First American to go to jail for spamming...gets 9 years

jay gw · 8th April 2005, 08:24 PM

A man has been sentenced to nine years in jail by a Virginia judge for sending millions of junk emails, or "spamming".

Jeremy Jaynes, 30, is the first person in the US to get a prison term in a spam case. He is said to have been the world's eighth most prolific spammer.

By selling sham products and services advertised in his messages, he earned up to $750,000 (Â£398,000) per month. Jaynes has appealed, and the court has put off the start of his prison term because the new law raises questions. Under Virginia law, sending bulk email using fake addresses is a crime.

"It was not just sending bulk emails, he was falsifying the routing information, disguising the origin," said prosecutor Lisa Hicks Thomas.

"The end user couldn't say: don't send this to me," she added.

Jaynes was operating though an America Online (AOL) server in Loudoun County, where the world's largest Internet services provider is based, and is believed to have sent some 10 million unwanted emails a day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4426949.stm

____

I think since spamming is apparently lucrative ($750k per MONTH

.... sign me up for that) what people will do is to create the spam in the US, but then route it to an associate in a foreign country with no spam laws, and then back to the United States/final destination. When that kind of money is involved, passing laws won't stop anything.

It's really weird, though, but I have had absolutely NO spam at my Yahoo account for about a month....very very weird. I used to get about 30 a day.

peptoabysmal · 8th April 2005, 08:59 PM

Nevermind the spam, why couldn't they just get this guy for fraud before the spam law went into effect?

Did Yahoo install a new spam filter unbeknownst to you?

peptoabysmal · 8th April 2005, 09:06 PM

Oh, yeah I forgot to vote.

I voted no. That's based on going to jail for *just* spamming.

If they commit fraud or if they refuse to honor request to stop sending mail to an address, yes they should be fined or do jail time or whatever fits the crime.

schplurg · 9th April 2005, 04:39 AM

I'd be much happier if the "SPAM" I get in the real-life mailbox outside my house was outlawed. I can't just delete 10 pounds of junk mail a week the way I can with my PC.

geni · 9th April 2005, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by schplurg
I'd be much happier if the "SPAM" I get in the real-life mailbox outside my house was outlawed. I can't just delete 10 pounds of junk mail a week the way I can with my PC.

On the basis that ten pound worth of email would be aproximately 24200000000 emails (assuming 100000 bytes per email and 10000000000000000 electrons are needed store each byte (no idea of the real number)) I'm not so sure)

(yes I'm board)

username · 9th April 2005, 11:29 AM

Throw the spammer in jail, but charge him with fraud at the federal level as well. Finding him guilty of spamming only is weak and could be overturned. That would be a shame since he is guilty of fraud.

Having said that any unsolicited commercial email that doesn't include real contact info and working unsubscribe info should be illegal and prosecuted with prison time. Hell, it should just be illegal period, as should telemarketting and door to door sales.

AWPrime · 9th April 2005, 12:33 PM

Yes.

And for every spam email they should spend an hour in jail.

nightwind · 9th April 2005, 03:42 PM

Still not sure why the spam is illegal, when unsolicited snail mail, telemarketing messages, etc. are not.

With all the true scum bags that are running around out there that need to be in jail, not too sure that this should be a jail time offense, and maybe should be punished in another way.

Rob Lister · 9th April 2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AWPrime
Yes.

And for every spam email they should spend an hour in jail.

Even a minute...or a second...may be a true life sentence.

Be merciful, will ya? Let's compromise on 3/4 a sec per email inasmuch as that is about the time the receiver takes to recognise it as such and delete it.

Perfect justice.

Rob Lister · 9th April 2005, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nightwind
Still not sure why the spam is illegal, when unsolicited snail mail, telemarketing messages, etc. are not.

With all the true scum bags that are running around out there that need to be in jail, not too sure that this should be a jail time offense, and maybe should be punished in another way.

