In the past we've bemoaned the leniency of sentencing where high-tech crimes are concerned - often raising concerns about the ability of an outdated legal system to try 'new' crimes.
We've even been criticised for calling for 'too severe' penalties in the eyes of many readers (just look at some of the feedback on the above article). But our primary concern is for the business. If needless damage is done to a company through the reckless actions of a mindless and malicious virus writer, hacker or self-styled cyber criminal then we've little sympathy with them if sentenced harshly.
But even we took a double take when we heard a typosquatter had been sentenced to two and a half years in prison.
Undoubtedly the individual concerned is a rather vile opportunist, directing web surfers to pornographic content through the use of confusing URLs - but two and half years certainly comes as a bolt from the blue, especially as similar crimes have brought about far more lenient sentences in the past.
It's important to point out at this stage that John Zuccarini was preying upon children, using common misspellings of Disney and Harry Potter domains in order to drive traffic to porn sites and he was the first person convicted under new laws specifically relating to the practice of exposing children to pornography.
It would be refreshing to believe that was the sole reason he was sentenced so severely. But the cynical mind can't help wonder what the outcome would have been if lesser companies than Disney and Warner Bros had been the owners of the infringed brands.
It does whiff a bit of an intellectual property rights argument dressed up in the far more emotive guise of a child safety case - but then, if that's what it takes to finally see cyber criminals sentenced then so be it.
But let's see some consistency. Next time a spammer is caught, let's not send them away with a fine - let's let this example lead the way. After all, they are often indiscriminately exposing children and adults to pornographic images. So the victims aren't a big name brand - but the crime should be no less offensive for that - especially if they are being sentenced under laws relating to pornography rather than IP.
And if such sentencing acts as a deterrent then so much the better.
Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. Rory
I disagree. The fact that it's Disney or Warners is extremely relevant. There are far more kids likely to be accessing the disney sites more often than any other. So, the scale of the problem is greater - more kids seeing more porn more often. Hence, someone committing these offences around the better known brands should be punished more severely.
2. anonymous
I partly agree with Rory. A single spammer should not be punished for all spammers' output. However, I suspect that there are relatively few spammers responsible for a huge proportion of all offensive spam. If one is ever prosecuted the authorities need to get a handle on the magnitude of their achievements before sentencing.
3. anonymous
I must agree with the harsh sentencing. I don't mind the occasional bit of porn - as an adult, but trying to trick people, especially kids, into visiting porn sites needs to be stopped - quickly!!
The internet has a bad enough rep without this form of lowlife hijacking our children.
My 2c.