backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 50 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Jan 23 at 2:29 PM

Jeffery Goodin faces 101 years in prison for spam

A report on the Mercury News revealed that a man from Los Angeles has been criminally convicted of spam e-mailing and is the first person to be convicted of such a crime in the U.S. Forty-five year old Jeffery Goodin was found guilty of running a running scam that fooled users into giving out personal information. E-mails that Goodin sent out made users believe that they were cooperating with a legitimate business when in fact they were not.

Goodin is convicted under the 2003 CAN-SPAM Act, which makes it illegal for marketers to send out false or misleading information to users. Goodin sent millions of these e-mails over the course of his spam career. The CAN-SPAM Act also dictates that legitimate e-mails such as newsletters and advertisements must feature a way for recipients to remove themselves from the mailing list.

Prosecutors provided evidence to a jury that Goodin also compromised AOL accounts to send out e-mail to users. Goodin's spam made it appear like his e-mails were being sent from AOL's billing department and told users that if they did not update their information via a website, their accounts would be closed.

Goodin is being convicted of spam, and ten other counts that include wire fraud and unauthorized access to AOL accounts and company trademarks for illegal purposes. He is to be sentenced on June 11th of 2007 and faces up to 101 years in prison.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

a bit excessive
By poohbear on 1/19/2007 8:57:13 AM , Rating: 5
gimme a break, 101 years for spam emails and only 25 years for murder??!?! is something wrong w/ this picture?




RE: a bit excessive
By Pythias on 1/19/2007 9:03:23 AM , Rating: 5
Yes there is something wrong. Murderers are dealt with too lightly.



RE: a bit excessive
By Samus on 1/20/2007 1:27:15 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Murderers are dealt with too lightly.


lolz. this is in relation to the gambling post. we really, really need to push our congressmen to ammend these laws that put drug dealers and spammers in jail for a hundred years, and murderers and rapists in jail for three.


RE: a bit excessive
By masher2 (blog) on 1/21/2007 11:04:34 AM , Rating: 2
I don't ever recall someone receiving a three-year sentence for premeditated murder. Most states have a minimum sentence of life in prison or the death penalty for first degree murder. Manslaughter is a much lower sentence...but I'd consider a few billion counts of premeditated spamming roughly equal to one count of accidently killing someone in a fight or auto accident.

Secondly, ou must remember that most rape and murder convictions are at the state level, whereas the spamming charges here are based on federal law. Your federal congressman has no control over state laws, and vice versa.

Finally, as I've already pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the "101 years" quoted in this article is only a potential sentence. Odds are the actual sentence will be 10 years or less, and the defendent will likely serve less than half of that.


RE: a bit excessive
By brshoemak on 1/19/2007 9:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well in the twisted legal system they probably figure spam affects everyone while murder only affects one person, thus murder is the lesser charge. Apparently works the same for rape.

I understand multiple counts on other charges involved but there has to be a weighted scale between matters of money and matters of life and death.


RE: a bit excessive
By SunAngel on 1/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: a bit excessive
By brshoemak on 1/19/2007 10:10:56 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
If I still had mod privileges, I'd mod your ass down to oblivion. Crappy ass mod system on DT.


any particular reason? all i'm saying is that people here can be murdered and the assailant can be out in 15 years. steal a large quantity of money and we'll see you 2094.

was the hypothetical view of the judicial system's possible thought process crass? yes. does it seem that way sometimes? well, it seems that way now


RE: a bit excessive
By masher2 (blog) on 1/19/2007 10:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
> "all i'm saying is that people here can be murdered and the assailant can be out in 15 years. steal a large quantity of money and we'll see you 2094."

Let me make a few points.

First, premeditated murder usually receives a life sentence, if not the death penalty.

Second, this defendant is only facing 101 years in prison. I'd bet he'll be sentenced to under ten years, and be out in under five.

Thirdly, when you consider that money is, for most people, the result of years of labor. A man who steals a grandmother's life savings has stolen a large part of her life itself. What is that, except a small murder?

Personally, if I had the choice between having my entire net worth stolen at age 55, or being murdered in my sleep at age 75...I'd take the latter option.


RE: a bit excessive
By nurbsenvi on 1/19/2007 10:46:02 AM , Rating: 2
>>my entire net worth stolen at age 55

Man!! that sucks just thinking about it.