Unsolicited snail mail is not illegal because it has a built in moderator -- the cost of mailing. Unsolicited telemarketing messages are illegal under pretty much the same circumstances as spam. I agree that we have some real scum that do not go to jail as they should because we're filling our prisions with non-violent offenders. I could solve this problem once and for all but nobody is crazy enough to vote me in as king.

merphie · 9th April 2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nightwind
Still not sure why the spam is illegal, when unsolicited snail mail, telemarketing messages, etc. are not.

With all the true scum bags that are running around out there that need to be in jail, not too sure that this should be a jail time offense, and maybe should be punished in another way.

No doubt. Do you know how much ink I go through on my fax machine just because of spam? Most of the time they don't list a header. When they do I fax a bill back for an hour of labor.

As for snail mail spam, I use the prepaid envelope and send a letter that says "no thanks". I figured it will end up costing them money and they will stop.

My state's no call list takes care of the phone telemarketeers.

Meadmaker · 11th April 2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nightwind
Still not sure why the spam is illegal, when unsolicited snail mail, telemarketing messages, etc. are not.

With all the true scum bags that are running around out there that need to be in jail, not too sure that this should be a jail time offense, and maybe should be punished in another way.

Also, in the case of telemarketing and spam, spam costs the receiver of the unwanted junk. Even with restrictions on telemarketing, I still get occaisional marketing calls on a cell phone, which costs me money.

With spam, I pay hourly connect time charges. I'm paying the cost of downloading the spam.

kuroyume0161 · 11th April 2005, 01:16 PM

I voted yes for this reason (from money.cnn.com):

Quote:

Analysts estimate spam cost Internet providers some $500 million in wasted bandwidth last year, and at peaks accounted for more than 80 percent of Internet traffic.

We're all paying for the ability of these scum f!!kers to irritate us endlessly.

Just think about how much better the internet would be if your bandwidth wasn't competing with 20 billion spams/year.

Fry 'im, toast 'im, draw and quarter 'im. I feel nothing for someone that can click a button and bring instant grief to millions...

Charlie Monoxide · 11th April 2005, 02:19 PM

I voted for jail but in retrospect I think the proper punishment should be that the spammer must write out in long-hand an apology to each and every user ID he spammed.

Charlie (and mail em via snail mail) Monoxide

Snide · 12th April 2005, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Oh, yeah I forgot to vote.

I voted no. That's based on going to jail for *just* spamming.

If they commit fraud or if they refuse to honor request to stop sending mail to an address, yes they should be fined or do jail time or whatever fits the crime.

Ditto to all of this.

Edited to add: I am inspired to do some more research on this, due to kuroyume's commments:

Quote:

Just think about how much better the internet would be if your bandwidth wasn't competing with 20 billion spams/year.

IllegalArgument · 12th April 2005, 07:10 AM

The best punish I heard for spammers, is they are sent to prison. The condition for their release is that they must hit a delete key once for every spam they sent.

Art Vandelay · 12th April 2005, 12:34 PM

Isn't it a bit odd to say "Here's this medium for reaching millions of people. Since we're paying for everything, and not charging you for its use, no matter how much that use costs us, please don't take advantage of our generosity" and expect everyone in the world to comply? Much of spam involves fraud, theft, and other things that are already illegal. But at its core, spam is a violation of etiquette. It's like never buying ketchup at the store because you can get it at McDonald's for free. How can you legislate that? Eventually it's going to come down to a judgement call about what is a "proper" use of mass mailing techniques. Seems to me that's where capitalism comes in. If you really think that sending a million emails is a proper use of the internet, then go ahead. You'll just have to pay for the privilege.

Art Vandelay · 12th April 2005, 12:35 PM

BTW, if Laura is the First Lady, wouldn't "First American" refer to George?

