Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Government The Courts News

Spammers Sue Spamee 453

Posted by samzenpus from the read-it-or-else dept.
sebFlyte writes "In an interesting take on the law, some (alleged) spammers are suing some poor chap who got them blocked by ISPs due to the fact they kept sending him spam. According to Spamhaus the company doing the suing is on their books as spammer, and also as a spyware company... If this case goes the wrong way, things could get very sticky for anyone wanting to report spam."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spammers Sue Spamee More

Spammers Sue Spamee

Comments Filter:

  • Can Spam Act as defense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fembots ( 753724 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:26PM (#11413999) Homepage
    This is a serious problem. Lawyers/spammers are now citing CSA, and as long as they're following that ACT, it will be legal.

    However, it doesn't matter if spamming is legal or otherwise, this is just another example of rich people's law.

    If this spammer is doing reasonably well, he might just have enough money to drag on. This will have a big impact on the victims, because even if you're rightfully entitled to complain about a spammer, you would now have a second thought if you have enough money to defend yourself for few months, even if the outcome is in your favour.

    On a side note, the spamee, Jay Stuler is appealing for help from the public in fighting the suit and has set up a PayPal account to pay for his legal fees and is asking for donations. Maybe a bit of "email campaign" asking recipients to donate $5 and pass the email to 5 friends? :)

    • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:29PM (#11414031)
      It's called "can" spam for a reason.

    • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tha_mink ( 518151 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:34PM (#11414085)
      This is a serious problem. Lawyers/spammers are now citing CSA, and as long as they're following that ACT, it will be legal.

      But really, all this guy did was complain to his ISP. You cannot get sued for complaining. If there is a lawsuit, it should be against the ISP for canceling the account. No? Seems like a million lawyers would jump at a countersuit on this one.

      • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Senjutsu ( 614542 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:36PM (#11414113)
        You cannot get sued for complaining.

        As this case illustrates, you can be sued for anything. Sure, you probably won't lose, but can you afford to take the case far enough to be sure? Most people can't.
        • I live in California, and see on a regular basis how true your comment really is...

        • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:5, Insightful)

          by KiltedKnight ( 171132 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:43PM (#11414186) Homepage Journal
          If you can't lose, you should move immediately for the case to be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit. If you have a reasonably wise and intelligent judge hearing the case, he'll look at it, agree, and throw it out. The judge would then warn the lawyer about bringing up frivolous lawsuits, potentially fining him for doing so.

          Perhaps he should look for a way to counter-sue on those grounds. He followed the law, made a simple request based on the TOS of the ISP, and he's being harassed with a frivolous lawsuit intended to seek damages for something he is not liable for.

          • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Dashing Leech ( 688077 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:01PM (#11414344)
            "you should move immediately for the case to be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit"

            The problem is that just to get to the point that you can ask for the lawsuit to be dismissed will probably cost you thousands of dollars. Just to sit down with a lawyer to look over the suit in the first case might cost you a few hundred. Even a few thousand dollars can break the bank for some people.

            There should be a system (perhaps there is, and someone can point me to it) whereby an individual can ask for a case to be reviewed before even talking to a lawyer. This is just taking schoolyard bullying to a higher level -- if you fight back it will only get worse for you even if you eventually win by getting the bully in trouble.

            • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:4, Interesting)

              by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:05PM (#11414386) Homepage Journal
              Sometimes law schools provide this type of thing through the local state agencies. Students will review a case for free or a small fee at times.

            • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward
              > There should be a system (perhaps there is, and someone can point me to it) whereby an individual can ask for a case to be reviewed before even talking to a lawyer.

              In federal court you can move to dismiss before doing _anything_ in response to a complaint with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. It's something you could even research on the internet and file yourself if you can't afford a lawyer. In addition, you can move for Rule 11 sanctions, which c

            • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:4, Interesting)

              by uberdave ( 526529 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:34PM (#11414713) Homepage
              I think that both parties in a lawsuit should be required to pool their legal funds, and that should be split evenly between the two law teams doing the representing. That way, big bad rich guy could not bleed poor little guy into submission. Also, both parties would get equal legal representation.

