"America's so-called spam king and his cohorts are going to prison," reports Tresa Baldas in the NLJ (registration required)."Alan Ralsky, whom federal prosecutors called one of the world's most
notorious spammers, and four codefendants pleaded guilty on Monday in
federal court in Detroit for their roles in an international spamming
scheme that sent billions of illegal e-mail advertisements to pump up
Chinese 'penny' stocks." Ralsky "pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, including wire fraud, money
laundering and violating the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act), which prohibits the
falsification of certain information used in the transmission of e-mail." He will probably get 35 to 43 months due to cooperation with the government.
Ralsky's lawyer doesn't think spamming should be a crime. "I doubt that there are too many people who leave their homes petrified that their e-mail will be flooded with spam." Leave their homes? No. Petrified? No. Annoyed as hell? Yes. Have their productivity impacted? Yes. Have their communications made more difficult? Yes.
Ralsky's lawyer doesn't think spamming should be a crime. "I doubt that there are too many people who leave their homes petrified that their e-mail will be flooded with spam." Leave their homes? No. Petrified? No. Annoyed as hell? Yes. Have their productivity impacted? Yes. Have their communications made more difficult? Yes.
A few years back, I had to give up an email address I had used since the very early days of the Internet. Over those years, the address had gotten on so many spammer's lists that it became effectively unusable. To this day, people who haven't emailed me in a while and still have that address in their address books email to it and get the bounceback message.
In the early days, people could freely list their email addresses on Usenet posts and web pages. Today, I would no more post my real email address in plain text than I would my Social Security number. I have to set up disposable, temporary addresses that forward to my real one for posting on the web site or giving to people I don't completely trust.
Email is one of the great productivity-enhancing inventions of our age. But it is somewhat less than it could be because of spammers. This subspecies of speech is "utterly without redeeming social value," and it can and should be banned.
What sentence is appropriate for a spammer? Here is my suggestion. Place him in a prison cell with a computer. The computer is not connected to the Internet. All programming and searching software has been removed. The computer has an inbox preloaded with 100,000,000 spam emails. Somewhere in one of those emails is a code for release from prison. When he finds it, he will be released.
Somewhat more seriously, CJLF's brief asking the Supreme Court to take up the case of Virginia's spam law (unsuccessfully, alas) is here.
In the early days, people could freely list their email addresses on Usenet posts and web pages. Today, I would no more post my real email address in plain text than I would my Social Security number. I have to set up disposable, temporary addresses that forward to my real one for posting on the web site or giving to people I don't completely trust.
Email is one of the great productivity-enhancing inventions of our age. But it is somewhat less than it could be because of spammers. This subspecies of speech is "utterly without redeeming social value," and it can and should be banned.
What sentence is appropriate for a spammer? Here is my suggestion. Place him in a prison cell with a computer. The computer is not connected to the Internet. All programming and searching software has been removed. The computer has an inbox preloaded with 100,000,000 spam emails. Somewhere in one of those emails is a code for release from prison. When he finds it, he will be released.
Somewhat more seriously, CJLF's brief asking the Supreme Court to take up the case of Virginia's spam law (unsuccessfully, alas) is here.
Leave a comment