First spam conviction...

[Aqua]

Read about it... here. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/03/spam.trial.ap/index.html)

Do you think the sentence is appropriate?

What about the sister's sentence, or lack thereof?

[IAKaraokeGirl]

I just read about this. 10,000 orders at $39.95 per order. Wow.

[kathy1]

I think they should have made the penalties alot stiffer....give future spammers sumpin to worry about if they get caught. :nuts:

[PantyFanatic]

The only thing I saw that in any way could give cause for consideration was the statement regarding this being new in another jurisdiction.
…Oblon also said that because his client was a North Carolina resident he would have been unaware of the Virginia law….
To me that would be applicable to the industrious hustlers that are trying to exploit the newer medium to promote their service or product in the same manner all ‘conventional’ advertising is constantly bombarding us with their wares.

Agreeing with the last statement…
…"Spam is a nuisance to millions of Americans, but it is also a major problem for businesses large and small because the thousands of unwanted e-mails create havoc as they attempt to conduct business,"
… that it is an issue that will not rectify itself without some form of guidelines and regulations for the fair and reasonable use of the technology for commerce. By it’s nature, internet regulation should be developed on an international basis, with some basic common sense goals to make it workable and ONLT drawn up by lawyers and NOT developed by them.

Equitable commerce did not seem to be the intent in this case.
….. used the Internet to peddle sham products and services such as a "FedEx refund processor."
….. Jaynes received 10,000 credit card orders, each for $39.95, for the processor……
They willfully worked at ripping people off and were successful to the tune of $400,000.00. That is fraud, plain and simple.
….prosecuted the case under a law that took effect last year barring people from sending bulk e-mail that is unsolicited and masks its origin….

…convicting them of three counts each of sending e-mails with fraudulent and untraceable routing information….
The key words there are “with fraudulent and untraceable routing”. I read nothing that showed there was not full cooperation between them and believe she should have received a full and equal sentence.

I believe the sentence was far to light and should constitute fines equal to the amount swindled and the jail penalty should be he same as if that total amount was stolen from one of the systems institutions, like a bank. Stealing from the private citizen should not be a lesser offense than touching something that belong to the system, but I’ll save that for another rant. :cool:

[PantyFanatic]

:madfire: Ask me my thoughts about people that create and distribute viruses and hijacking programs. :madfire:


:rant:


:nuts: :jedi2: :nuts: :jedi2: :nuts: :jedi2:

[jseal]

Aqua,

I agree with kathy1 and PantyFanatic; the sentence was too light. The crime was fraud, the medium was irrelevant.

[LixyChick]

Bout f'in time! I'm in agreement of whatever PF said (lol!)!



















JK..JK! I know what he said and I agree!

[quisath]

I'm just here for the Ride .............. SHOTTTTTGUNN