Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Rejects Guilty Plea From AOL Employee

Posted by timothy on from the I-want-this-judge-in-my-traffic-court dept.

The Hobo writes "Newsday has a story on a New York judge who rejected Jason Smather's guilty plea. Smathers, covered previously on Slashdot, was the AOL employee who stole and sold AOL addresses to spammers. The judge himself apparently cancelled his AOL subscription due to receiving too much spam. While he didn't like what Jason did, he wasn't convinced a crime had been committed under the CAN-SPAM law, which requires that a person be deceived."

13 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Does not compute by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Authorities said Smathers, who was fired by AOL in June, used another employee's access code to steal the list of AOL customers in 2003 from its headquarters in Dulles, Va., and sold it to spammers for more than $100,000.

    I don't understand how this is not deceptive, fraudulent and illegal...

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Does not compute by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't matter if its deceptive or fradulent, because the charge was specifically done under a particular law: the can-spam act, which has specific requirements. The judge determined that the charge failed to allege an actual violation of that law.

      Essentially, the judge instituted a 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing the suit for failure to state a claim upon which action could be based.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    2. Re:Does not compute by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It is. It just doesn't meet the specifics of CAN-SPAM, which is evidently what he was charged with, and tried to plead guilty to.

      What the judge did was, IMHO, right, in the same way that bank robbery doesn't meet the specifics of the traffic laws.

      Charge him with what he actually did, and let him plead guilty to that.

  2. But will he be charged with theft? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He stole a list of e-mail addresses. Isn't that theft? Even if he doesn't get charged with sending out spam, he did commit other crimes, right?

    1. Re:But will he be charged with theft? by TummyX · · Score: 4, Funny


      Copyright is evil. Information wants to be free. Something about beer. Let the guy go! blah blah blah
      </range>

  3. CAN-SPAM by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe a crime hasn't been committed against this (obscure) law, but stealing critical info from the company you're working for and selling it to the highest bidder (or in this case, spammer) sure is. Was he accused of the wrong thing or what?

    --
    Eureka Science News - automatically updated
  4. Ding! by Asshat+Canada · · Score: 5, Funny

    You've got Bail!

  5. Stealing is not a crime? by toupsie · · Score: 4, Funny

    Didn't the guy steal millions upon millions of AOL Screen Names and fence them? Isn't that covered under the STEAL-SHIT Act? Can I guarantee a reservation in his court? I have my eyes on this Porsche.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  6. Nice to know that judge respects the law by Software · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's good to know that the judge respects and applies the law _as written_, and doesn't try to punish the defendant because he (the defendant) is a total scumbag.

    I would rather the law had been written such that selling legitimate addresses to spammers was punishable by death, but that's not the way it happened. So, given that the CAN-SPAM law doesn't prohibit selling addresses to spammers (which may or may not be true), it seems like the right decision.

    By the way, this guy needs a new defense lawyer. BADLY.

  7. Re:Theft / Invasion of Privacy by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently, the prosecutors didn't believe they could prove those crimes, since the claim doesn't include charges of those crimes. The judge isn't allowed to create charges: the judge can only determine the validity of charges made by the prosecutors.

    --
    "Stumble before you crawl"
  8. Re:Shouldn't he recuse himself? by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, it looks like he's doing everything he can to avoid even the appearance of bias. He rejected the guilty plea because he's not convinced that the accuse's actions fit the requirements of the CAN-SPAM act. If he were biased, he'd just let the guy plead guilty and be done with it.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  9. The Law versus Justice by geekwench · · Score: 4, Informative
    (Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL)

    Unfortunately, there are a couple of different things going on, here. First is the judge's inability to see the poverbial forest for the trees. Second is the ability to prove the merits of the case.

    The CAN-SPAM Act is one of the most useless pieces of tripe ever to be bulldozed through Congress, and the reason for this is the list of qualifiers that was written in. The "standard of deception" is one of these items. To actually convict someone under this provision in CAN-SPAM, the spammer would have to send out an e-mail promising "Free Screensavers of Puppies, Kitties, and Unicorns!" that actually redirects to the "Girls fscking Giant Horse C*cks eXXXtravaganza!" website. In saying that the charges did not meet the standard, Judge Hellerstein was factually correct.

    Smathers did not decieve the AOL members whose information was sold, nor the spammers who purchased it. The AOL members were not told "Oh, don't worry; I wouldn't _think_ of selling your information for to a bunch of sleazebags," and I'm sure that the spammers were under no illusions about the legality of the addresses they purchased. However, what he did commit was fraud. He defrauded the AOL users, and the company, and fraud is most certainly a prosecutable offense. Trying him under the CAN-SPAM statute seems like a really poor legal strategy.

    Personally, I'd love to see the existing laws used more forcefully. And I wouldn't go after the spammers, but after the people who hire them. There are already statutes governing things like mortgage banking, mail fraud, practicing medicine without a license, dispending medications without a license... and very few of the existing laws are used to prosecute the companies that give spammers their raison d' etre. Go after the source, and the flood will ebb.

    --
    Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
  10. Did the Prosecution Let Smathers Slip Away? by BMcWilliams · · Score: 4, Informative
    To make matters even more confusing, Smathers originally signed a document, available here, in November saying he agreed to plead guilty to violating 18 USC 2314, Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. (To this legal sparrow, that seems like an appropriate charge.)

    Then, on December 2, Smathers was arraigned instead for violating 18 USC 371, Conspiracy to Defraud the US Government. Smathers pled NOT guilty at the arraignment.

    Then we have today's proceedings, with Smathers trying to enter a guilty plea, apparently to violating CAN-SPAM.

    An "information" documentfiled at his arraignment does suggest Smathers was involved in sending decpetive and misleading spam using the AOL customer list. So maybe there is a CAN-SPAM aspect to this case.

    But it really does look like the US Attorney's office was trying too hard to get a CAN-SPAM conviction under its belt.