Vagabond · 12th April 2005, 01:51 PM

Spam laws are harsh not because spam is such a horrible thing but for the same reason tax laws are harsh because it is very unlikely you will be caught and prosecuted so they make the punishment extreme in the attempt to discourage the act in the first place. Nothing less than many years in jail is going to discourage somebody from doing something that could earn them 750K a month. Anybody who is actively trying to do something to me or anybody they are actively trying to prevent is a scumbag plain and simple even if they are just poking me in the arm if I don't wish it.

What we should do is throw people who are actually dumb enough to buy things from these people in a mental leper colony someplace. If nobody bought anything from them their enterprise wouldn't exist.

Segnosaur · 12th April 2005, 02:21 PM

The annoying thing is, the problem of Spam could be eliminated almost overnight.

There is a law on the books that allows people who recieve 'junk' faxes to sue the companies responsible for sending the spam. (Not the Spammers themselves, but the people who hire the spammers.) Just take that law, and extend it to e-mail. Won't eliminate everything, but it will certainly take a chunk out of the problem.

The advantages of such a system:
- You don't have to get the government involved. (For every spammer that gets arrested, there are probably several that the government can't waste time tracking down, or that are in other countries) In fact, just the thought that they may have to pay people off will be enough to deter many companies
- By going after the companies instead of the spammers themselves, you don't have to worry about tracking down a sender who may be in another jurisdiction (and, lets face it, most companies advertising through spam still have to have a real address, which is often right in the U.S.)

See: www.cauce.org

Vagabond · 12th April 2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur
The annoying thing is, the problem of Spam could be eliminated almost overnight.

There is a law on the books that allows people who recieve 'junk' faxes to sue the companies responsible for sending the spam. (Not the Spammers themselves, but the people who hire the spammers.) Just take that law, and extend it to e-mail. Won't eliminate everything, but it will certainly take a chunk out of the problem.

The advantages of such a system:
- You don't have to get the government involved. (For every spammer that gets arrested, there are probably several that the government can't waste time tracking down, or that are in other countries) In fact, just the thought that they may have to pay people off will be enough to deter many companies
- By going after the companies instead of the spammers themselves, you don't have to worry about tracking down a sender who may be in another jurisdiction (and, lets face it, most companies advertising through spam still have to have a real address, which is often right in the U.S.)

See: www.cauce.org

However, the reason why those people are still located in the US and the spammers aren't is because currently they aren't doing anything illegal. If you went after those selling the products they would just move their office out of the country, despite the fact the product is in a warehouse in Jersey.

AWPrime · 12th April 2005, 03:57 PM

Burn the warehouse down!!!

Tmy · 12th April 2005, 04:06 PM

I say good! I tire of spammers and hackers.

What really pisses me off is that they are annoy millions on purpose! They are semi terrorists.

Segnosaur · 12th April 2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vagabond
However, the reason why those people are still located in the US and the spammers aren't is because currently they aren't doing anything illegal. If you went after those selling the products they would just move their office out of the country, despite the fact the product is in a warehouse in Jersey.

Most spammers are small-time operators (if not outright con-artists.) I doubt most of them would have the business ability to move their offices off-shore. (If you're trying to sell home-made viagra that you made in your bathtub, you probably aren't willing to move to some other country just so you can try selling your stuff.)

Art Vandelay · 12th April 2005, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Most spammers are small-time operators (if not outright con-artists.) I doubt most of them would have the business ability to move their offices off-shore.

Small-time operators are smaller targets. They don't have to move their offices, just get an offside PO Box (or whatever the equivalent is) through which to route the products. "Extending" the law to spam isn't as easy as it sounds. But most of all, how do you prove that the company is behind the spam? Some people send out spam in the name of a company to get people mad at that company.

