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.'"

13 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Over the top by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Over the top by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this is relating to computer fraud how the fuck can they justify over 100 years of punishment? Rapists and murderers get less.

      Rapists and murderers usually rape and murder less people. This douchebag probably targeted millions of people.

    2. Re:Over the top by radarsat1 · · Score: 4, Informative
      from the summary:
      including wire fraud, unauthorized use of credit cards, misuse of the AOL trademark and attempted witness harassment


      That's a lot more than just sending annoying emails. Basically, the guy is a crook. Why do you have a problem with him going to jail? People do time for things other than violent crime, you know.
    3. Re:Over the top by Peyna · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're looking at "statutory maximums" and adding together terms that more than likely will be served concurrently.

      In other words, while he could theoretically get 100 years, in reality he's going to probably get 1-2 years tops.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Over the top by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think so, this is probably a "set an example" type of case. Though it depends on how much money he actually stole; if not a huge amount -- serious criminals even if nobody is killed should get serious punishment, and yes I'm thinking corporate crooks here -- then I'd rather see violent criminals in prison instead of him. But that's just off-the-cuff reaction based on skimming the article.

      Another off-the-cuff reaction: When the mafia lands in court, the witnesses get whacked. How appropriate is it that a spammer can't accomplish any more than witness harassment? I can only imagine his method: Emails stating "Y t3st1fy? Do and no more v14gr4 for U!"

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Over the top by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Funny

      100 years is probably excessive -- one night might be sufficient...

      Inmate: What'cha in for, buddy?

      Spammer: I... uh... sent people spam emails... about... male enhancement...

      Inmate: That so?!? Hey fellas! Meet my new b*tch... [grinning]

      Spammer: GUARD!!!!!!!!

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    6. Re:Over the top by x2A · · Score: 4, Funny

      "including wire fraud, unauthorized use of credit cards, misuse of the AOL trademark and attempted witness harassment"

      He's being charged with improving their reputation and brand name. Bastard.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    7. Re:Over the top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
      IMO, his crimers are not akin to murder which warrants a life sentence in many states

      And when a diabetic dies becuase he wasn't able to get his insulin as a result of this asshole cleaning out his account? Somebody has to walk a rough neighborhood because slappy mc'spammer here had a great idea on how to afford a big screen TV? When someone can't deal with being rejected from another job because his credit report is a mess and decides to end it?

      Fraud can have serious real world impact, the fall out from identity theft and stolen money can be devestating to those living on the edge, the majority of Americans. Personally, I have more sympathy for the guy who lost his temper and did something stupid than for the guy who thought destroying people's lives was a great way to make some extra cash.

  2. Durr by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Spamming != Phishing? Why not just hit him for fraud instead, other than to show off their new baby?

  3. Re:Thank you by countSudoku() · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fix your link! I keep clicking on "CL1cK HERE TO 3NLARGE MALE M3MBER" and nothing happens!!!

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  4. no tax evasion? by User+956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  5. Re:Not really a CAN-SPAM victory by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a useful precedent: if the convictions under CAN-SPAM do hold up, then it will be easier to go after those whose crimes are purely spamming.

    At least, it used to be the case that there were people whose sole crime was sending out absurd amounts of clearly unwanted email. ("Clearly unwanted" in the sense that they deliberately provided false information in headers and refused to honor opt-out requests. Providing false information in headers was not in and of itself fraudulent.)

    These days, given how much spam goes through bot-nets, there may not be any spammers left who are not guilty of crimes other than sending spam. But it may also be the case that it's hard to convict them on, say, hacking charges, but you could get them on the spam charges.

    And conversely, if the appeals court throws out the CAN-SPAM convictions, even if it keeps the other convictions, we'll know that we have to either rewrite the law or depend on the existing fraud laws.

  6. CAN-SPAM by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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;