[Nez]

Interesting to read on the BBC Technology page of their news web site that spammer Jeremy Jaynes (30) has been (provisionaly) jailed for nine years(ruling pending).By selling junk promises he earned $750,000 (£398,000) per month.Apparently spamming is a new crime under Virginia law.

Not so long ago I reported on the case of a nineteen year old who was fined $500,000 by Microsoft for altering the code of a worm.This fine was later dropped for 225 hours community service.

Makes me think when all of us each get 'tat' in our inboxes from people and companies we don't know anything about,or have not subscribed to,what their penalty should be,or are the big guns just going after individuals?

Likewise it is annoying to have to use a pop-up blocker to stop the usual garbage from appearing in a corner of the web page you are viewing,which I see as an equal crime.You know the thing."You are our one millionth 'hit',click here to get your prize of one billion dollars",etc.

Maybe the punishment does not fit the crime.Nine years for spamming,when here in the UK murderers can be 'out' after nine years does not make sense to me.What I want to know will spamming and other annoyances ever be stopped fully?

The web link to the story is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4426949.stm

Nez. :confused:

[labman]

He is appealing, and hasn't gone to jail yet. Personally I would leave him there until he rots. I am sick of people taking up my time trying to sell me things I am not interested in.

As for those that deliberately spread viruses and other mal ware, I think we should bring back stoning. Each person is limited to one stone for each copy they received.

[sultan_emerr]

This stuff worries me. Is this also called spamming = Sophos warns of fake Microsoft security Trojan = "A new campaign by malicious hackers uses a Web site designed to look like Microsoft's Windows update page to trick unwitting Internet users into infecting their computers with a Trojan horse remote access program, according to antivirus experts at Sophos."

[fredg]

Hi,
Spamming will never be stopped.
As a comparison, Newspaper advertising brings in money.
TV ads bring in money.
The bottom line is money, and since spamming is advertising, it does bring in money from those answering the ads.
fredg

[ScottGem]

This stuff worries me. Is this also called spamming ...

No, Spamming is generally the action of sending unsolicited commercial advertisements. It refers mostly to e-mail, but also includes message board postings. For example, if someone were to post an ad for a website in several forums here, that would be spamming.

The actions in the linked article come under the heading of "phishing". Phishing is the practice of trying to fool people into giving out information or downloading something that will steal information by pretending to be a legitimate representative of some company.

[ScottGem]

Hi,
Spamming will never be stopped.
As a comparison, Newspaper advertising brings in money.
TV ads bring in money.
The bottom line is money, and since spamming is advertising, it does bring in money from those answering the ads.
fredg

I tend to agree that spamming will never be stopped. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Making the comparison of spam to TV and newspaper ads is not valid. TV (and radio) and newspaper (and magazine) ads give value in return for the ads. You get entertainment and information in return in the form of TV/radio programming and newspaper/magazine articles. Spam, by contrast, involves a cost in using up bandwidth, time and resources to deal with the junk.

Another aspect that makes the comparison invalid is that legitimate advertising costs the advertiser. With spam the cost is minimal. For little more than cost of an e-mail account, which they would have anyway, a spammer can send thousands of notices. So, while they don't pay, the people and services that receives this junk do pay.

This lack of cost to the spammer is what makes it so attractive. It means they need very low response rates to justify their actions. If a newspaper ad got the response rates that spammers get it would be quickly pulled.

So one answer is to make it less atttractive from a monetary standpoint. That means educating people from responding to this junk. I refuse to deal with a spammer even if the product or service is something I'm interested in. Make e-mail more secure to prevent spoofing so the sender of the e-mail can be positively identified. Do not give an e-mail account to anyone who cannot establish a legitimate identity. There are other ways as well a cood site for info on fighting spam is cauce.org.

[labman]

You are right Scott. Spam should be compared to telemarketing. Even before the federal law, my state had a highly effective law almost eliminating it. Nobody here misses the telemarketing.

Like many of the other websites I hang out at, this one has ads. That means we can all use it for free. Spam gives me nothing in return.

[sultan_emerr]

No, Spamming is generally the action of sending unsolicited commercial advertisements. It refers mostly to e-mail, but also includes message board postings. For example, if someone were to post an ad for a website in several forums here, that would be spamming.

The actions in the linked article come under the heading of "phishing". Phishing is the practice of trying to fool people into giving out information or downloading something that will steal information by pretending to be a legitimate representative of some company.

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. :cool: