Slashdot Mirror
First Spammer Convicted Under CAN-SPAM Law
eldavojohn writes "Spammer Jeffrey Brett Goodin has been convicted under the 2003 CAN-SPAM Act, the first person in the U.S. prosecuted successfully under the law. He is facing a sentence of up to 101 years in a federal prison after being found guilty of numerous illegal acts. According to prosecutors, Goodin was convicted on multiple counts in addition to the CAN-SPAM conviction, including wire fraud, unauthorized use of credit cards, misuse of the AOL trademark and attempted witness harassment. From the article: 'The law forbids e-mail marketers from sending false or misleading messages and requires them to provide recipients with a way to opt out of receiving future mailings. During trial, prosecutors presented evidence that Goodin used several compromised Internet accounts to send e-mails to America Online users. The e-mails appeared to be from the company's billing department and told customers to update their billing information or lose service.'"
If this is relating to computer fraud how the fuck can they justify over 100 years of punishment?
Rapists and murderers get less.
I don't like spam but ffs that is so harsh.
liqbase
Glad to see a spammer and monetary felon getting a worse sentence than a murderer get's.
Cross rich people and you get 101 years in prison. Kill a poor guy get 6 years in prison. Yup, really fair.
Spamming != Phishing? Why not just hit him for fraud instead, other than to show off their new baby?
Good, hopefully this will send a message to a few other spammers that they may get caught to. Obviously you can never eliminate spammers due to zombie networks, but nailing a couple people will defiently help. Although maybe there should be a law that jails stupid people for a couple days that click on links in email titled "CL1cK HERE TO 3NLARGE MALE M3MBER"
... Unless the prosecution was for spam alone (ie spam advertising a legal product.) This was just out-and-out fraud. Most spamvertised "products" are illegal anyways (prescription drugs sold without a prescription, phishing, online gambling, etc.) so the CAN-SPAM act isn't needed to prosecute.
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
I hope so but...
Given the creeps anywhere can run these scams outside of N. America, it just means other methods might work better.
We can start by having ISPs who know computers crunching out a 1000 emails at a time in the middle of the night get dumped off the Internet until the user gets a new hard drive or computer.
I'm surprised they didn't get him for tax evasion, too. I mean, the IRS even requires that you pay taxes on stolen property.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
So this guy is up for 101 years for spamming, but some dirt bag that molested his daughter-in-law for 6 years only serves a 4 year sentence.
Yeah, that makes all sorts of sense.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
This may be a great deterrent for US based spammers but I don't think the foreign based spammers will blink an eye from it.
I would hope that other governments could make similar examples of spammers based from their countries.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
2003? I thought SPAM had been canned for years...
There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
He's facing UP TO 100 years of punishment -these are typically not given the max.
..........FULL STOP.
I think while he is in prison for those 101 years, he should be required to sit in front of a computer 12 hours a day and filter all the spam for LA County...
isnt this considered phishing and not spamming perse'
Freaky Schitt always happens to me... WHY God WHY!!
If this is relating to computer fraud how the fuck can they justify over 100 years of punishment?
See, the key phrase in this article is "up to". The journalist or prosecutor arrived at the figure 101 years simply from multiplying the number of crimes he's convicted of by the maximum sentence for each act.
Simply put, there's no way he'll serve anywhere close to that long. Even if by some insane judge sentences him to 101 years in jail, that's a no-brainer that'll get reduced on first appeal.
AccountKiller
I once misread an article title that was about SPAM, the canned meat substitute.
Ever since then, my mind auto-inserts a connection to the stuff when seeing the word "spam" in ANY context. It is only problematic in the sense that I can't take articles like this seriously when I am thinking canned meat.
I must admit though, it brings a smile to my face when hearing of a possible 100yr sentence being handed down in relation to SPAM crimes.
I was thinking roadside crucifixion fits the bill. I think it's time that good old fashioned punishment like that made a comeback and I can't
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
The worst they would ever do is put him, for a few months, into a white-collar, minimum-security resort. Do you know, they have conjugal visits there.
He hasn't gotten any years at all yet, he is due to be sentenced (per TFA) on June 11.
Since, almost certainly, the sentences will run mostly concurrently, it won't really be accurate to say that "most of the years he got" were for one thing or another, since they'll all be the same years.
You're about to go to prison! Shouldn't you be talking with your legal team instead of reading about yourself on Slashdot?
You know, the CAN-SPAM Act is often criticized on Slashdot and elsewhere as being toothless and full of loopholes. People think it's a worthless law, because spammers can easily get around it. I disagree. Let me explain.
First of all, what we really want to avoid is any law that inhibits our right to freedom of speech. It's very easy to write a definition of spam that is overly broad, and applies to legitimate messages as well. Let's assume for the moment that this would be a bad thing. I haven't heard any complaints that CAN-SPAM is flawed in this way.
