Spam bandit punched hard.

keatron

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090501166.html

Find more posts tagged with

SAVE $250 on Your Boot Camp — Use Code "EXAM26"

Exclusively for TechExams members for Infosec Boot Camps starting before April 30, 2026

View Boot Camps

Comments

sprkymrk

Cool.

I really like the "free speech" argument.

If the guy is out on a $1,000,000 bond, that means he was able to put up $100,000 cash, so he was probably making good money practicing "free speech spam".

keatron

sprkymrk wrote:

Cool.
I really like the "free speech" argument.
If the guy is out on a $1,000,000 bond, that means he was able to put up $100,000 cash, so he was probably making good money practicing "free speech spam".

I remember reading about the case when it first started, they said he was making something along the lines of a 50 grand per month.

JDMurray

sprkymrk wrote:

I really like the "free speech" argument.

Really. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to telephone conversations in the United States, or the contents of the U.S. Mail, so I wonder why his attorneys would play that card for the globally-regulated Internet. Also, computer crimes are Federal crimes, so it doesn't matter which state he sent the Spam from. His attorneys were really clutching a straws, but I'm sure they are getting paid very well.

Ricka182

hahaha, he sucks! I hope his appeal is denied!!

Danman32

"You purchase an e-mail address list, alter the transmission information in the header of your e-mail to avoid retaliation, and on Easter morning send out a three-word e-mail to thousands of people: 'Christ is risen!' You have committed a felony in Virginia," Wolf said.

As much as I believe in the message he used as an example, I don't agree with him on the delivery. But of course common sense and understanding of intent has to be excercised in the enforcement of this law, and I see how the law can be abused. In his case though, his spamming was used for commerce, not free speech. He wasn't giving anything away, he was selling, so he can't use that arguement anyway.

But it does show we do have a problem with addressing juristiction, even where all entities are within the country. I can put up a website selling something in a business manner that is completely legal in my area, the site gets picked up by a search engine, and someone in another juristiction orders my product where the product or terms of sale are not legal in his. I can't be expected to look up all the laws concerning this for each item I bill or ship out.
I suppose though if I solicited the sale, I should be responsible for knowing the applicable laws to the solicitation and the sale.

The world is getting so complex. Where do I get off?