8th April 2005, 08:24 PM	#1
jay gw Suspended Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,824	First American to go to jail for spamming...gets 9 years A man has been sentenced to nine years in jail by a Virginia judge for sending millions of junk emails, or "spamming". Jeremy Jaynes, 30, is the first person in the US to get a prison term in a spam case. He is said to have been the world's eighth most prolific spammer. By selling sham products and services advertised in his messages, he earned up to $750,000 (Â£398,000) per month. Jaynes has appealed, and the court has put off the start of his prison term because the new law raises questions. Under Virginia law, sending bulk email using fake addresses is a crime. "It was not just sending bulk emails, he was falsifying the routing information, disguising the origin," said prosecutor Lisa Hicks Thomas. "The end user couldn't say: don't send this to me," she added. Jaynes was operating though an America Online (AOL) server in Loudoun County, where the world's largest Internet services provider is based, and is believed to have sent some 10 million unwanted emails a day. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4426949.stm ____ I think since spamming is apparently lucrative ($750k per MONTH .... sign me up for that) what people will do is to create the spam in the US, but then route it to an associate in a foreign country with no spam laws, and then back to the United States/final destination. When that kind of money is involved, passing laws won't stop anything. It's really weird, though, but I have had absolutely NO spam at my Yahoo account for about a month....very very weird. I used to get about 30 a day.
jay gw Suspended Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,824

8th April 2005, 08:59 PM	#2
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	Nevermind the spam, why couldn't they just get this guy for fraud before the spam law went into effect? Did Yahoo install a new spam filter unbeknownst to you?
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

8th April 2005, 09:06 PM	#3
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	Oh, yeah I forgot to vote. I voted no. That's based on going to jail for just spamming. If they commit fraud or if they refuse to honor request to stop sending mail to an address, yes they should be fined or do jail time or whatever fits the crime.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

9th April 2005, 04:39 AM	#4
schplurg Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 923	I'd be much happier if the "SPAM" I get in the real-life mailbox outside my house was outlawed. I can't just delete 10 pounds of junk mail a week the way I can with my PC.
schplurg Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 923

9th April 2005, 11:29 AM	#6
username Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 837	Throw the spammer in jail, but charge him with fraud at the federal level as well. Finding him guilty of spamming only is weak and could be overturned. That would be a shame since he is guilty of fraud. Having said that any unsolicited commercial email that doesn't include real contact info and working unsubscribe info should be illegal and prosecuted with prison time. Hell, it should just be illegal period, as should telemarketting and door to door sales.
username Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 837

9th April 2005, 04:59 AM	#5
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,561	Quote: Originally posted by schplurg I'd be much happier if the "SPAM" I get in the real-life mailbox outside my house was outlawed. I can't just delete 10 pounds of junk mail a week the way I can with my PC. On the basis that ten pound worth of email would be aproximately 24200000000 emails (assuming 100000 bytes per email and 10000000000000000 electrons are needed store each byte (no idea of the real number)) I'm not so sure) (yes I'm board)

9th April 2005, 12:33 PM	#7
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	Yes. And for every spam email they should spend an hour in jail.
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	__________________ Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic." c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..." Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds. Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "

9th April 2005, 03:42 PM	#8
nightwind Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 398	spam Still not sure why the spam is illegal, when unsolicited snail mail, telemarketing messages, etc. are not. With all the true scum bags that are running around out there that need to be in jail, not too sure that this should be a jail time offense, and maybe should be punished in another way.
	__________________ "A Wise Man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can see from the top of a mountain" "Sure there have been injuries and deaths in boxing - but none of them serious." - Alan Minter, Boxer

9th April 2005, 03:47 PM	#9
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by AWPrime Yes. And for every spam email they should spend an hour in jail. Even a minute...or a second...may be a true life sentence. Be merciful, will ya? Let's compromise on 3/4 a sec per email inasmuch as that is about the time the receiver takes to recognise it as such and delete it. Perfect justice.

9th April 2005, 04:00 PM	#10
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Re: spam Quote: Originally posted by nightwind Still not sure why the spam is illegal, when unsolicited snail mail, telemarketing messages, etc. are not. With all the true scum bags that are running around out there that need to be in jail, not too sure that this should be a jail time offense, and maybe should be punished in another way. Unsolicited snail mail is not illegal because it has a built in moderator -- the cost of mailing. Unsolicited telemarketing messages are illegal under pretty much the same circumstances as spam. I agree that we have some real scum that do not go to jail as they should because we're filling our prisions with non-violent offenders. I could solve this problem once and for all but nobody is crazy enough to vote me in as king.

