Slashdot Log In
One Last Spamhaus Warning Before The End
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:03 AM
from the going-down dept.
from the going-down dept.
kog777 writes to mention that Spamhaus has released a final warning about an increase in junk email, as they prepare to lose their domain to an Illinois court ruling. From the article: "According to Spamhaus, more than 650 million Internet users - including those at the White House, the U.S. Army and the European Parliament - benefit from Spamhaus' 'blacklist' of spammers that helps identify which messages to block, send to a 'junk' folder or accept. Losing the domain name would make it more difficult for service providers and others to obtain the lists. 'If the domain got suspended, it would be an enormous hit for the Net,' said Steve Linford, Spamhaus' chief executive officer. 'It would create an enormous amount of damage on the Internet.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Spamhaus to Ignore $11.7M Judgement 471 comments
6031769 writes, "As reported on CNet, Spamhaus is choosing to ignore a judgement of $11.7M against them in an uncontested trial in an Illinois court. According to Spamhaus, the judgement has no impact on them, since they are a British organization." From the Spamhaus reply to the judgment: "Default judgments obtained in US county, state or federal courts have no validity in the UK and can not be enforced under the British legal system... As spamming is illegal in the UK, an Illinois court ordering a British organization to stop blocking incoming Illinois spam in Britain goes contrary to UK law which orders all spammers to cease sending spam in the first place."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Perspectives on Spamhaus's Dilemma 420 comments
The Illinois court that told Spamhaus to stop blocking the spammer filing suit against them — an order which Spamhaus ignored — is now considering ordering ICANN to pull Spamhaus's domain records. While Gadi Evron, whose blog posting is linked above, urges everyone to beat the judge with a clue stick, a guest writer on his blog counsels much greater restraint. Anti-spam lawyer Matthew Prince explains how Spamhaus got into its current pickle — apparently by following conflicting legal advice at two points in the process — and what they might have to do to get out. One spamfighter of my acquaintance says that Spamhaus's SBL and XBL blocklists knock out 75% of the spam at his servers before it hits and requires more CPU-intensive filtering. If ICANN is ordered to unplug Spamhaus from the DNS, and does so, is the Net prepared to deal with a 4-fold increase in spam hitting MTAs overnight?
[+]
Your Rights Online: Email Servers Will Choke, Says Spamhaus 576 comments
Rub3X writes, "The legal battle between antispam organization Spamhaus and e360 Insight is heating up. Spamhaus has a user base of around 650 million, and its lists block some fifty billion spam emails per day, according to the project's CEO Steve Linford. Spamhaus CIO Richard Cox says the immediate issue is that if the domain is suspended, the torrent of bulk mail hitting the world's mail servers would cause many of them to fail. More than 90% of of all email is now spam, Cox says, and he doubts that servers worldwide would be able to handle a ten-fold increase in traffic." Others estimate Spamhaus's blocking efficacy as closer to 75%; by this metric spam would increase four-fold, not ten-fold, if Spamhaus went unavailable. The article paraphrases CIO Cox as saying that the service will continue "even if there is a short-term degradation."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Judge Rules In Favor Of Spamhaus 232 comments
Waylon writes "U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras has ruled in favor of The Spamhaus Project. e360 Insight responded on its homepage, saying the judge's ruling was 'a devastating loss of personal freedom for all U.S. citizens'. As opposed to shutting down a voluntary service which tries to mitigate the millions of unsolicited emails that e360 Insight pumps out every single day." From the article: "In his order, Judge Kocoras wrote that the relief e360insight sought is 'too broad to be warranted in this case' and that suspending the domain name would 'cut off all lawful online activities of Spamhaus, not just those that are in contravention' of the default judgment. He also called e360insight's motion one that 'does not correspond to the gravity of the offending conduct.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I'm still a little fuzzy on e360 (Score:4, Insightful)
How can they be legit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:How can they be legit? (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is you can definitely end up on Spamhaus with being a Spammer. You can usually get off the list but other times they are total dicks. They blocked an entire C class belonging to XO with the response that if you were "Stupid enough to use XO" it was your "own fault." Disregarding the fact that XO lights buildings and companies don't always have a choice in the matter. They later cleared that up but it took 3 weeks.