RE: a bit excessive
By h0kiez on 1/19/2007 10:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
It's not that tough guys. Yeah, you should do more time for murder than stealing something. But you get punished for each offense. You murder one person, you get 30 years. Steal from one person get 6 months. You shouldn't compare a sentence for murdering 1 person with that of stealing from a few million.


RE: a bit excessive
By lufoxe on 1/19/2007 9:56:24 AM , Rating: 5
I think you're missing something important
quote:
He is to be sentenced on June 11th of 2007 and faces up to 101 years in prison.

He can be sentenced UP TO 101 years, meaning that's the worst he can get. He hasn't been sentenced yet, so for all we know he could get 5 years in prison. Just like if you murder someone the MINIMUM is 25 years, while the maximum penalty (if premeditated) is your life.


RE: a bit excessive
By oTAL (blog) on 1/23/2007 2:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you murder someone the MINIMUM is 25 years, while the maximum penalty (if premeditated) is your life.


Hang all spammers!! They murder a little piece of my good mood every single day..... and it is a premeditated crime...


RE: a bit excessive
By MrBungle123 on 1/19/2007 11:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
Hey you know if we'll throw border patrol agents in jail for shooting at a drug smuggler with 743lbs of weed then why not put someone in jail for 101 years for spamming?


RE: a bit excessive
By thegrimreaper3 on 1/19/2007 1:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. There are so many ridiculous sentances anymore that if putting this guy away for even 20 years gets one more spammer/phisher/a$$hole off the net than ill agree with it.


RE: a bit excessive
By MrSmurf on 1/19/2007 11:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, that's the maximum he can get. The max for first degree murder is life or death.

Second, he commited multiple felonies not just one. Sure if you add them all up it's still not as bad as murder but you can't let a criminal commit multiple acts with the notion he'll only have to pay the piper for a fraction of his crimes. That's just how life is.


RE: a bit excessive
By rudy on 1/19/2007 6:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
They said up to 101 years, with murder you can get up to life, for each murder case or any number of years in the hundreds plus any other criminal offenses committed in the process. This guy also has many separate accounts of criminal activity which if the judge orders consecutive sentences is why it would add up to 101.


Execute him
By casket on 1/19/2007 9:57:38 AM , Rating: 4
Corporate Crime is not punished strict enough. What if you hold up a 7-11? 3 years in jail?

This guy stole from 1000 people. He should get 3000 years in jail. Anyone sentenced to over 500 years in jail should be executed.

The Enron guys did the same thing. A public hanging seemed in order, then.




RE: Execute him
By therealnickdanger on 1/19/2007 10:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
The difference being that:

A) Holding up a 7-11 would involve threatening someone with death to aquire money.

B) Spamming involves lying to ignorant people to aquire money. It's really just a modern-day swindle. No violence involved.

I see a large difference. The context in which something is done if often, and inappropriately, disregarded.


RE: Execute him
By Oregonian2 on 1/19/2007 3:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily true that no "violence" is involved. If you pick my pocket for $5, yes, none. But if you steal a retired guy's savings and you toss him out of home with no shelter or food for the rest of his life, then I'd call that "violence". More so if you do that to a thousand retired guys. String'em up.


RE: Execute him
By mindless1 on 1/19/2007 5:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
The different being that this guy premeditated and continually did it, had time to reflect on what he was doing and STILL kept doing it.

I don't condone robbing a 7-11 at all but that's more likely some mentally ill crackhead with at least a chance for rehabilitation.


RE: Execute him
By andrep74 on 1/22/2007 5:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
Your definition of "ignorant" is highly suspicious. This guy went out of his way to fool people. If someone dressed as a Salvation Army employee, and had a fake ID, that person could fool others into giving them money. The difference here is that this spammer gets access to information that could allow him to steal a life savings, not some pocket cash.

I could call you ignorant if I told you your fuel injector's float valve needed replacement, and you didn't know that only carburetors have float valves. Categorizing people as ignorant because they don't possess technical knowlege within your grasp (in this case, the ability to discern the difference between a URL starting with an IP address, and one with www.aol.com) when someone else is trying to use that to swindle them out of their life savings is as thoughtless and callous as the perpetrator. Sometimes with the lengths that these swines go to, it amazes me that the first and sometimes only tip-off is the misspelling of words... hey, is your post a scam ("aquire" money)???

White-collar crime is becoming more and more a "remote" crime that can be done anonymously and without violence, but that still has as lasting an effect as violent crime (with the exception of murder). I'm sure the spammer wasn't thinking about those people when he saw his bank balance...


Justice!!