          • What he should really go for... (Score:3, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward
            He should do what he can to insure the attorney representing the spammer is disbarred. Nothing says "Happy Valentines Day, Mother Fucker," than being kicked out of the only job they've trained to do.

          • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:4, Insightful)

            by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:06PM (#11414401) Journal
            Most folks aren't lawyers, and most lawyers cost $$$. So there's going to be at least several hundred dollars spent getting a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. I don't know that much about legal matters, but isn't it true that if you want to recoupe legal fees, you're going to have to countersue?

          • Motion to Dismiss: Anti-SLAPP, not CAN SPAM (Score:5, Informative)

            by holt_rpi ( 454352 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @08:56PM (#11415389)
            I am not admitted to practice in New Hampshire (I don't even know where the suit was filed), and none of this is legal advice - that said...

            "SLAPP" is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. It basically means all of the lawsuits that big companies file against "the little guy" when "the little guy" exercises his First Amendment rights to protest in a "matter of public concern." A really good run-down of the reasoning behind Massachusetts' anti-SLAPP statute (only because that's the one I'm most familiar with) is here [bna.com]. Historically, these suits will often present as claims for defamation or "interference with contractual relations" for the statements made by the defendant.

            There are certain legal tests that one must meet in order to have their "petitioning activity" qualify as being "protected" under the statute. Without more facts and knowledge of the analagous statute in NH (if there even is one), I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether or not "contacting SpamHaus with information about a spammer" would fit. Might be a good case to bump up the appellate process and make new law in the jurisdiction, though. ;)

            The advantage of filing a Special Motion to Dismiss under these Anti-SLAPP statutes is that frequently, they allow for an immediate award of costs and attorney's fees, effectively stopping the frivolous lawsuit in its tracks and strongly discouraging companies from filing such suits in the future.

            This guy should find a lawyer, explain ALL of the facts of the suit, and ask her to consider if this could be seen as a SLAPP suit, and how to proceed. Like I've said in other posts, most bar associations have lawyer referral services (LRS) that require member attorneys to give a free or cheap initial consultation. It sounds like this would be a great case for someone to take on.

            Not all lawyers are bloodsucking bottom-feeders. Some are, and they give the rest of us a bad name. Just keep an open mind when you want a lawyer. ;)

        • Legal Aid (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jd ( 1658 )
          Legal Aid in the UK usually covers people who can't afford to hire a lawyer, and they pay decently from what I hear, so you're not getting the dregs of society. Well, no more than you would by hiring a lawyer anyway. Also, the judge often requires the loser to pay the winner's legal costs, so if there's a strong case, people are more willing to fight it out. The money is more borrowed than spent.

          The problem is that the US doesn't generally believe in such fallback systems. Hey, I like the US for a lot of

      • Seems like a million lawyers would jump at a countersuit on this one.

        Problem is, many states don't have laws against frivilous lawsuits, so there may be no basis for a countersuit, especially if the spam itself were not illegal. This is why we need tort reform like Newt Gingrich was touting in his contract with America in which there'd be a loser pays system for lawsuits. Sadly, his ideas have been largely forgotten.

        • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TFGeditor ( 737839 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:10PM (#11414432) Homepage
          "This is why we need tort reform like Newt Gingrich was touting in his contract with America in which there'd be a loser pays system for lawsuits."

          Yea, amen, and halleluja. Remove the incentive for a big win even if they lose, and the "necessary evils" we call "lawyers" will spen more time golfing than harassing over baseless claims.

          Even better, make lawyers who file claims determined frivilous subject to disbarment. To make it "fair," create civil grand juries to assess case merits before it ever sees a court room.

        • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Big Jojo ( 50231 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:34PM (#11414711)
          Problem is, many states don't have laws against frivilous [sic] lawsuits...

          But many, including California, have laws against SLAPP lawsuits, and this would seem to fit firmly into that category. SLAPP == Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, as I recall. Where "public participation" has to do with maintaining the Commons, e.g. if Corporation X sues Joe Penguin for speaking up against it in a public forum, then Joe can relatively inexpensively file to have it dismissed as a SLAPP suit ... and Joe can collect triple damages if it's established that the suit was just to prevent Joe from opposing that toxic waste dump (or equivalent).

          This is why we need tort reform like Newt Gingrich was touting in his contract with America...

          Two things wrong there, and before you even finished the sentence!

          1. We don't need "tort reform" in any sense that's been widely discussed. The abusers of the legal system are primarily corporations; look at the statistics. In this case, it's a corporation suing ... in other cases, it's often corporations selling faulty products since they know Deep Pockets Win, except in class action lawsuits which can tap many pocket. But all the "reforms" so far presented by Republicans (and corporate lawyers) are geared at removing what limited recourse individuals have against those corporations.
          2. That should be Contract on America to be precise. Yes, the title has been widely misquoted forever, but if you look at the details you see what's up.

          That article was rather devoid of essential facts; I'd really like to know if for example California's SLAPP statute could apply. (Many other states have them too.)

    • Re:Can Spam Act as defense (Score:5, Funny)

      by tool462 ( 677306 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:44PM (#11414198)
      Maybe a bit of "email campaign" asking recipients to donate $5 and pass the email to 5 friends? :)
      Thanks for this. Somebody recently asked me for a good example of "irony," but I couldn't think of one at the time ;)
    • He has a PayPal account setup for donations for the legal fund.
      You can find more information here [spamshield.org]
      • I'm helping... I've decided to pick my way through the atricks website to find a chink in their case. Unfortunately, I'm such a bumbler that the wget script I set up to collate information has a serious bug and appears to be stuck in a loop! I believe it's the part where I set a loop counter to 16,000,000 near the top but I can't be bothered to go changing things now... might lead to more bugs... Guess I'll just wait until it stops on its own ;-)

    • why is ICanSpam a defense? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizard@@@ecis...com> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:56PM (#11414299) Homepage
      There's a legal definition of prohibited spam under the act, and there's the entirely different definition (unsolicited junk mail) in the AUP contracts the spammers signed with their ISPs which is consistent with the popular definition and the definition used in most dictionaries recent enough to include spam as anything but a delicious canned meat product from Hormel.

      Breach of contract is the authority that ISPs are using to shut spammers down.

      The victim was reporting violations of AUP contracts with their ISPs to the ISPs, NOT violations of ICANSPAM.

      This case should have already have been thrown out of court.

      Anyone tracked down and named the lawyers yet?

    • We ARE in Soviet Russia. -- Spammers sue YOU.

  • The Spammer Strikes Back (Score:5, Funny)

    by IO ERROR ( 128968 ) * <error@NoSpAm.ioerror.us> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:27PM (#11414001) Homepage Journal
    SPAM
    WARS

    Episode V

    The Spammer Strikes Back

    It is a dark time for the Internet. Although Spamford Wallace has been shut down [theregister.co.uk], Atriks spammers [spamhaus.org] have driven the irate users from their inboxes and pursued them into court [p2pnet.net].

    Evading the dreaded Distributed Mail Corporation [virtualmda.com], a group of freedom fighters led by Jay Stuler [spamshield.org] has established a new secret base on the remote ice world of Ohio.

    The evil lord Darth Haberstroh [pcpro.co.uk], obsessed with harassing young Stuler, has dispatched thousands of spambots [virtualmda.com] into the far reaches of the Internet...

    • Darth Haberstroh: Jay, I am...not your father.
      Jay Stuler: Wait, so who is?
      Darth Haberstroh: Ummm...must be one of those old fogies I sold Viagra to.
      Jay: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • Only in America!

