So let me get this straight: Jeffrey Brett Goodin sends out a bunch of e-mail scams, is successful with them and now faces 101 years.
Phishing is a scourge but isn't this a bit excessive? After all, you could rob shareholders of billions (Enron and WorldCom) and get a couple decades max. You could murder, maim and do a even worse all for less time as long as you prove you're mentally off or had a bad childhood.
This guy preyed on a few AOL victims--which a few Web snobs would note is just natural selection in action--and now is held up as a big example under the first prosecution under the under the Can-Spam Act of 2003.
That's all well and dandy, but good luck with a sentence approaching 101 years.
A few talkbacks to ponder:
"The article states the maximum sentence is 101 years. It's highly doubtful that this individual will be sentenced to more than 5 years if there is no previous felony convictions."
"All phishers should get mandatory 30 years. I mean they get to wreck people lives and livelyhoods overnight that was built up over decades."
"AOL Users Should Get 101 Years In Prison."