

Spam all you want, I do not care, because I can block you. When the court assumes that duty by law and fear, it is going too far.

[edit on 8-4-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   


I thought everybody filtered out spam, or immediately tossed it into the trash. You would think after a while, they would take a hint.


I agree. If spam didn't yield sales, spammers would be out of business. The only way spam can yield sales is for consumers to respond to spam sales pitches. If everyone claims to hate spam, who is fueling this odious practice?

Presumably, everyone. It's a numbers game and if a spammer sends out enough, sooner or later even the most resistive consumer will yield to curiosity, greed, or prurience.

[edit on 05/4/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
9 years??! Hey, spam is annoying but I think 9 years is ridiculous, especially considering many rapists don't get that long. Spam is annoying at worst, and certainly not deserving of nine years as some lifer's prison b*tch.

Why not instead seize all of the spammers money and assets and donate them to charity, or into spam-blocking/detecting software development. You make them destitute - hitting them where it hurts most- and you help the cause at the same time.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
When you consider the bandwidth and server memory these individuals waste, I think nine years is appropriate. After all, the judge upheld the recommended sentence suggested by the jury of his peers. He'll be out in three years with good behavior, anyway, even if his conviction is upheld.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
9 years for wasting bandwidth and server memory? Are you kidding? People are sentenced to less than that for violent crimes. If wasting bandwidth is such a heinous crime, then a good precentage of forum posters and teenage angst bloggers should get the chair.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I agree that this whole thing is way out of wack, not only in the sentence but the whole thing.

1st, it's just another "non-violent" offender who's going to be taking up space in jail that the taxpayer then pays the $20,000 annual fee to house him. Prison should be a place for "Violent" offenders because those are the ones that aren't safe in society. You don't need to worry about your physical safety from some cyber scam artist mass emailing the world.

2nd, as we all already know this guy isn't going to do that much time, more like a couple years if even that much. Then after he's done it's off to some remote island full of naked ladies, fruity drinks and sunshine. I mean when you're making $750,000.00 a month it doesn't take long before you can flat out retire. There is certainly nothing wrong with that either as long as you make your $$ in a legal way. It's just another example of "White Collar Crime" being viewed with a double standard. If you're a drug dealer, or a bank robber or whatever they just don't stick you in jail for a while and let you keep all the money and stuff you aquired from illegal activity, so why should this be any different.

They should also treat this guy like other cyber thieves and hackers who are known to be the biggest of the fish and ban this guy from any and all computer activity. His sentence should include lifetime restriction from computer activity with a bargain that if he chooses to help fight off spam that sentence could then be reduced otherwise no deal. He should lose what he gained from his illegal activity and that's it. If there still needs to be some punishment at all besides knocking him back to square one and banishment from computers then give him some community service or something but that's it.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
i say take his gains from it, and give it to reserch to develope anti-spam stuff. but even more than that they should go after those who PAID for his services. after all he had to be working for a bigger entity that told him he was doing nothing wrong. otherwise how would he have made a proffit?



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
9 years for wasting bandwidth and server memory? Are you kidding? People are sentenced to less than that for violent crimes. If wasting bandwidth is such a heinous crime, then a good precentage of forum posters and teenage angst bloggers should get the chair.


Yeah, a certain Ami Fisher here in Long Island got 5 years for having shot a woman, in cold blood, which left the victom partially paralyzed. So I agree.

On the other hand, the guy is responsible for an economic loss well in excess of grand theft auto. Really. It can be calculated and can run hundreds of thousands of dollars.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I have to admit that it's kind of strange to hear anyone bemoan the fate of a spammer. In the days before this law and this conviction, I never heard anyone express sympathy for a spammer. Spammers are the lowest of the low and deserve what they get.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I would think pedophiles are below spammers, but I digress.....


$750,000 k per month ! where do I get my 16 high speed lines ?????


I'd spam the bejeesus outta all you guys for that kinda cash !



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I have to admit that it's kind of strange to hear anyone bemoan the fate of a spammer. In the days before this law and this conviction, I never heard anyone express sympathy for a spammer. Spammers are the lowest of the low and deserve what they get.


What??? So you would say this guy and his crime is on the same level as a murder, child molestation, rape, medical malpractice, etc.???

Spammers are far from being the lowest of the low. Sure I agree they're a bunch of annoying dickheads who need to have the # kicked out of em and forced to get a real job, but that applies for Politicians & Public Relations People too!!

Take away his computer priviledges for good and take all his Illegally Aquired Wealth and kick him back out here with the rest of society and make his ass work for minimum wage and I can promise you he'll understand the reason the world isn't big enough for all of us and assholes like him too.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I have to admit that it's kind of strange to hear anyone bemoan the fate of a spammer. In the days before this law and this conviction, I never heard anyone express sympathy for a spammer.


I have no sympathy for him being punished and I completely agree that he should be. I am questioning the justification for the severity of the sentence, particularly in comparison to other acts. The punishment should fit the crime, and this one doesn't.


Spammers are the lowest of the low and deserve what they get.


Parroting.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I forgot to mention also that according to the article:


Under Virginia law, sending unsolicited bulk e-mail itself is not a crime unless the sender masks his identity.


So it's not even the act of the spamming itself that is the crime but the "sneakyness" combined with it that makes it illegal. So all the stuff about how it hurts servers and takes up server resourses and stuff doesn't even matter anyway. This guy is getting 9 years for doing something Legal only he did it with a fake name making it a crime.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
$750,000 k per month ! where do I get my 16 high speed lines ?????


I'd spam the bejeesus outta all you guys for that kinda cash !


Judging by some posting here, I wouldn't recommend it.

You could get a rather severe response from a few ATS'ers


Fig

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
OK great, they caught a spammer. Yay.
Sentence is too severe IMO, take the guy's assets and ban him from internet use for the nine years - nah, make it ten. Use his tech to fight other spammers.
Then go after the guys who send me unwanted junk snail mail, flyers, etc.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
You're all way off here mainly due to you only having a "consumer" mind.

If I own an office, and I pay 100 thousand dollars for computer servers etc is it fair that my system should get bombed with penis enlargement emails? Both offending my users and slowing my servers down painfully?

Would you be defending this man if he came into your house and started vandalizing your home PC?

It's the same thing. Corporations spend millions on computers and lowlifes like this guy make THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH to break them.

Rot in jail. Hopefully his colleagues will follow him there.

It is very very sad that some of you think vandalism is justified since it doesn't bother you in particular. Try viewing it from the perspectives of others for a minute. It's not just your hotmail account we're talking about.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by Djarums]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join