The complaints are that CAN-SPAM doesn't go far enough. Spammers could simply change their spam to comply with the provisions of the law, and suddenly their unwanted junk is no longer technically "spam" in the eyes of the law. In theory, this may be true, but in practice, it's not happening. The law has been in effect for three years now, and spammers still aren't even bothering to pretend to comply with the law, they're just continuing to blatantly disregard it. This means that just about all the spam I get in my inbox (plus all the spam that I would have gotten in my inbox if I didn't have a whole pile of filters in place to block it) is clearly defined as illegal according to CAN-SPAM.
So why am I still getting all this spam? It's not because CAN-SPAM is a bad law. It's not because the spammers have found a loophole, or have changed their spam so it complies with the law. The problem is enforcement: the FTC and FBI don't have the resources to go after these guys. It's been three years, and they've only gotten one conviction.
Yes, some spammers are based outside the US, and while CAN-SPAM may still apply to them because they're sending spam to Americans, they're outside the jurisdiction of our law enforcement agencies. Several other countries have pledged their support in the International War On Spam(TM), but again, somebody has to actually track down the spammers so they can be arrested, and that's what's not happening.
So what's the solution? It's not to pass more laws making spam more illegal than it already is. The solution is for Congress to earmark funding for spam investigation and prosecution. They won't think of it themselves, so somebody has to tell them to do it. So, write to your Senators and Representatives, and tell them you want to see better enforcement!
Now, who's got that list of checkboxes?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
what idiots would fall for an email from aol threatening to shut off service?!?!? you can't get aol service shut down even if you wanted to. it took me 6 months to get mine shut off. and it only happened when i showed up at the call center in jacksonville fl as an "applicant for a job" and made a big scene. they were NOT happy.
Q: What is one spammer behind bars?
A: A good start.
-- Should there be smoke coming out of my CPU?
Probably way more than 10 billion spams sent since the law was enacted.
One conviction. Good Job!
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
I'm not sure why everyone's complaining, but I don't see why 5 years for spamming is so bad... /oh, that's not 101b
Going after the people whom the spammers are promoting
is the best idea.
Nip it in the bud. Spammers and those they represent or mis-represent
would be nice.
Failing that, the CIA could be used in clandestine hits on Spammers
outside of the US. When they see their numbers dropping and being
buried, they may think twice. One can only hope.
As far as murders and rapists getting less sever sentences, get out
and tell your representatives what you want, then VOTE.
For me, auto theft, carjacking, kidnapping, sexual molsetation of children
should be death penalty offenses, right behind perjury for politicians.
Yes, I tell politicians that ALL the time. Some even respond. I do not
think they can comprehend, but they do respond at times.
I got jumped in Seattle and had my left eye sliced in half. It was hard, but I've forgiven the people that did it. I'm not trying to come across all holier-than-thou, I'm just saying, holding on to your anger is only punishing yourself. If the person who did that to you knew how you felt, do you think they'd feel bad or would they just laugh?
Until you forgive, you are letting the people who wronged you continue to have power over your life. Forgivness: It's not for them, it's for you.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It took three years after the law is signed to get the first conviction. That's pretty sad. The Wikipedia article notes that, "The law requires the FTC to report back to congress within 24 months of the effectiveness of the act." With billions of spam sent every day and only one conviction three years after the law is signed, I would have to say that the effectiveness is quite low.
We should set up a web site, so people can sign up for
times to visit him. Spam him with pissed off internet
users for however much of that 101 years he serves!
Everyone knows it's next to impossible to lose that service even when intentionally attempted.
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
This is the first conviction under the act, and who did it convict? Someone who was already guilty of a bunch of other more serious crimes, so the CAN-SPAM conviction isn't particularly useful. Now if it ever gets someone who is guilty only of violating CAN-SPAM, then it might be doing something.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
101 years? Is this a joke? How is this not cruel and unusual? Some might argue it less cruel to shoot him.
This is disgusting.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
#203815:
In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses (sic), taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.
so if I go out and rape a kid(or anyone for that matter) I'll get ~25 years, If I commit wire fraud and internet debauchery I get 100 years...I'm all for the guy going to jail...but....WHERE are our priorities ??!
well.. i don't believe i couldn't stand less than a week in prison, and people who object to people opting death over rusting in prison are some real insincere and immoral idiots, i would deffinetly take being hanged or electrocuted, or being shot with the cheapest bullet you kind find, than being locked up. being locked for the rest of your years is worse than death, that's why prison exists in the first place
I never, and I mean *never*, get spam from legitimate companies anymore (on my US accounts, anyhow. I get all kinds on my Japan accounts). Whereas previously they or their hired marketing firms would be sort of lax about responding to requests to remove, and maybe do something to trick me into opening up the message, nowadays if I get mail on behalf of a Fortune500 company its because a) I requested it or b) someone is phishing me. This makes life vastly easier for my spam filters and my brain, because it requires much less effort for me to mentally evaluate "Pump and dump scam = discard" then it does "Reputable company sends me letter about my account status... read read read... wait a second, this is a solicitation".
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
But think about the number of people this spammer succeeded in ripping off - was it 100, or 1000, or 10000? Usually you'd spent less time in jail for stealing $1M from one person than $100 each from 10,000 people, or $1000 each from 1000 people, but at six months in jail per petty theft or 1 year per grand theft, he could easily be doing a lot of time.
