, SecurityFocus 2004-01-16
A formula that would sentence deceptive spammers to more time in prison for each e-mail address spammed is among the proposals under consideration by the presidentially-appointed commission responsible for setting federal sentencing rules, which this week sought the public's input on how to punish violators of the newly-enacted CAN-SPAM Act.
The USSC publishes the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that carve out narrow ranges of sentences a court can choose from when punishing violators of federal criminal law. The guidelines work off of a point system that sets a starting value for a particular crime, and then adds or subtracts points for specific aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
A convicted kidnapper, for example, starts off with 24 sentencing points -- which maps to 51 to 63 months imprisonment for a first-time offender. But if the culprit held his victim for 30 days or more, he gets two bonus points, translating to an additional 12 to 15 months. The criminal earns another six points if he demanded a ransom, and two points for injuring a victim -- but can shave off two points for pleading guilty and accepting responsibility for the crime.
Though they're called "guidelines," the rules are generally binding on judges.
If sentencing kidnappers is relatively straightforward, the Commission is finding it more challenging to erect an appropriate framework for punishing deceptive spammers. Should spammers be sentenced from the same table that decides the fate of thieves and con artists, based on the amount of financial losses inflicted on the victims? If so, what counts as a loss -- if a forged e-mail address makes an innocent company look bad, a "Joe job," in the parlance of anti-spammers -- should that reputational harm earn the spammer more time in stir. "This is one of the places that the Commission is having a difficult time, in determining how to calculate the actual harm," says O'Neill.
More Time for Harvesting?
The CAN-SPAM Act, which took effect January 1st, doesn't criminalize unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail, but it does outlaw most of the deceptive practices used by spammers. Senders are prohibited from breaking into someone else's computer to send spam (which was probably illegal already); deliberately crafting spammy messages to disguise the origin; materially falsifying the headers in spam; spamming from five or more e-mail accounts established under fake names; or
A first-time violator face up to one year in federal stir for a small-time operation-- three years if he or she meets one of several minimum standards of bad behavior, like leading a spam gang of at least three people, sending over 2,500 messages in one day, or using 10 or more falsely-registered domain names. Repeat offenders can get up to five years in prison.
Exactly where spammers are sentenced within that range will be decided by an amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In a formal
- Should deceptive spammers get an "enhancement," i.e., a little more prison time, if they employ "sophisticated means" to send the spam?
- Should the method the offender used to gather the targeted addresses be a consideration in sentencing? Under one proposal, spammers could face an enhancement for harvesting e-mail addresses from Web forums, or generating them randomly.
- Should criminals who commit fraud, identify theft, child porn trafficking or other serious crimes be sentenced more severely if they sent unsolicited bulk e-mail in the course of the crime?
Comments are due by March 15th, and can be sent by snail mail to the United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle, NE., Suite 2-500, Washington, DC 20002-8002, Attention: Public Affairs. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Commission is not inviting comments by e-mail.