Judging by the government's previous response to widely-hated spam messages, look for a new law, WILL [Wanton Ignorance of Life and Liberty?] SPIM, 2006. So far with spam, the US government took the valid concerns of annoyed citizens, the marketing interests of big industry, and guess who won?

The reality is CAN-SPAM has done nothing to limit spam, and has indeed legitimized it and prevented individual recourse. No major surprise spam--including advertisements promoting US companies, to US consumers--has increased. Look for similarly counter-productive legislation to stop IM intrusions.

As for this case, look for this "enterprising youthful offender" to get off on a technicality. Apparently modern law can't quite equate the malicious intent of individuals (or just plain sociopath-justified ignorance of ethics or responsibility) causing inconvenience and financial loss to millions of individuals as remotely the same seriousness of bodily injury to even one person. That is the underlying reality, and until some influential lawmaker and DA somewhere "gets it" that this is grand larceny, plain and simple, there will be no legal recourse.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/303/30774#30774