ENFORCEMENT: SPAMMER GOES TO JAILA New York state man who sent out millions of "spam" e-mails has been
sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison. This according
to a May 27th news release from that states Attorney General's office
which said that Howard Carmack, known as the "Buffalo Spammer," received
the maximum sentence for 14 counts of identity theft and forgery.
A spokesman for New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said that
Carmack sent out hundreds of millions of bulk e-mail messages. That he
flooded inboxes and saddled Internet providers with millions of dollars
in costs. But it was his use of stolen identities and forged addresses
that caused action by state prosecutors. New York has no state laws
specifically dealing with spam. Carmack was found guilty of violating
state forgery and identity-theft laws in April.
Internet provider EarthLink Inc. won a $16.5 million judgment against
Carmack last year, and EarthLink officials testified in the criminal
trial as well. (Published news reports)
Hotmail bounces Gmail invitationsCNET News.com
Receiving a coveted invitation to open a free email account on Google's Gmail is a thrill that's literally lost on Microsoft.
At least it was for Joel Johnson's girlfriend, whose MSN Hotmail account bounced invitations to join Gmail twice last Wednesday. That day, Johnson was given the chance to dole out two accounts for Gmail to friends before the high-profile service is widely launched, per Google's policy of limiting membership to friends, and friends of friends, while it works out the kinks.
'The emails actually never went through, but I was able to... send them to her' via instant messenger, said Johnson, who wrote about the incident on his Web log, Gizmodo.
He added that several people emailed him about having had the same trouble inviting Hotmail users to Gmail. One person said that invitations to Orkut, Google's social networking site, were blocked by Hotmail.
Google acknowledged some similar occurrences with Hotmail but called them 'very limited.' MSN representatives said there were no known problems with Hotmail users receiving Gmail or Orkut invitations. 'MSN Hotmail treats mail from Gmail"
Hotmail bounces Gmail invitations - ZDNet UK NewsSlashdot Article
Court: No Right to Keep Names From Police Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a
constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.
The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won't
cooperate by revealing their identity.
The decision was a defeat for privacy rights advocates who argued that the
government could use this power to force people who have done nothing wrong,
other than catch the attention of police, to divulge information that may be
used for broad data base searches.
Police, meanwhile, had argued that identification requests are a routine
part of detective work, including efforts to get information about
terrorists.
The justices upheld a Nevada cattle rancher's misdemeanor conviction. He was
arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or
show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000.
Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250.
The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote.
Justices agreed in a unique ruling that addresses just what's in a name.
The ruling was a follow up to a 1968 decision that said police may briefly
detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger
standard of probable cause, to get more information. Justices said that
during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling,
people must answer questions about their identities.
Justices had been asked to rule that forcing someone to give police their
name violated a person's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable
searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that that it
violated neither.
"Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important
government interests," Kennedy wrote.
The ruling left the door open for what Kennedy said would be an unusual case
in which revealing a name would be incriminating. But he said generally,
disclosing an identity is "so insignificant in the scheme of things."
Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said
America is different 36 years after the Terry decision. "In a modern era,
when the police get your identification, they are getting an extraordinary
look at your private life."
Tim Lynch, an attorney with the libertarian-oriented thinktank Cato
Institute, said the court "ruled that the government can turn a person's
silence into a criminal offense."
"Ordinary Americans will be hopelessly confused about when they can assert
their right to 'remain silent' without being jailed like Mr. Hiibel," he
said.
But Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal
Foundation, noted that police can only demand names of people reasonably
suspected of being involved in a crime.
The police encounter with Hiibel happened after someone called police to
report arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in a truck. An officer asked
him 11 times for his identification or his name.
Over and over again Hiibel refused, at one point saying, "If you've got
something, take me to jail" and "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing.
I've broken no laws."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) said that Hiibel
"acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute." Also disagreeing
with the decision were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news -
web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites).
Justices were told that 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute
upheld by the high court: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont,
and Wisconsin.
The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada,
03-5554.