  • Does this case hold? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oskard ( 715652 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:27PM (#11414008)
    If anything, they should sue the ISP, not the individual. Props to the ISP though for listening to the guy.

  • ...wait...what?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dixie Flatliner ( 850959 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:28PM (#11414015)
    Damn, I better take that No Junk Mail sticker off my mailbox. I hear the Post Office has some mean ass lawyers.
  • it's not over until the government makes you buy the viagra!

  • Lets hope we get a real judge (Score:5, Funny)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:32PM (#11414065) Journal
    If we get a judge with a clue we can all wait 6 months for the dupe, then another 6 and we can all post "HAHAHAHAHA PWNED!"

    But if we get some idiot judge who's magically got some extra money and an errectional problem... well I suspect I may have to change my Gmail account incase I get sued for reporting a scam..
    • Even a "good judge" is still required to operate within the law. These spammers were probably within their rights according to CAN SPAM. And by extention, their right to send spam has been infringed on.

      We all know "spammers are bad" but the law does not see it the same way. The law is flawed, so the ruling will probably be flawed. Placing the blame on the judge is shooting the messenger.

      • And by extention, their right to send spam has been infringed on.

        They have the right to send spam, and I have the right to complain to their ISP over it, just because something is legal doesn't mean you can't get banned for it, there is nothing illegal about trolling but many sites will ban you on the spot for it, and justifiably so.
      • There's no law that ISPs must offer services to spammers. Uploading linux iso's 24/7 is legal too, that doesn't mean my ISP has to let me do it on their network.
      • A good judge will see how STUPID this is, it maybe "within the law" but at the same time it's "within the law" to complain and not get 12 lawyers knocking at your door.
      • From TFA:

        Anti-spam foundation SpamHaus has listed Atriks on its register of known spam operations (ROKSO), which states the company has violated the act by using misleading subject lines.

        SpamHaus also says it has had complaints that software is being installed by Atriks on users' computers without their permission - which is a felony.

        These spammers were not within their rights according to CAN SPAM. That aside, I hope that some legitimate bulk email house (If such a thing exists) never gets the
    • Hopefully, this guy [thesmokinggun.com] won't get the case.

  • tthis is convoluted (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wansu ( 846 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:33PM (#11414082)

    No wonder people are saying to heck with the internet. Spam, virii, worms, spyware, goofy OS problems ... My dad asked me, "What damn good is it?" I see his point.

  • Vital Data for Your Spamming Company (Score:5, Informative)

    by dondelelcaro ( 81997 ) <don@donarmstrong.com> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:34PM (#11414086) Homepage Journal
    Just a quick look through the atriks [atriks.com] (yes, they're "at risk") website shows a number of interesting "products".

    My personal favorite, the "Atriks Personal Domain Owners with Credit Cards" Database.
    7,000,000+ consumers have registered a domain for their own personal use and have created Web sites that share everything from jokes to family pictures. A key part of their registration is supplying credit card information, resulting in a file with all major credit card selects available.
    Unless you've been sleeping for the past 10 years, this means harvesting whois records (against the ToS) and using them to spam people. SpamHaus tidbits.

  • uhhhh (Score:3, Funny)

    by IronDiggy ( 851360 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:34PM (#11414089)
    next up they'll sue a customer for using a spyware renover to keep their spyware off

  • Soo... let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by popo ( 107611 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:34PM (#11414091) Homepage

    If Person-A tells Company-B to do something which may or may not be legal to Company-C...

    And Company-B goes ahead and does it.

    Isn't Company-B the liable party here?

    e.g. -- If I tell my Landlord to kick out my loud upstairs neighbor -- and for some reason he complies and *does* it.... As far as I know my neighbor's furious, my landlord's getting sued and I'm nothing other than stoked.

    Anyone?

    • Yeah, your upstairs neighbor deserved to get kicked out anyway, because playing music loud enough that you can't hear jet engines over it is a violation of the lease.

