NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Security > Hacking News

Hacking News


The Right to Anonymous Speech Frees Spammer

The Virginia Supreme Court overturns spammer's 9-year prison sentence

By Lucian Constantin, Web News Editor

13th of September 2008, 11:43 GMT

Adjust text size:


Court ruling sets spammer free
Enlarge picture
The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled AOL spammer Jeremy Jaynes should go free, after he was convicted in 2004 and sentenced to serve 9 years in a federal prison. The court's decision was not taken because Jeremy Jaynes was actually innocent, as he did send spam e-mails, but because the law under which he was convicted conflicted with the rights stipulated in the First Amendment.

Jeremy Jaynes was tried and convicted in 2004 by the Loudoun Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Horne under Virginia's anti-spam law enacted in 2003 and, as a result, he has been under house arrest since then. The same ruling was reinforced by the Virginia Supreme Court 6 months ago but, after Jaynes’ attorneys appealed, the Court surprisingly changed it.

The reason for this seems to be that the law was conflicting with and violating the right to free and anonymous speech by applying to all unsolicited e-mail, and not just e-mails that contain commercial spam messages. In comparison, the federal CAN-SPAM (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing) Act of 2003 only regulates the sending of commercial e-mail that has a financial gain as purpose.

According to Brian Krebs of SecurityFix, John Levine, president of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email commented that, "everyone agreed Jaynes was incredibly guilty, but the issue was the peculiarity of the Virginia law in that it could be read to apply to people who were sending junk e-mail but not quite as naughtily as Jaynes was doing it.” He also added that "in the United States, we have this ancient tradition where political and religious speech are very strongly protected, but the Virginia law applied equally to all speech, commercial or not."

Jeremy Jaynes was considered one of the most notorious spammers in history after he used a stolen AOL database that contained around 100 million e-mail addresses to send spam messages to AOL customers from his home in Loudoun, Virginia. His financial gains were estimated at over $20 million, and he was the first American to be convicted in US for sending unsolicited commercial e-mails.

Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell does not agree with the decision to free Jeremy Jaynes just because the law can apply to other forms of unsolicited e-mail messages too. He pointed out that "we will take this issue directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. The right of citizens to be free from unwanted fraudulent emails is one that I believe must be made secure."

TAGS:

Spam | Jaynes | Virginia | Court | Law
Read by 2,841 user(s) | Add comment | Link to this article TWEET THIS


Article rating:
Very Good (4.5/5) 2 vote(s)    

Subscribe to news | Print article | Send to friend

© Copyright 2001-2010 Softpedia
Contact:

 

 

SEARCH THE NEWS ARCHIVE :




Today's News
| Yesterday's News | News Archive


MORE RELATED ARTICLES:


New York Spammer to Serve a 2.5-Year Sentence

Colorado Spam King Killing Spree

New Storm Spam Campaign Exploits NACU Rumors

Obama's Adult Video, Nuclear Explosions and Suspended Internet Access

Spam at the Highest Levels

Recent Atrivo Related Security Reports Do Not Remain Unheard

The Current Trend in Spam is Using SWF Redirects

User opinions:


Comment #1 by: Casey on 13 Sep 2008, 18:48 GMT reply to this comment

They should prosecute him for breaking another law. CAN-SPAM? Electronic harassment? Harassment? Digital breaking and entering? Data theft?


Comment #2 by: symbolit on 15 Sep 2008, 07:15 GMT reply to this comment

there must be some act will provide to stop such type of spam e-mails,from U.S goverment.where as it is comercial to the senders but it is difficulty to the user who is receiving such type of e-mails.


Comment #3 by: papaluv2000 on 15 Sep 2008, 09:52 GMT reply to this comment

I hate spam just as much as the next guy, but you have got to be absolutely kidding me if there is a person on the planet that thinks that 9 years for spamming is justice. I have never spammed anyone, and I am not intimately familiar with this case either, but there are murderers and rapists and con-men ruining more lives than this guy. Who essentially ruined your morning flow, or mine, for 20 seconds while I strained to delete his e-mail or create a message filter for adding a 90 seconds to my day. Should it be illegal sure, but should be enforced as much as the drinking age is in mexico, albeit with a stiff fine and a record. These guys/gals do it for profit so make it very painful financially if you seek to make money in that way, but don't take away someones freedom to the extent that he would rather kill than be killed or rob a bank and never show up to court.

I think this guy was clever and he raised awareness of technical vulnerabilities. If he made his money decieving people throw the book at him, but if he made it on advertisements thru spamming I think he seized an opportunity that common sense would tell you, greatly out weigh the risk, unless you knew that sending emails in large quantities would get you a stiffer penalty than driving a car into a playground drunk. Good for him and the judges that overturned the original ruling!!!

//Luv

Share your opinion:

Your Name:
Your Email Address:
(will not be used for commercial purposes)
Solve this to prove you're not a bot: =
Your review/opinion:

 




Windows tabGames tabDrivers tabMac tabLinux tabScripts tabMobile tabHandheld tabGadgets tabNews tab

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   ENTER NEWS SITE   |   ENGLISH BOARD   |   ROMANIAN FORUM