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!!
By phatboye on 1/19/2007 8:51:57 AM , Rating: 5
I say give him the chair!!! Or better yet off With his head!!! Let the birds shift through his bodily remains!!!

+1 for the American legal system.




RE: Justice!!
By Naviblue on 1/19/2007 9:16:19 AM , Rating: 2
Wonder if he had any accomplices.


RE: Justice!!
By nurbsenvi on 1/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Justice!!
By ZmaxDP on 1/19/2007 1:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
Personally,

I'd much rather replace a computer trashed by a virus than die. But, maybe that's just me...


RE: Justice!!
By tmok2007 on 1/19/2007 3:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
No, not a simple virus attack. He spammed, and phished people of their personal and financial information. Imagine losing your life's savings to someone like him. This is indeed much more serious than a virus attack. I say 40 years in prison for him, with no access to a PC.


US and A
By Mudvillager on 1/19/2007 9:42:45 AM , Rating: 4
Your legal system is fucked up.




RE: US and A
By codeThug on 1/19/2007 1:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
that's a fact, and it seems like it's getting more bizarre every year. I'm all for just cutting the dude's hands off and calling it even.


RE: US and A
By frobizzle on 1/19/2007 4:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, let the punishment fit the crime. Cut his hands off and brand his forehead "CRIMINAL" then send him on his way.

Oops, can't that in the US and A. That would be considered cruel and unusual. Bollocks!


RE: US and A
By BadKarma on 1/22/2007 4:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
That's a little bit too harsh, IMO. A more fitting punishment would be to lock him up for 20-30 years and register him as a sex offender. Then we'll see how rosy the rest of his life will be when he gets out of jail.


Personally
By FITCamaro on 1/19/2007 2:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with Texas. If you kill someone, we will kill you back. Do not pass go. Do not get out of jail free. Granted the evidence needs to be there and should only count for pre-meditated murder, not drunk drivers (you made a mistake), self defense, or accidents.

As far as this dude, give'em 25 years. He'll be 70 then. Rob'em of the rest of his sex life(other than the buddies he'll make in prison). Punishment enough.




RE: Personally
By mindless1 on 1/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Personally
By Felofasofa on 1/19/2007 6:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't declare yourself exempt from a generic category of punishment.


Except when you're in Guantanamo Bay. You guys have an Aussie citizen (David Hicks) who has been held for 5 years without trial or the ability to get proper legal representation. Our ballsless govt has done squat all about it. But really, Gitmo is a disgrace, and undermines all your principles of freedom and justice etc. I know most of its inhabitants are scumbags, but that doesn't mean they should be denied due process.


RE: Personally
By andrep74 on 1/22/2007 5:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you're trying to bring politics into the discussion, but to answer the rhetoric: a criminal chooses to commit crime, despite the potential consequences. People who are not "mindless" have a "concept of justice" of an eye for an eye, given that person's choice and understanding of the consequences. That's why we don't usually prosecute minors and the mentally ill. It's not possible to compare my lack of respect for a criminal's life when it was the criminal who first made the choice to demonstrate lack of respect for someone else's (Y!) life. We're going to demonstrate right back, except this time it's by the criminal's choice!

Police have a job to uphold the law, as do soldiers to defend their country. I'd much rather see soldiers fighting extremists on foreign soil than in my own streets, as well as police make the occasional mistake than have riots and chaos or, worse yet, a police state.


stupid legal system
By bigpimpatl on 1/19/2007 6:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get it; why don't they just hand his information over to ISP's and public libraries so they know not to give him internet access? I agree he should get some jail time, but to really prevent the crime from occurring again, why not take away the internet? The internet is a privilege, not a right. Take that privilege away for 10, 15, 20 years, whatever the judge decides. Ban him from using the internet, period.

"Oh but so and so will allow him to use the internet at X person's house." So what? If he's stupid enough to do the crime twice, and if he has a friend that is even stupider to let him do it with his connection, then put both of em in jail. I don't know, this seems more logical to me than locking him up for a possible 100 years, in the same jail as killers, rapers, etc are in.




RE: stupid legal system
By xtknight on 1/20/2007 4:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Why not? Because it's basically impossible to keep someone from getting on the Internet. Friends, library, etc. I mean, do you expect the librarians to identify this list of terrorists and say DO NOT GET ON THE NET! It's just not gonna happen.