    • Each ISP has an abuse@ISP.com emailadress, where you can report malicious activity of a user.

      If you, as a person, notice that a user of a certain ISP is using its subscription for illegal activies (like, if someone is probing your machines for days, constantly trying to get a virus through to your domain, spamming you, you just trace them back and include logs.), or any activity that might be against their userpolicy you can email then there to report said activities. And they will investigate the matter (

    • In many or most places counselling a criminal act is in itself a criminal act (even if the crime is not committed). It is not a stretch to believe that counselling someone to do anything could make you liable if they follow through.

    • If Person-A tells Company-B to do something which may or may not be legal to Company-C... And Company-B goes ahead and does it. Isn't Company-B the liable party here?

      Well yes, but so are you. It's called defamation of character. There can be an argument made that you willfully and knowingly sought to deceive others on the legality or ethical nature of Company C's actions by telling the ISP (Company B) that Company C was spamming you.

      Defamation of character is one of those things that is just meant to be

    • Re:Soo... let me get this straight... (Score:4, Informative)

      by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer AT alum DOT mit DOT edu> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:59PM (#11414329) Homepage

      Person A may well have liability in this case. It depends. If you make a valid complaint to your landlord about your neighbor, and your landlord follows appropriate procedures and evicts your neighbor, you are both in the clear. If you make a false complaint, knowing it to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and your landlord acts on that complaint, your neighbor would have a claim against you. Your landlord might or might not be in the clear depending on whether he followed appropriate procedures and whether it was reasonable of him to take your complaint to be valid. If you make a valid complaint but your landlord fails to follow appropriate procedures, then you should be in the clear but your landlord may be liable. The landlord-tenant example is actually not ideal as far as general tort law is concerned because landlord-tenant relations are often governed by special state or local laws.

      One relevant cause of action is what is called "tortious interference". That is where A improperly interferes in the business relationship between B and C.

      To take a parallel criminal example, suppose that gangster A hires hit man B to kill rival C. Surely you don't think that only hit man B has committed a crime? Gangster A is guilty at the very least of "solicitation of murder" and, depending on the jurisdiction, may be guilty of other crimes as well.

    • Sure, and if all he did was went to the ISP and told them to kick out Atriks and they did then it would be the ISP's problem.

      The problem is that he went to the ISP and said that they should kick out Atriks because they are spammers. Suddenly the situation changes.

      To go back to your example if you tell your landlord to kick your neighbor out and he does so you're golden. However, if you tell your neighbor to kick your neighbor out because he is running a prostitution ring out of his apartment and he does so

    • If Person-A tells Company-B to do something which may or may not be legal to Company-C...

      But there's the catch. It is most certainly not illegal for an ISP to block e-mail from a particular domain. ISPs do it all the time. This is why Company B isn't liable. Person A, however, reported on Company C's behavior, and if Person A can't subtantiate those claims, Company C can sue for damages. Even if Person A is vindicated, this can end up costing Person A a lot of money, so Person A might very well settl

  • paypal link... (Score:5, Informative)

    by St. Arbirix ( 218306 ) <matthew.townsend ... m minus language> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:36PM (#11414111) Homepage Journal
    This guy is a Computer Science and Engineering undergrad at Ohio State. It's wonderful that he could have influenced so much power over these people but I'm willing to bet he doesn't have much money otherwise.

    Here [spamshield.org]'s his site with the paypal link. There's some other goodies about the lawsuit and him on the site.

  • Atriks website, contact info, privacy policy, etc. (Score:5, Informative)

    by waynegoode ( 758645 ) * on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:38PM (#11414134) Homepage
    Want to see their website [atriks.com]? Want to contact Atriks to offer your opinion on the matter? Their contact page [atriks.com].

    You can even sign-up [atriks.com] on their website. I would suggest being careful about that thought. According to their privacy statement [atriks.com], they can sell your name and e-mail address to (other?) spammers.