So while I am pro Spamhaus I wonder what e360's deal really is.
Parent
Minor nit-pick. (Score:5, Insightful)
Spamhaus does not "block" anything. All they do is list the addresses that meet their criteria for listing (yeah, I know that's redundant).
Mail admins can choose to reference that list (or not) and block / flag / delay / whatever based upon it.
I use Spamhaus with SpamAssassin, but I don't block or deny. It just adds to the spam score.
Spamhaus does not block. Spamhaus just lists.
Mail admins block.
Parent
Re:Minor nit-pick. (Score:5, Insightful)
Blacklists suck. Whitelists suck. Spam sucks. We do the best with what we've got. But for Spamhaus to pretend that they don't know that adding an IP to their list will result in it being blocked from delivering mail to a vast portion of the net is disingenuous. That's exactly why they list large blocks of IPs: because it prevents mail from being delivered, applying pressure to the ISP because their customers are angry. If a listing truly had no effect, they wouldn't do it. (Never mind the ethics of harming uninvolved parties in order to attack the party you dislike; it's the same tactic as another group whose label begins with "t" uses.)
Do I use Spamhaus? Yes. Is a Spamhaus listing alone enough to get mail blocked on my server? Nope. It's just another vote of no-confidence for a particular message. Do I loathe spammers? You betcha. But Spamhaus shouldn't pretend they're not a blocking list. And these spammers should be laughed out of court, the rat bastards.
Parent
Re:Minor nit-pick. (Score:5, Funny)
Murders don't kill people. Guns kill people. Murderers just point and twitch thier index finger.
Parent
Re:Minor nit-pick. (Score:4, Insightful)
A very large number of mailservers automatically block mail based solely on this service
And how is this the fault of spamhaus? They're clear about what their listing criteria are, it's up to mail admins to decide how to use it.
Parent
Re:Minor nit-pick. (Score:5, Insightful)
I say that unless your mail server meets a minimal set of criteria, including proper delegation and RDNS, then I don't know you from Adam, and I should reject your mail by default. Your dynamic IP is persona non grata, and I make no apologies. This is easily fixable by you, and if you refuse to do so, it's not really my problem.
Yep, it's Balkanization. I don't see any ethnic cleansing going on though, so tell me what else about Balkanization is bad?
Parent
Re:Minor nit-pick. (Score:4, Interesting)
But when their data is false? I have a static IP. For whatever reason, it is listed as a Dynamic IP. For again whatever reason, LOADS of people seem to block dynamic IP's even ones not implicated in Spam.
Oh, believe me, I understand the issue. I used to run a mail server on a static IP that was listed as part of a dynamic IP block. Now I run a mail server that is on a dynamic IP (well, semi-dynamic -- it doesn't seem to change more then once every couple of years). I ran my server with direct delivery for a long time, without any trouble, but I eventually had to configure my mail server to deliver via my ISP's SMTP server because too much of my mail was blocked.
I say we should treat all IP's as innocent until proven guilty.
In principle, I agree. In practice, it's those dynamic IPs that generate nearly all of the spam, and it's not that difficult for non-spammers to route their email through their ISP's mail server.
In any case, I still have to say that the problem is with mail admins that misuse the Spamhaus list, not with the list itself. The list doesn't claim to be a list of spamming IPs, just a list of IPs that are likely spammers. Your IP is a likely spammer, even if it isn't a spammer. Personally, I use Spamhaus, but I only use it to add an "X-Listed-By-Spamhaus: yes" header to the messages, so that bogofilter can use that information. I find it increases the accuracy of bayesian filtering considerably.
