* Stiff penalties likely to deter spammers
Several studies have shown that if someone convicted for drunk driving has their license suspended or revoked, these drivers have a lower subsequent incidence of being involved in automobile accidents, even after the suspension has been lifted. If a driver whose license is suspended continues to drive, he or she typically drives more safely because of the fear of getting caught.
Last week, Scott Richter – who some accused as being one of the three most prolific spammers in the world – agreed to pay $7 million to Microsoft as a settlement for a lawsuit that the company had brought against Richter and his company http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/080905-microsoft-spam-king.html?rl. Richter also agreed to comply with the CAN-SPAM Act and to send e-mail only to those people who agree to receive it.
Will significant penalties like this one convince spammers not to spam anymore? I believe that they will have an impact, much as drunk-driving penalties have a positive impact on the behavior of those who are caught. For example, if you run a mom-and-pop spamming operation, do you really want to run the risk that some offended party, many of which are well-funded with an army of lawyers and lots of cash, will take you to court and make you pay for your crime? Many smart spammers will probably not want to run the risk of doing so, particularly since many of these spammers don’t make huge amounts from their activities anyway. In my opinion, the impact of deterrence will be significant for these people and will drive many of the smaller spammers out of business, and perhaps some of the larger ones, as well.
That said, judgments like the one that Microsoft won are unlikely to have any impact on phishing or other activities in which organized crime is increasingly involved. But at least we should see some benefit from the Richter judgment.