Remember that this guy's a phishing thief, not just a pills-or-porn seller. How much time does he deserve for theft? If an average worker makes $50K/year, and the spammer makes $500K ripping off N victims, that's 100 person-years of honest labor he'd need to do just to pay them back for the value of their lost work time, not even counting the lost value by not having their money when they needed it. Should he only have to give back 1x what he stole, or pay more than that as compensation?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This guy saw saw the name of the act, CAN-SPAM, and thought: cool! Shouldn't the act be called CANT-SPAM?
Kinda late in the game here to put in my two cents, but here is my take on the issue. For any given crime...
Figure out (estimate if necessary) what kind costs were incurred by others because of the perpetrator's actions, including court costs, lost interest, and so forth as applicable. Call this Figure A.
Figure out (estimate if necessary) what kind profits perpetrator's made (monetary or otherwise) because of his actions, including interest or any other way he could have used his profits from this to make further profit. Call this Figure B.
Fine him the greater of these two figures, and allow him to pay it off with cash if he can (see below for why this won't let the rich just buy their way out of punishment), or if not - say if it turns out A is larger than B and the whole deal was a net loss for everyone, and trying to pay off this debt bankrupts him - send him to prison and let him work off his debt with a community service job (a useful one, like clearing fire access roads in the mountains, paving streets, or picking up garbage) while in there. His prison sentence is then determined by how well, how hard and how much he works to repay his debt to society and/or the victims (if those be different parties).
As for what to actually do with the money... In cases of private crime (i.e. crime against specific individuals), I'd say give the amount of Figure A to the victims (to cover their losses, lost opportunities/interest, and court costs), and the difference between A and B (if B is larger) to the public (as in tax credits or some such). But in such case like this, of general public harm rather than specific cases of private harm, I'd say give all the money to the public. But, as we presently have no mechanism in place for doing such things (though I understand some northern European countries do, and I'd say we ought to), I'd just put the money toward paying off our national debt.
This way, the victims are compensated for their losses, and the perp is fined any gains beyond that, such that:
(1) If figure A is larger than figure B, such that the perp gained less than the victim lost and the whole deal was a net loss for everyone all around, then cost of that loss is put on the perp, deterring such actions in the future; or
(2) if figure B is larger than figure A, such that more was gained by the perp than lost by the victim and the crime somehow generated profits overall, then the perp is denied that profit, leaving no motivation to commit such acts in the future, or
(3) If the two figures are equal, things are set about as they would have been had the crime never been committed, and again the perp is left with no gain from his actions and no motivation to try them again.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
He should have gotten 5 years, if that.
Read that article again until it sinks in.
Since the law was passed in 2003, there has only been ONE FARKING SPAMMER CONVICTED under the law! Yes, that's..
*MIND BOGGLES*
FUCKING 4 YEARS!!!
Rest easy folks, you're only getting spammed by one person. Turn off the spam filters. All is well.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Look, if you don't want him to get out in less than 50 years, he will have to be sentenced the entire 101 years. I think that he's eligible for parole on good behavior after he's completed half his sentence.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer...
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
He, and the likes of him are sending zillions of junk-mails, causing more than just annoyance. There's frauds in which people actually fall for. The anti-spam protection schemes, and the junk-infromation spread through the internet cost resources, time and money.
Spammers actually do damage. And even this one guy has managed to send enormous amounts of junk to the internet. So theres not just one instance of the crime, but he has been doing it for ages, and in massive amounts.
Somebody said that shooting him might be more humane? Not a bad idea
(if he actually would get 100 years, which he wont, or won't atleast do even if he gets it. It's gonna be few years (max), and then probation.)
Ofcourse I'm just annoyed by the twenty or so viagra ads finding their way into my email inbox daily. (Hey, it's only few minutes of my time to get rid of them, or trying to block them, is that worth 100 years? Add up my minutes with everyone elses...)
But there are actually stupid people who spend their money on these things. And the laws are here to protect the weak and the stupid from people who don't think twice when stealing their money. And all the emails transferred must actually cost something to internet providers, and it shows in my payments for my internet. So, the crime is serious.
And if there is any luck, he might actually do some time. Not the hundred years. but hopefully even few. Just to let him know that what he did was wrong, and what will happen if he does it again (or atleast just to keep him out of business for the jail time). And hopefully this shows to other low-lifes what they have incoming.
Every time I get a junk-mail, I tend to get into lynching-mood :) But this would really be important judgement and I hope that he won't get away with a warning and a small fine. Because that would be unofficial 'ok' for all spam and the leeches like him.
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/ebl/20060213/20 060213lin.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05292/590807.stm
Am I crazy?
http://www.skullsecurity.org/blog/
The last item in the blurb was 'attempted witness harassment'. That's a fed charge that falls under the umbrella of witness tampering. The feds & the court system take that very seriously. It often carries a heavier jail time than the crimes people are trying to get out of.