9th April 2005, 06:59 PM	#11
merphie Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,890	Re: spam Quote: Originally posted by nightwind Still not sure why the spam is illegal, when unsolicited snail mail, telemarketing messages, etc. are not. With all the true scum bags that are running around out there that need to be in jail, not too sure that this should be a jail time offense, and maybe should be punished in another way. No doubt. Do you know how much ink I go through on my fax machine just because of spam? Most of the time they don't list a header. When they do I fax a bill back for an hour of labor. As for snail mail spam, I use the prepaid envelope and send a letter that says "no thanks". I figured it will end up costing them money and they will stop. My state's no call list takes care of the phone telemarketeers.
	__________________ "They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin "Don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

11th April 2005, 10:03 AM	#12
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,435	Re: spam Quote: Originally posted by nightwind Still not sure why the spam is illegal, when unsolicited snail mail, telemarketing messages, etc. are not. With all the true scum bags that are running around out there that need to be in jail, not too sure that this should be a jail time offense, and maybe should be punished in another way. Also, in the case of telemarketing and spam, spam costs the receiver of the unwanted junk. Even with restrictions on telemarketing, I still get occaisional marketing calls on a cell phone, which costs me money. With spam, I pay hourly connect time charges. I'm paying the cost of downloading the spam.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

11th April 2005, 01:16 PM	#13
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	I voted yes for this reason (from money.cnn.com): Quote: Analysts estimate spam cost Internet providers some $500 million in wasted bandwidth last year, and at peaks accounted for more than 80 percent of Internet traffic. We're all paying for the ability of these scum f!!kers to irritate us endlessly. Just think about how much better the internet would be if your bandwidth wasn't competing with 20 billion spams/year. Fry 'im, toast 'im, draw and quarter 'im. I feel nothing for someone that can click a button and bring instant grief to millions...

11th April 2005, 02:19 PM	#14
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	I voted for jail but in retrospect I think the proper punishment should be that the spammer must write out in long-hand an apology to each and every user ID he spammed. Charlie (and mail em via snail mail) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

12th April 2005, 07:06 AM	#15
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	Quote: Originally posted by peptoabysmal Oh, yeah I forgot to vote. I voted no. That's based on going to jail for just spamming. If they commit fraud or if they refuse to honor request to stop sending mail to an address, yes they should be fined or do jail time or whatever fits the crime. Ditto to all of this. Edited to add: I am inspired to do some more research on this, due to kuroyume's commments: Quote: Just think about how much better the internet would be if your bandwidth wasn't competing with 20 billion spams/year.

12th April 2005, 07:10 AM	#16
IllegalArgument Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Reston, VA Posts: 1,757	The best punish I heard for spammers, is they are sent to prison. The condition for their release is that they must hit a delete key once for every spam they sent.

12th April 2005, 12:34 PM	#17
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Isn't it a bit odd to say "Here's this medium for reaching millions of people. Since we're paying for everything, and not charging you for its use, no matter how much that use costs us, please don't take advantage of our generosity" and expect everyone in the world to comply? Much of spam involves fraud, theft, and other things that are already illegal. But at its core, spam is a violation of etiquette. It's like never buying ketchup at the store because you can get it at McDonald's for free. How can you legislate that? Eventually it's going to come down to a judgement call about what is a "proper" use of mass mailing techniques. Seems to me that's where capitalism comes in. If you really think that sending a million emails is a proper use of the internet, then go ahead. You'll just have to pay for the privilege.

12th April 2005, 12:35 PM	#18
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	BTW, if Laura is the First Lady, wouldn't "First American" refer to George?