    We may share some of your information such as name and e-mail address with third party sponsors.

  • No Judge in his right mind would ever allow this blatant waste of legal resources to take place.
  • Well, if this is the way things are going, I might just retrain as a spammer.

    If the law is occasionally on their side, won't that make them just a little more socially acceptable?

    This is akin to a drug dealer claiming defamation of character because the local mothers reported him, and his buyers no longer feel safe coming round his place.

    Contracts lost to perform illegal activities? Defamation? They must have GOOD lawyers.
  • There's absolutely no basis (at least in the article) for how this could *possibly* go for the assclowns--err, spammers. You can't be sued for libel if what you say is true.

    I think this would be a great place for a counter-suit. Send a chill through the spammer community.

    In related news-- I was recently approached by a spyware/spam company ("Vista") wanting me to let them place active-x ads on my sites. I wrote about it here [blogspot.com]. They offered me "a few thousand dollars". Tough to pass up...They need to li
    • Not to defend spamming, but the case may not be that clear. According to the article, he called CEO Brian Haberstroh a "criminal". There is no mention of Haberstroh being charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. So this statement would not seem to be true.

      The retort is that Haberstroh did things for which her should be charged, but has not been. This could be hard to prove, especially if Haberstroh stayed just inside the letter of the law.

  • A legitimate problem! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cmburns69 ( 169686 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:44PM (#11414191) Homepage Journal
    This is a legitimate problem!

    Even normal companies can have practically all their external email communications shutdown if they're blacklisted by a site like spamhaus.

    The problem with the blacklist system is that it's guilty until proven innocent.

    Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to know what the best solution is. However, there are a lot of smart people here, and perhaps together we can come up with something legal, yet effective!
    • It's not a legitimate problem.

      I have no problem recieving notifications from companies who I've agreed to recieve email from...

      I do have problems with companies (including very large companies) that feel that because at one time or another I did business with them they have full right to fill my inbox with drivel and resell my address to their partners to do the same. Often they even do this when I've checked the 'I would not like to be notified of new products' (or whatever).

      So if ifilm, or travelocity,
      • This IS a legitimate problem!

        My company abides by all the rules of good conduct. However, there are a couple of scenarios that break your assertions:

        Scenario 1)

        A site requires an email address to sign up to limit the number of accounts-per-person to 1. The site doesn't send don't send any email after the initial confirmation email.

        However, if people enter in enough garbage addresses, the "good" company gets blacklisted by the various spam organizations.

        Scenario 2)

        A company doesn't send any email to i
    • Ok, how about this...DON'T SEND EMAIL SOLICITATIONS AT ALL! Instead, advertise on websites, advertise on the radio, advertise in printed news, advertise on billboards, advertise on TV...the list goes on...just stop FREAKIN' sending unsolicited emails and advertise elsewhere. It's legal, and it's effective!

  • Just filter it! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:45PM (#11414201) Homepage Journal
    According to the article, these spammers were in compliance with the CAN-SPAM act. The act isn't meant to prevent people from spamming; it's meant to make it easy to filter the spam out.

    There were free-speech issues involved. The design of CAN-SPAM prevents anybody from saying that they're being censored. You're allowed to send all the spam you want; that's your free speech. Your right to free speech stops the moment it enters my server, so I drop it.

    Now, I'm not sure exactly what the spammer's case is. What exactly did this guy do that was illegal? If he got the ISP to filter or refuse mail from them, as far as I can tell that's precisely in keeping with the intent of the act.

    I wish more spammers would get compliant with the act, so that I can ignore them even more efficiently. And I wish that the FTC would start stringing some noncompliant spammers up by their gonads until the rest of them come into compliance.

    This case has marks of a SLAPP suit. Depending on what state he lives in, there may be effective countersuits, but I'm not a lawyer. When you find out where I can pitch in to buy the guy one, let me know.
    • Speaking of just filtering it... I never have a problem with spam.