Parent
Re:Minor nit-pick. (Score:4, Informative)
Whoever your ISP is, gets their IP addresses in blocks, which they designate as Dynamic. Certain subnets get marked as static - and are generally reserved for loops - T1 etc. When you get a 'static' IP address from your ISP, they create a DHCP block for you with only 1 IP address in it. So your 'static' IP address is really a 'dynamic' IP address drawn from a pool of 1 possibility.
Parent
Now,now (Score:5, Funny)
Their web site has lots of useful information.
And I think you should get it all with
wget -r http://www.e360insight.com/ [e360insight.com]
Repeatedly, if necessary.
Parent
they are spammers, see here (Score:5, Informative)
(from http://www.spamhaus.org/legal/answer.lasso?ref=3 [spamhaus.org])
Parent
Re:I'm still a little fuzzy on e360 (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, RBLs are used voluntarily. That doesn't mean every user of them makes a critical judgement about their purpose and intentions. If many people blindly use a certain RBL, it sooner or later will turn corrupt and the power to intimidate ISPs and legitimate mail senders automatically arises. You can't change human nature.
Spam is bad. Corrupt RBLs are bad, too. I'm not implying Spamhaus is bad. I'm just saying look carefully who you trust and for which purpose. For me, this means never blocking a certain sender based on any RBL alone. Let the RBL modify some score, but never strictly block based on what it says.
Parent
Spamhaus is popular *because* they're good (Score:5, Informative)
They can and presumably do make mistakes, but they're about the best out there.
Most ISPs need more protection that just burning CPU on Spamassassin - diverting obviously untrustable email at the SMTP handshake instead of accepting the message is pretty critical, and the way the SMTP protocols work, if you refuse the message then, any correctly-configured legitimate email sender will get feedback, as opposed to if you accept the message and then dump it. (You can do milter-things to process the message body before accepting the message, but there are enough known-bad sources that you can kill before they get that far that it saves you a lot of CPU and transmission.)
Simply greylisting mail kills off a surprising fraction of spam, including mail from most zombies and most of the unused-address-space-BGP-hacking senders. You could certainly use Spamhaus, and for that matter just about any RBL, to drive a greylist harder (e.g. 1 hour delay for listed sites, 5 minutes for unknowns.)
Parent
Re:I'm still a little fuzzy on e360 (Score:4, Interesting)
I've just sent the following email to the lawyers for e360:
to: amertes@synergylawgroup.com
from: j@ww.com
Hello there,
It seems you are the people responsible for leading the charge on 'spamhaus' on behalf
of your customer, 'e360'.
if you cause spamhause.org to no longer function then you can rest assured I'll do my best to forward each and every spam message received on my servers to yours.
fair warning
It's one thing to play clever lawyerly games, it's quite another to
piss off just about everybody on the net on behalf of some lowlife.
Jacques Mattheij
CEO ww.com
Parent
The IP Address (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, if we can get the word out to 650 million Internet users to use IP address 216.168.30.71, what damage is done? It will just take a while for people to tell ICANN how stupid they are. Maybe this is a good thing? Maybe this will cause the community to complain about ICANN and the American control of the internet?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: The IP Address (Score:5, Informative)
Why would they want to do that? From the article;
Executives at the U.K.-based Spamhaus Project...
Parent
Re: The IP Address (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: The IP Address (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, this is a good case for control of registration and domain names not being US-based. A court in Illinois should not be able to affect a legitimate
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- Gilmore
What's wrong with a little anarchy? I'm sure if the suggestion were sent around, spamhaus.org would remain in DNS and e360.com and any associated businesses could be made to disappear.
Parent
Re: The IP Address (Score:4, Interesting)
Is the US the only country that can compell ICANN to modify the DNS record list? Can't a judge in the UK overturn the US judge's ruling and compell ICANN to reinstate the address? If not, that's insane that US law is the end all of Internet law.
