Forum Moderators: open
convicted of sending hundreds of thousands of unsolicited e-mail messages to AOL subscribers......amassed a fortune of $24m from his sales, prosecutors said.
[news.bbc.co.uk...]
I hate spam email as much as the next person, but 9 years is a bit excessive, don't you think?
Amazing how a person can be so smart in one way, and so stupid in another.
Wow that was great - perfect - what a post - almost fell over in agreement, and yes what a dumbo - I would have hit grand cayman and man the women! Woooo , would never have told! Fire and forget - Hollyweird hits the Cayman Islands - never returns - the rest could spam all they want, and to say he stayed in Virginia was it! - Just plain dumbo-ness
Hahaha - LMFAO - wow need to get another beer now
The thing I don't understand, why didn't he quit when he was ahead
Greed.
he doesnt deserve that
[edited by: SlyOldDog at 12:52 pm (utc) on Nov. 5, 2004]
So I guess people getting spam emails is worse than rape. The Justice system works great, eh?
Nine years is excessive. Many rapists get off with less.So I guess people getting spam emails is worse than rape. The Justice system works great, eh?
Rapists should get life. 9 years seems about right for stealing 24 million.
As many have said this guy will only serve a couple years in reality.
They were convicted under a state law that bars the sending of bulk e-mails using fake addresses.
und guilty of breaking a state law which prohibits the sending of more than 100,000 e-mails in 30 days..
But Jaynes' lawyer David Oblon called the nine-year recommended term "outrageous" and said his client believed he was innocent.
You got to be kidding me!
But Jaynes' lawyer David Oblon called the nine-year recommended term "outrageous"
I agree - totally outrageous - FAR too lenient - not NEARLY long enough...
At $24m over 9 years - that's $2.6m a year. Not a bad deal - and more likely to incentivise than deter.
Of course he won't serve anything like as long as this anyway:
a) He'd walk away in half the time for "good behaviour"
b) 9 years is only a jury's recommendation - when he's actually sentenced next year I bet he'll get the usual slap on the wrist...
Right - enough of this rant - I've got some spam to clear out of my inbox!
That's ridiculous - there would be many legit businesses with more than 100,000 subscribers. Don't move to Virginia.
That's ridiculous - there would be many legit businesses with more than 100,000 subscribers. Don't move to Virginia.
Like AOL itself?
I am sure that this law is not applied uniformly to *all* who send out 100K/month...
Of course, until I read the statute itself, I can't know for sure.
You are just too dumb to work out how he did it, or too scared to try.
Whats your point? Go home :p It wouldnt be hard to find out how he done it or how do it again!
How many Emails did he send to make that much?
How many Emails did he send to the same people over and over?
The jury were right to say 9 year, he wont get that much but it is a good idea! lol
You are just too dumb to work out how he did it, or too scared to try.
That whole it's now illegal thing. That has nothing to do with it either.
It's not THAT hard to do what he did (which would be why email boxes are flooded with spam), the same as it's not THAT hard to pull off a bank heist. Both can make you rich very quickly, and both can land you in jail. The later is something that most people would like to avoid.
It's not THAT hard to do what he did (which would be why email boxes are flooded with spam), the same as it's not THAT hard to pull off a bank heist. Both can make you rich very quickly, and both can land you in jail. The later is something that most people would like to avoid.
IMO, most bank-robbers get off with just a few Ks, before they're caught by the cops around the corner. Then they spend a decade or two picking up the proverbial soap, especially if they have priors.
Who wouldn't do spam for that money if they could get away with it?
That would be me and I am sure many others reading this thread.
You are just too dumb to work out how he did it, or too scared to try.
This apparently may come as surprise to you: some people have principles that they won't compromise.
And likewise, if stealing/spoofing IPs was the real problem (and that strikes me as being illegal) why didn't they charge him with that?
He was selling illegal products and allowing young children to see pornography a bit to early in life, you think this is ok?
It's not ok - please wake up.
:)
Hollywood
But still it seems odd they would charge him under the spam law instead of for fraud.. maybe it was easier to prosecute? I doubt the 9 years will hold up, but we can always hope!
Who wouldn't do spam for that money if they could get away with it? You are just too dumb to work out how he did it, or too scared to try.
I'll be looking at what you post in a different light in the future, SlyOldDog. Is it fair to say you belong to the "I'll do anything if there's enough money in it" camp? Cause that post makes it sound like you are.
I'll be looking at what you post
Oh crap - welcome to your own personal SERP hell SlyOldDog.