      I have a rule in my mail program that considers every incoming email as spam if it does not come from one of the 14 names in my address book.

      How simple of a solution is that?

    • Re:Just filter it! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by shawb ( 16347 )
      The wording in the article was slightly misleading.

      The activities of Atriks... sending commercial email, meet the requirements of the CAN-spam Act."

      What this line meant is that the activities of Atriks meet the requirements of being spam. If you look a little later in the article:

      Anti-spam foundation SpamHaus has listed Atriks on its register of known spam operations (ROKSO), which states the company has violated the act by using misleading subject lines.

      And...

      SpamHaus also says it has had
  • Since Atriks wishes to be in litigation, lets grant their wish.

    Everyone who has been spammed by Atriks should file a lawsuit against Atriks. Turnabout is fair play.

  • Simple way to win (Score:3, Insightful)

    by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @06:59PM (#11414331) Homepage Journal
    Just forward the spam he was sent(with forged headers of course) to the judge about 10 times. I think the defendant may win some sympathy.

  • Where's EFF, CDT, etc? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizard@@@ecis...com> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:00PM (#11414338) Homepage
    This is a freedom of speech issue, and probably a slam-dunk in terms of a countersuit... since the victim was reporting to the ISPs that their customers were in violation of AUP provisions regarding the sending of unsolicited electronic junk mail, NOT violations of the ICANSPAM act.

  • Old fashion way (Score:5, Interesting)

    by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:05PM (#11414380)
    Get spam and lose your mind
    Get spammer banned/blocked
    Get spammer to sue you
    Get spammers personal info from law suit

    Spammer found sleeping with fishes.

    You win case as your alibi is that you were too busy removing spam from your inbox to do anything that smart.

  • If this case goes wrong... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Max Threshold ( 540114 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:05PM (#11414383)
    If this case goes wrong, I think it opens the door for perfectly moral vigilanteism.

  • Only In America... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhYrE2k2 ( 806396 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:05PM (#11414389)
    Only In America...
    That's about all I have to say.

    Why is it that the courts actually consider cases like these that make absolutely no sense, while people who commit actual crimes have trouble getting court dates. Nice legal system.

    ---

    On another note, the spamee never did any blocking. The ISP does the blocking... so technically, the spamee didn't really do anything but state that he received Spam.

    -M

  • Terms of service? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:09PM (#11414426) Journal
    I didn't see anyone mention this before, but every ISP I have ever had business with prohibits bulk email in their terms of service, regardless of the CANSPAM act.

    I don't know who Atriks contracts for internet service, but dollars to donuts I bet their terms of service prohibit bulk emailing.

  • if things go wrong (Score:4, Funny)

    by Fuzzums ( 250400 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:12PM (#11414460) Homepage
    it's time te give up on e-mail.
    i'll write my own mail solution. one time access, invitation only. you would have to log on to my system in order to send me an email.

    if you want me to read the mail you'll have to pay me 10 in advance, which will be refunded if i think your mail isn't spam.

    my /. account will get a unique mail-address and the headers will be checked.
  • The fact that we have a law named "CAN SPAM" is weird. Maybe someone thought "CAN" might be read as "to stop" ("can your mouth, buddy"), but to me and most people it's "can" as in "is able to" or "has permission to". VERY strange name for something - I thought it when it became law, and just right now.

    "We comply with the CAN SPAM act".

    Sounds perfectly legit, really. "If we do X, we CAN SPAM".

    Why couldn't they have come up with some other acronym to call it the STOP SPAM act or something similarly less

  • Donations? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:27PM (#11414630)
    Is there anywhere we geeks and donate a few bucks to help this guy out?

    Seriously, we need to pull together and help this guy. It could have been anyone of us that reports spam. Maybe we, as a community, can donate enough cash and help this poor guy get the EFF [eff.org] to defend him?