Parent
I will explain this because I'm tired of this arg (Score:5, Interesting)
when my email server receive some mail from 1.2.3.4, it looks up 4.3.2.1.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org and, if the address exists, it closes the connection (so that the mail won't even clog our intertubes). Now, I already changed it to look up 4.3.2.1.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org.uk, but other 650 MILLION servers still have to do the same. Because if they don't, and this judge thinks it should call, their email load will get up by 20x or so. Got it now?
Parent
Re:I will explain this because I'm tired of this a (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I will explain this because I'm tired of this a (Score:4, Informative)
I think you should wait before changing anything. I don't think spamhaus.org.uk, or any other name besides spamhaus.org, will ever resolve the Spamhaus RBLs.
From Spamhaus' response [spamhaus.org] to the proposed order (proposed, people, by the spammer's counsel, no judge has ordered ICANN anything), it seems they'll intend to contest this. They mention they don't think that ICANN suspending them can actually happen, for reasons I in fact agree with (go read them at their site). They also mention that "one U.S. government agency has begun working on a response."
However, if worse comes to worst, they probably won't switch to any other domain name. They state: "... if Spamhaus gets around the court order by switching domain to maintain the blocking, the judge would very likely then rule us in criminal contempt. We don't want a criminal record for the sake of fighting spam. We normally help fit the spammers with criminal records, not the other way round."
Which I read as, if this order is enforced, and ICANN caves in and all that, there will be no more Spamhaus, period.
Which would really piss me off. The whole episode already already seems like a bad dream to me. To see Spamhaus destroyed by some spammer scum would be just depressing. One thing's for certain, though: it'll be a cold day in hell before any site I manage will exchange traffic with this spammer.
Parent
Do they have to defy the court? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or is my understanding about a mile off?
So...get a new domain? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how a US court ruling could shut down a domain name in another country's TLD; so why don't they just go and get a name in the UK, or Switzerland, or Sealand.
Somehow I think enough people find Spamhaus useful, that if they asked they could probably take up collection and get enough money to afford a new domain, and right now they have enough press coverage to ensure that it would be publicized. Sure, it would be a PITA for a lot of mailserver admins who would need to change the address, but that's still a lot less work than filtering their spam by hand.
It sounds like Spamhaus is getting ready to 'cut off their nose to spite their face,' or in this case, destroy themselves in order to try and prove some point to a Federal Court in the US that couldn't give a damn one way or the other. If they're trying to make a point, this isn't the way to do it.
Re:So...get a new domain? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see how a US court ruling could shut down a domain name in another country's TLD; so why don't they just go and get a name in the UK, or Switzerland, or Sealand.
You're not the only person to make this mistake. The judge's order to pull the SOA for SpamHaus's domain has NOTHING TO DO with whether the TLD is
How can this be? Well, SpamHaus is subject to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court. Once a court (any court, not just American) decides that you're subject to its jurisdiction, it can issue an order compelling you to do whatever it wants. It can also issue a court order compelling a 3rd party (in this case, the domain registrar) to take some action in regards to you. It doesn't matter whether one party in the lawsuit, or the 3rd party who isn't involved in the suit, is actually resident in the U.S.
Enforcement of a court order is a slightly different issue. It may be very, very difficult to enforce the order of a U.S. court in a foreign country. It's easy enough in the U.S. because the court can hold the non-compliant party in contempt (and enact fines, jail time, etc.), but these mechanisms don't automatically work overseas. Some countries, under some circumstances, will honor civil court orders from other nations, but usually you would have to sue in the foreign country's courts to effect any action on the part of a foreign body.
An important exception to the above is that many entities have assets or physical presence in multiple countries. If (hypotheticallly) the German arm of Register.com operated the
In short, the Illinois court made a STUPID FUCKING BONEHEADED decision, and the judge or jury should probably be removed and caned, but it is certainly procedurally possible for them to hassle SpamHaus regardless of where you register the domain name.
Parent
Failure to Legislate (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at how long and how much money it took for the Crackberry developer to get the federal gov't to do things like the "emergency review" and subsequent invalidation of the submarine patent owner that went after them while they were clearly set to lose in court to the submarine patent holder.
I would be very interested to see/hear if there isn't K Street pressure to kill spamhaus off so other companies that DO legislate can make consumers pay more for the "luxury" of good spam filtering.
Re:Failure to Legislate (Score:5, Insightful)
Acknowledging this reality is not defeatism or cowardice, nor "encouraging" corruption, it's simply realism. If you disagree with this, then if you aren't actively taking up arms and planning a violent revolution, then you are a hypocrite.
Parent
Not such a bad thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Spamhaus should sue ICANN (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a power play by Spamhaus, but it's a totally justified power play. And I applaud them for not giving in to the demands of a stupid court that has no jurisdiction over them or any reason in the first place to pass an injunction against them. If their domain name is removed, then the fallout from all of the additional SPAM will be cause a great deal of trouble.
a little clue (Score:3, Insightful)
I really think the idea of white lists or per email fees is starting to come due. Yep its a hassle and the idea of paying for email kind of sucks but if done right it would have little effect on the average user but really make spammers accountable. I'd like to see a monthly or weekly cap over that and you pay. I also would like to see the Icann or someone rule that non working or non existant opt out's result in an immediate revocation of ALL domains owned by the offender.
ICANN suspending domain != no DNS (Score:3, Interesting)
However, just because ICANN suspends a domain doesn't mean that its out of DNS. Anyone with a DNS server can still serve the records. Not all root servers are under ICANN control.
Many email servers have their own DNS server (if only for caching). I say, manually add the records in defiance of the SPAMers and their abuse of our legal system!
I've heard this somewhere before... (Score:5, Funny)
It's okay, guys. Spamhaus will lose their domain for a night, then get it back along with a huge government grant to go find a way to stop th emess that was made when they were shut down, and it'll all be cleaned up in time for a sequel.
wakeup call (Score:4, Insightful)
So far, the war has been fought by amateurs vs. increasingly aggressive and organized criminals. But the amateurs have been fairly successful, so nobody really noticed. Open the floodgates and let everyone realize that spam really is a problem that needs to be dealt with, once and for all.
One last time... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they had done nothing, the court probably would have dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction.
If they had asked the court to drop the charges because they were a UK entity and a US court doesn't have jurisdiction, the court probably would have agreed.
But no, they explicitly asked for the case to be transferred to federal court, implicitly acknowledging the jurisdiction of the court and then they never came back.
The judge is saying, "You asked for this. We went to a lot of trouble to accommodate you. Where are you? If you don't show up, I'll have to find for the plantiff."
They shot themselves in their own foot.
Matthew Prince has a good summary [securiteam.com].
Missing the underlying problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Think differently...
From what I've heard, spam constitutes something over half the traffic on the Internet. Think of blocking half of a water main, or half of a sewer, or half the lanes on the highway. No doubt at all that this would be considered more than just "an annoyance," but that's pretty much what spam is doing each and every day. Look at the legislative "encouragement" to build more bandwidth and the end-to-end compromises being threatened, but in reality we're wasting over half of what we've got, already. Spam is much more serious than just an annoyance.
How's this for an idea - link it to terrorism!
Imagine for a moment that you want to transmit secret, untracable terror plans all around the world. Simply put "V1agra" on the subject line, send it to EVERYBODY, and you're pretty much guaranteed that NOBODY will read it. You could probably send your plans in clear-text safely, but steganography would be advisable.
So here it is... Spam is really a secret terrorist communications channel! It needs to be stopped!
Re:Missing the underlying problem (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Extra cheese and sausage for spammers (Score:5, Funny)
From: david linhardt
Subject: mail fraud and identity theft
Be advised, I am aware that members of the spamhaus organization are using my personally identifiable information to fraudelently order products and services on my behalf. I know this is true because I mistakenly provided you with my home address...
This was a good court decision. (Score:5, Insightful)
A. First, Spamhaus argued that this case belongs in U.S. Federal Court. That's mistake number one; you don't tell a judge that your case belongs in a certain court, and then refuse to show up. Even odder, they say this, "But, to ensure this doesn't happen we are working with lawyers to find a way to both appeal/contest the ruling and stop further nonsense by this spammer." The question is, why didn't you guys work with lawyers before hand?
Take a look at http://www.spamhaus.org/legal/answer.lasso?ref=3 [spamhaus.org] . Spamhaus makes a compelling case there as to why the court should not have jurisidction over them. So why would you _not_ present this evidence in court; especially after you've already told a court that they DO have jurisidiction over you.
B. Look at Spamhaus.org (or a mirror, if you can now). What logos does Spamhaus display on their "About Spamhaus" page. I'll cut and paste the organization names, about whom Spamhaus says, "Spamhaus works with many Law Enforcement agencies and cyber-crimes teams worldwide, assisting investigations and compiling evidence on illegal spam operations. Our main working partners are:"
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation
2. National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance
3. United States Postal Inspection Service
4. National White Collar Crime Center
5. Internet Crime Complaint Center
6. Department of the Treasury
7. Internal Revenue Service
When you work with this group of U.S. government services, and claim that they are your first line of working partners, it's difficult to argue that U.S. courts should have no standing over you.
C. Spamhaus does business in the U.S.!
Spamhaus makes this claim, which I do think is one that would require discussion in court:
"
Claim: An Illinois court has jurisdiction over Spamhaus in the United Kingdom because Spamhaus does business in the State of Illinois.
This statement is false. Spamhaus does no business in the State of Illinois. Spamhaus has no office or agent in the State of Illinois nor any affiliation with any Illinois resident or entity. Spamhaus is a British organization and is not subject to Illinois County Court jurisdiction. Spamhaus advises Mr. Linhardt to re-file his case in the proper venue, a law court in the United Kingdom.
"
Consider that Spamhaus has a public mirror (perhaps several) in the U.S., over which Spamhaus has tight control. Furthermore, consider that Spamhaus sells a Datafeed service to U.S. residents. On http://www.spamhaus.org/datafeed/pricecalculator.l asso [spamhaus.org] , prices are listed in Dollars, not Euros.
Given that they sell this service, and given that they manage servers in the U.S., it is difficult to argue that they don't do business in the U.S., and certainly is an issue for substantive debate. Not something you can win by default, and certainly something that a non-technical Judge would (fairly) decide without a defense.
Summary: The Judge, in this case, made a good decision. A company brought forth a fairly legitimate looking claim, one which may be somewhat feeble but had some legal grounding. The defense argured that it was not within Illinois's jurisidction, which *is* true, and then argued that it belonged in Federal court. The illinois judge said, "fine". Spamhaus then proceeded to ignore the federal court.
What did they expect?
They should have argued from the begining that this did not belong in U.S. courts at all, and the proper jurisidiction would be Britain. That *might* have been a lengthy discussion, because Spamhaus does, indeed, offer services within the U.S. for pay, as well as free listing services; and being listed on a spam list may or may not interact with libel laws.
Either way, I think Spamhau
There seems to be a lot of failure to 'get it' (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two kinds of jurisdiction ('jxn'): subject matter jxn and personal jxn. Both must be proper in order for a court to hear a case.
Subject matter jxn deals with matters like standing, the subject of the case (e.g. is it a patent case), diversity, etc. It's really not an issue in this case, and will only crop up once, and be briefly noted later on.
Personal jxn deals with whether the parties in the case are within the court's jxn. American law generally has very broad personal jxn. The limits on this are basically those put in place by state and federal law, including the Constitution. This is because jxn is basically the extent to which the court is permitted to reach by law, and those are the relevant laws. Whether the court can effectively exercise power over people is an entirely different matter -- fleeing to a faraway country or holing up in a bunker with a lot of guns are the sorts of tactics used to escape the law, and don't have anything to do with jurisdictional matters.
In any case, jxn is how far the law allows the court to reach, regardless of practical matters of enforcement. The law generally put it to be as far as possible, ultimately limited by the Constitution. It could arbitrarily be shorter, but this is not common.
There are several ways in which a court may find that it has personal jxn. The easiest is when someone is physically present. But physical presence is not actually required. For example, if you are a resident of a state, but are not currently in the state, there is still personal jxn. Or if you are not a resident of a state, but drive a vehicle in the state, you are deemed by law to have consented to the matter of personal jxn by driving there. (Again: personal jxn is what the law says it is, not what you think it ought to be, and totally apart from the matter of whether enforcement is practical)
Still, when the applicable law is simply that personal jxn extends as far as the Constitution permits, the question becomes one of Constitutional law: does the guarantee of due process in the Constitution permit jxn to be exercised here? The traditional test to find out is the minimum contacts test.
Roughly, there must be at least a minimum number of contacts of sufficient quantity and quality that it would be fair and just to exercise personal jxn.
For example: did the defendant engage in business dealings in the jxn? Did they avail themselves of the benefits of the jxn's law (e.g. by entering into contracts which the jxn's law could be called upon to enforce in some manner). Do they solicit business within the jxn? Do they sell goods or services, directly or indirectly, to people in the jxn?
The more contacts there are, the more likely that jxn will stand. If there are few contacts, then it is less likely. However, where a suit is closely connected to a particular contact, personal jxn may be found with less of a contact than if there is no such connection. (E.g. if you only do business with one person in California, then probably only that person would be able to sue you there based on that contact)
Some contacts are too attenuated or minor to support personal jxn, but they're the exception, particularly where we're dealing with business matters.
The other important thing to note about personal jxn is that it is waivable. The law permits someone to consent to personal jxn. You often see this sort of thing in contracts. But going to court to defend yourself will count too. If you want to argue that a court lacks personal jxn over you, then you have to do so in a very precise fashion, lest you inadvertantly waive it, irrevocably. This might seem odd to you, but let me reiterate: jxn is what the law says it is, and the law says that personal jxn is waivable, and has to be brought up in a very specific way, at a very specific time (immediately, basically), or else it is waived. It has nothing to do with what country you're in (unless that matt
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shoulda seen this coming... (Score:4, Funny)
Much as I'd love to see that happen, since it would demolish ICANN once and for all, I seriously doubt it.
In other news: Spamhaus LLC (http://www.spamhaus.org.uk) experienced a temporary decrease in reachability today as one of its redundant domains became unreachable. Unnamed officials at Spamhaus have warned that the situation is expected to deteriorate somewhat when the US-based servers in its worldwide fault-tolerant network are shut down, and to expect slight increases in lookups due to this. One official was quoted as saying, "Backhoes, DDOS attacks, daft overreaching judges, it's all damage we're set up to route around."
Parent
Re:Shoulda seen this coming... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Shoulda seen this coming... (Score:5, Interesting)
Works the other way too dude.
Let's say that you're posting WWII revisionism on an american website. You're protected by the 1st amendment.
Now the website is browsable from... say... France. France has laws against revisionism, so your post is a crime as far as the french law is concerned. Since your post arrived to france, it falls under french juridiction, your crime -- in your own opinion -- was comitted in France even though there was no crime comitted in the USA (interresting isn't it?), and you could be extraded to France to be judged and put in prison.
Fun isn't it?
Becomes much funnier when you put "interresting" countries into play, like, say, China.
Parent
From what I understand (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shoulda seen this coming... (Score:5, Interesting)
Spamhaus is in the UK. The court in the US. End of story.
I hope ICANN pulls the DNS records; that will be the final sign for the EU and other parties to take control over their own domains.
If Spamhaus is not liked here, have the US build a huge firewall around the country to "protect" itself.
Parent
Re:Shoulda seen this coming... (Score:4, Funny)
Thank your.
Parent
Re:BULLSHIT (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem isn't that they persued the wrong legal strategy, it's that they persued both of them. Either strategy would have worked. But by changing mid-stride, they screwed themselved.
Parent