12th April 2005, 01:51 PM	#19
Vagabond Professor of Human Nature Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: St. Louis Posts: 818	Spam laws are harsh not because spam is such a horrible thing but for the same reason tax laws are harsh because it is very unlikely you will be caught and prosecuted so they make the punishment extreme in the attempt to discourage the act in the first place. Nothing less than many years in jail is going to discourage somebody from doing something that could earn them 750K a month. Anybody who is actively trying to do something to me or anybody they are actively trying to prevent is a scumbag plain and simple even if they are just poking me in the arm if I don't wish it. What we should do is throw people who are actually dumb enough to buy things from these people in a mental leper colony someplace. If nobody bought anything from them their enterprise wouldn't exist.

12th April 2005, 02:21 PM	#20
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	The annoying thing is, the problem of Spam could be eliminated almost overnight. There is a law on the books that allows people who recieve 'junk' faxes to sue the companies responsible for sending the spam. (Not the Spammers themselves, but the people who hire the spammers.) Just take that law, and extend it to e-mail. Won't eliminate everything, but it will certainly take a chunk out of the problem. The advantages of such a system: - You don't have to get the government involved. (For every spammer that gets arrested, there are probably several that the government can't waste time tracking down, or that are in other countries) In fact, just the thought that they may have to pay people off will be enough to deter many companies - By going after the companies instead of the spammers themselves, you don't have to worry about tracking down a sender who may be in another jurisdiction (and, lets face it, most companies advertising through spam still have to have a real address, which is often right in the U.S.) See: www.cauce.org
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

12th April 2005, 03:27 PM	#21
Vagabond Professor of Human Nature Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: St. Louis Posts: 818	Quote: Originally posted by Segnosaur The annoying thing is, the problem of Spam could be eliminated almost overnight. There is a law on the books that allows people who recieve 'junk' faxes to sue the companies responsible for sending the spam. (Not the Spammers themselves, but the people who hire the spammers.) Just take that law, and extend it to e-mail. Won't eliminate everything, but it will certainly take a chunk out of the problem. The advantages of such a system: - You don't have to get the government involved. (For every spammer that gets arrested, there are probably several that the government can't waste time tracking down, or that are in other countries) In fact, just the thought that they may have to pay people off will be enough to deter many companies - By going after the companies instead of the spammers themselves, you don't have to worry about tracking down a sender who may be in another jurisdiction (and, lets face it, most companies advertising through spam still have to have a real address, which is often right in the U.S.) See: www.cauce.org However, the reason why those people are still located in the US and the spammers aren't is because currently they aren't doing anything illegal. If you went after those selling the products they would just move their office out of the country, despite the fact the product is in a warehouse in Jersey.

12th April 2005, 03:57 PM	#22
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	Burn the warehouse down!!!
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	__________________ Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic." c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..." Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds. Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "

12th April 2005, 04:06 PM	#23
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	I say good! I tire of spammers and hackers. What really pisses me off is that they are annoy millions on purpose! They are semi terrorists.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

12th April 2005, 04:11 PM	#24
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Quote: Originally posted by Vagabond However, the reason why those people are still located in the US and the spammers aren't is because currently they aren't doing anything illegal. If you went after those selling the products they would just move their office out of the country, despite the fact the product is in a warehouse in Jersey. Most spammers are small-time operators (if not outright con-artists.) I doubt most of them would have the business ability to move their offices off-shore. (If you're trying to sell home-made viagra that you made in your bathtub, you probably aren't willing to move to some other country just so you can try selling your stuff.)
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

12th April 2005, 11:03 PM	#25
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Quote: Originally posted by Segnosaur Most spammers are small-time operators (if not outright con-artists.) I doubt most of them would have the business ability to move their offices off-shore. Small-time operators are smaller targets. They don't have to move their offices, just get an offside PO Box (or whatever the equivalent is) through which to route the products. "Extending" the law to spam isn't as easy as it sounds. But most of all, how do you prove that the company is behind the spam? Some people send out spam in the name of a company to get people mad at that company.