RE: stupid legal system
By andrep74 on 1/22/2007 5:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
There's no infrastructure in place for that, and would not prevent him from hiring someone else to do it for him. In fact, there are probably a bunch of companies involved with his crimes that we can't go after because they're outside of our jurisdiction.


First?
By Nocturnal on 1/19/2007 4:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
This guy was convicted for sending out PHISHING e-mails, not spam. I consider them two entirely different things. I mean they are both sent out via e-mail and phishing could be considered spamming but I believe phishing has a much more malicious intent than just sending out Viagra e-mails.

quote:
Jeffrey Brett Goodin, 45, of Azusa, was found guilty Friday of running a "phishing" scheme that tricked people into believing they were giving personal information to a legitimate business. Prosecutors said Goodin then used the information to go on a spending spree.




RE: First?
By mindless1 on 1/19/2007 5:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
Spam is now a generic term so yes, it would be too nonspecific to title this article with just "spamming". Phishing email being a spam, versus advertising or non-targeted nuisance emails which are also spam.


The first?
By Natfly on 1/19/2007 11:24:35 AM , Rating: 3
What about Jeremy Jaynes? "Jaynes was convicted in November 2004 of sending bulk, unsolicited e-mail with forged headers" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Jaynes )




This guy's gonna get it
By h0kiez on 1/19/2007 8:43:14 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's time to make an example out of someone. Dude's gonna die in jail.




heh
By Pythias on 1/19/2007 8:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
Poor guy must not have any politicians in his pocket. You just gotta know whose muffin to butter. Ask Anne Baskins and Patricia Dunn.




I'm not sorry for him
By qrhetoric on 1/19/2007 1:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sorry for him. He and few like him are making life difficult for the entire internet-using population, as well as stealing from countless people.




By kpac on 1/19/2007 9:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
Tuan:

Your statements "First Person in U.S. Convicted for Spam E-mailing" and "the first person to be convicted of such a crime in the U.S." are incorrect. Goodin is the first person to have been convicted under the CAN-SPAM act, but Jeremy Jaynes was convicted of spamming in 2004 under a Virginia law. He was sentenced to 9 years in prison, which was upheld on appeal in September 2006.




Wire tapping
By delaisaac on 1/19/2007 10:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
I guess that I am always confused when people get charged with wire tapping.....I guess that they are just trying to add on charges and what not, but isn't this an antiquated term? Can't we make some new law about ruining the online experience of millions or something like that...it seems a lot more truthful than wiretapping.

John
http://www.monomachines.com




Effective Law?
By TomZ on 1/19/2007 8:42:20 AM , Rating: 1
Oh, that's an effective law - NOT. Zillions of spam e-mails sent, and only a single prosecution. Pretty sad if you ask me!




It's about Time
By XToneX on 1/19/2007 8:42:59 AM , Rating: 1
All I have to say is, It's about time!




Give this criminal a break !
By Beenthere on 1/19/07, Rating: -1
wow.
By Sungpooz on 1/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: wow.
By Hawkido on 1/19/2007 2:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
Why did you call someone a Noob?

Do you know how these guys cycle the account names and spoof where they are comming from. You can't block them. they come from a different address with a different username everytime, usually from a different IP address and a different e-mail server. The same spammer makes use of all of this. Plus they convert their mesage into a picture so you cannot do a text body search and dump it based on content, the subject line is randomly generated, and they insert sections of novel text in the message to fool heuritsics. Which i think they ought to be able to bust them for copyright infringment as well if they can find the turd!

It is very hard to stop them from getting in. If your e-mail address is on a web page then it will soon be in a spam list. They have a web page scanner eating web pages consuming e-mail addy's and generating new addy's based on the ones they find. BJohnson@mycompany.com, it will figure out first initial last name @mycompany.com then it will look at your website for other names and create e-mail addresses from that. It will also try to randomly create common names to stick to your domainname.

If they aren't likely to do it again (husband comes home finds wife in bed with someone else and kills them) then let them out after 10 to 15 years for murder. If they are capable of repeat offences, this spammer will go right back to his old habit if/when he gets out, keep him locked up or execute him (maybe not him in this case but only if their crime warrents it). If they can't reform then dispose of them; not out of hatred, but more out of pity that they could not live inside our laws like 80% of us.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki