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.'"

Re:Over the top

[radarsat1]

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.

Re:Over the top

[Peyna]

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.

Re:That is so fair.

[Lothsahn]

This is because our legal system is based on "counts" of the offense. He sent millions of spam emails. Most murderers don't kill millions of people. He wouldn't have gotten 101 years if he had sent one spam email or even 100.

I'm not saying it's fair or anything, just that's the way it is. Perhaps there should be a mandatory maximum sentence--though that raises a whole other set of problems.

Re:Over the top

[bziman]

how... can they justify over 100 years of punishment?

That's a theoretical maximum of getting consecutive sentences of for numerous counts... if he attempted to defraud hundreds of people, it is simply possible that he could get hundreds of years. Unfortunately, these sorts of sentences are rarely handed out for the people who really deserve it -- and I mean the spammers, not the murderers. He'll probably be able to serve many of the sentences concurrently, or he'll make some sort of deal to drop the largest part of the charges -- he still gets whatever sentence the prosecuter feels like, but the court doesn't have to spend the extra time and money proving hundreds of individual charges.

--brian

Re:Don't Spam, Molest Kids Instead

[Hero Zzyzzx]

You couldn't possibly be biased, though, Mr. "Isagenix."

Re:Over the top

[JoGlo]

Alice's Restaurant will always have a special place in my heart.

Re:Over the top

[x2A]

"Whats the value of life?"

42

duh