Will One Spam King's Conviction and Another's Escape Mean Less E-Trash on the Internet?

Robert Soloway dubbed the "Spam King" was sentenced in Washington yesterday, according to an article in the Seattle Intelligencer.

For his misdeeds, Soloway was sentenced to just under four years. Notably, Soloway was the second person to be prosecuted under the Can-Spam Act. It should also be noted that the prosecutors asked for about twice the time in prison and with good behavior, Soloway will probably only serve about half of the sentence he received.

Like most of the many "Spam Kings" out there, Soloway allegedly used a botnet (army of zombie computers) to saturate the electronic universe with e-trash, including advertisements from commercial clients. To give everybody an idea of the scope of Soloway's activity, he allegedly sent out 90 million e-mails in a three-month period.

The made me wonder if anyone is looking at the commercial clients? Of course, everyone knows that "Spam Kings" send out a lot more than commercial advertisements, including a variety of scams designed to steal from unwary people. They also tout knock-off drugs, merchandise, software and porn.

Spam is also used to deliver malicious software, which can steal all your personal and financial information. Ironically, spam also delivers malware designed to turn a system (part of a botnet), which is then used to send out even more spam.

In fact, spam designed to send out even more spam best describes Soloway's operation. Using a company, Newport Internet Marketing Corporation (NIM), he offered a broadcast e-mail software product and broadcast e-mail services. His website promised a full refund if a customer wasn't satisfied, however in reality, if anyone ever complained they were threatened with financial charges and collection agencies.

According to the Department of Justice press release, one customer tried to complain about the amount of spam he was getting and Soloway's response was to send him even more spam.

The press release also mentions that he willfully failed to pay his taxes after earning more than $300,000 in 2005.

Interestingly, enough another "Spam King," Edward "Eddie" Davidson simply walked out of a minimum security facility in Colorado about the same time Soloway was sentenced. Davis allegedly made $3.5 million spamming for about 20 commercial clients. Like Soloway, he failed to pay any taxes on the proceeds of his misdeeds.

Unfortunately, Soloway's conviction or Davidson's escape is unlikely to make much of a dent in spam anytime in the near future. Earlier this month, Symantec reported blocking 3.5 million spam messages over the 4th of July holiday. Their monthly spam report reported that over 80 percent of all e-mail sent is spam. The 80 percent statistic (and greater) has been a sad fact for several months now.

Notable trends on the last report included using the China earthquake to spread viruses and the use of fake new flashes (like U.S.A. attacks Iran) to net Internet crime victims.

We probably shouldn't be too quick to celebrate Soloway's conviction. He is obviously just one of many "Spam Kings" operating out there. Hopefully, as time goes on, we will see more of these so-called spam superstars put behind bars. After all, just about anything that is distasteful or illegal on the Internet normally starts with a spam e-mail.

On a final note, both Soloway and Davidson seemed to be servicing a lot of commercial clients. Maybe if the legal emphasis shifted towards the people paying spammers, there would be less incentive (money) for spammers to pollute the Internet!

Update (7/25/08): In a horrifying twist to Eddie Davidson's escape, it has now been reported by the AFP that he killed himself after killing his wife and their three month old daughter. Davidson's seven month old son was left in the car unharmed and his sixteen year old daughter was shot in the neck before escaping.

Given these circumstances, I wonder if anyone is going to question why Davidson was locked up in a minumum security facility that he was able to walk away from?

We all could be at risk of losing our freedom and becoming the next Julie Amero

Julie Amero, a substitute teacher previously convicted of showing porn to students, is getting a new trial.

Given the evidence brought forward after the trial, I'm pretty shocked they didn't just drop the whole matter.

Stephanie Reitz of the AP is reporting (courtesy of the Washington Post):

The computer was sent to a state laboratory after the trial, and the judge said Wednesday that those findings may contradict evidence presented by the state computer expert.

"The jury may have relied, at least in part, on that faulty information," said Judge Hillary B. Strackbein, who granted the request for a new trial.

Amero has adamantly denied clicking on pornographic Web sites that appeared on her classroom's computer screen in October 2004 while she was teaching seventh-graders at Kelly Middle School in Norwich.

Not very long after her conviction, I did a post on this quoting a lot of computer security experts, such as Alex Eckelberry from Sunbelt Software. Alex and other experts in the field contend the computer in question was old, lacked firewall protection, and that spyware and adware caused the porn infestation.

Their contentions made sense to me, or should to anyone -- who has accidentially clicked on one of these sites and gone into "pop up" hell.

Illegal porn is a big problem on the Internet - very few people get caught - and it's rumored to be controlled by organized crime. The Gambino crime family has allegedly made millions of it.

Recently, I blogged about British citizens, who were wrongfully accused of viewing child pornography after their credit cards numbers were stolen. This was part of an International case, involving people, worldwide.

Those responsible for investigating crimes involving computers, and the Internet are going to have to exercise a little more "due diligence" in their investigations. Spyware, adware and identity theft (to cite a few things) are making the waters a little more murky than they used to be.

Spyware and adware are used by a lot of businesses to market products. As a matter of fact, it sometimes amazes me, just WHO is using it; considering some of the privacy concerns associated with it.

The sad thing is that if you really think about it, a lot of us could be in danger of being accused of something we didn't do. Recently, we've seen a lot of stories about identity theft victims, who like Julie, went through a lot of pain and suffering for a crime they didn't commit.

This is the very reason, we need to take a hard look at what enables this activity, or makes it too easy to accomplish.

The other thing I'll add, as a closing note -- is that we live in a society --where OJ Simpson beat a murder rap because of reasonable doubt. It's pretty sad that with all the reasonable doubt revealed in this case, Julie Amero has to face another trial to prove her innocence.

AP story (courtesy of the Washington Post), here.

Previous post from Fraud, Phishing and Financial Misdeeds, here.

Is Julie Amero (in reality) another victim of Internet crime?

Internet crime is a growing problem. Every week, we seem to read of large scale data breaches, and spam is filling up our inboxes, despite the spam filters designed to stop it.

The spam getting past these filters is often riddled with deceptive lures (links) to all sorts of porn sites. In turn, these sites often infect machines that aren't properly protected with adware, spyware, malware and even crimeware.

So far as properly protecting our machines, this can be a chore, also. It requires frequent updates, and new exploits are discovered all the time.

Sometimes even legitimate sites are hacked and people get infected just by surfing, or visiting (what they think) is a trusted site.

Criminals of all sorts, including those of an organized nature are getting involved in Internet crime. In fact, many believe the problem is growing because very few get caught, and even if they do, very little happens to them.

I was amazed when I got an e-mail from Alex Eckelberry (CEO Sunbelt Software) that a substitute teacher (Julie Amero) had been convicted for some porn that had shown up on a classroom computer.

A jury has already found her guilty and she could face up to 40 years in prison. Even worse, it appears the stress of the trial may have caused her to have a miscarriage.

Is her conviction a miscarriage of justice? Many computer experts (including Alex) seem to think so.

Alex writes a very convincing argument, where he states:

When I first read of the case, my reaction was how illogical it all sounded: A middle-aged, substitute female teacher accessing porn on a classroom computer, in front of her students on one particular day? It made no sense.

He's right, it doesn't make sense.

An article from the Norwich Bulletin stated that:

Computer expert W. Herbert Horner, testifying in Amero's defense, said he found spyware on the computer and an innocent hair styling Web site "that led to this pornographic loop that was out of control."

"If you try to get out of it, you're trapped, according to Horner."

Anyone, who has surfed the Internet knows there are a lot of malicious sites designed to lure people to click on them, using seemingly innocent lures.

She was also convicted on testimony that she must have had to physically click on the sites in question. According to Alex and other computer security experts, the pop-ups from these sites leave the same imprint as if they had been physically clicked on.

Alex wrote in the Norwich Bulletin:

The computer was also found to be riddled with spyware -- programs that generate popups and degrade system stability.

Spyware may or may not have played a direct part in this incident, but the fact it was on the system creates additional damning evidence of the state of this computer system. What is extraordinary is the prosecution admitted there was no search made for spyware -- an incredible blunder akin to not checking for fingerprints at a crime scene.

Alex also states that this was an old system, without adequate protection, despite the fact that federal law mandates that it should have been in place.

Julie, herself claims the website in question was accessed by students when she went to the restroom. When she noticed it, no matter what she did, more pop-ups would surface.

More on Herb Horner's analysis (courtesy of the Sunbelt blog), here.

In a criminal case, the standard is that a person should be found innocent if there is reasonable doubt. After reading about this case, it makes sense to me, that we have a lot of reasonable doubt that Julie is guilty.

At best, the investigation used to convict her seems to have been poorly researched, and therefore, flawed.

Porn is a big component of Internet crime, which according to a WebMD survey reaches a lot of children. This research was conducted by interviewing children, themselves.

Some of the children interviewed were the same age as the ones in Julie's class that day.

Survey, here.

So far as a connection to real (organized) crime, porn was allegedly one of the Gambino crime families biggest earners ($350 million).

Besides being unjust, going after Julie Amero, is a big waste of resources (taxpayer dollars) that could be put to better use.