  • Already happened in 2002. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann.slash ... minus physicist> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:27PM (#11414631) Homepage Journal
    Australian Spammer Sues Back [slashdot.org]. Submission text:
    We've all heard the one about the spammers begin sued. Now, an Ausie spammer is suing back, for being blacklisted. Claiming damages and equipment replacement costs and so on. The whole article is over at
    Yahoo [yahoo.com]. So, I guess now, not only are we subjected to the spam, but we can't block it either?
    I don't know what happened to the guy. But it's certainly a legal precedent. What do you think?

  • It won't (Score:3, Funny)

    by Illserve ( 56215 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:39PM (#11414767)
    Fortunately(?) everyone is affect by spam equally.

    This includes judges.

    They will hate the prosecution from the word go and have them held in contempt of court just for sneezing, including the laywers, and hand out capital sentences.

  • Did you actually read the complaint?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @07:47PM (#11414857) Homepage Journal
    This isn't a lawsuit over spam or CAN-SPAM. This OSU student contacted mulitple ISPs of the ATRIKS folks and...
    * called the President a "criminal"
    * stated that his "personal mission is to stop ATRIKS whenever he can"
    * called them a "notorious spam gang"

    So if he can't argue that the president is not in fact a criminal, he is in trouble. The spam gang thing, well that probably passes legal muster.
    Let this be a lesson to those writting to abuse@some-isp.net. Keep it civil.
    • Well, according to the article and other sources ALTRIKS is doing some illegal things... such as harvesting email records from whois queries and installing malware on people's computers without their express permission. If the president authorized these actions, that would indeed make him a criminal.

      Now and if this is all wrong and all of the sources (including Spamhaus [spamhaus.org] and ALTRIKS OWN WEBSITE [atriks.com]) that list ALTRIKS illegal operations is just part of a massive campaign by the defendant to defame ALTRIKS, th

  • Call em! (Score:3, Informative)

    by the_Bionic_lemming ( 446569 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @08:01PM (#11414983)
    Call em and let them know you don't like spam

    Phone: 603-624-7008 | Fax: 603-624-9089
    Toll Free: 866-624-7008

  • Buy Insurance Against Frivolous Lawsuits (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @08:03PM (#11414995)
    I don't know why, but most people don't seem to know that you can purchase what's called an Umbrella Policy from your current insurance agent that will protect you against frivolous lawsuits like this. The cost? $150 to $300 per year for up to $1 million of protection.

    Here's a FAQ on it:

    http://www.iii.org/individuals/auto/b/umbrella/ [iii.org]

    You're just crazy to risk pissing anyone off without such a policy. Think about it. For $300 per year you can feel confident that some jerk can't shut you up just because you can't defend your right to say truthful things. Instead, let your insurance company pay to defend you in court!

  • Summons (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @08:04PM (#11415000)
    Has anyone (especially a lawyer) read the summons to this guy? Scroll down and read item number 22. It states:
    The defendant has repeatedly contacted the third parties who provided Internet access the Plaintiff[sic],
    knowing that a contract existed at the time between the third party and ATRIKS, and has convinced the third parties to terminate their contracts with ATRIKS.
    Please. Is the prosecuting attorney trying to claim that this guy had knowledge of the third party contracts for this "company" ATRIKS? Come on now. Any lawyer with more then 4 brain-cells should be able to beat this case.

    Thankfully, some other /.ers pointed me to this donation site [spamshield.org]. I will certainly drink some crap beer for a night and give the extra money to help this guy out!

  • It has happened before (Score:5, Informative)

    by Duc de Montebello ( 751651 ) on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @08:09PM (#11415040)

    In 2002, in Australia, a spammer tried to sue the guy who reported them to the SPEWS blacklist. Case was dismissed, see the result here:

    http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page /0,5478,5284073%255E421,00.html [news.com.au]

    and

    http://t3-v-mcnicol.org/ [t3-v-mcnicol.org]

  • Attempt to stifle public participation (SLAPP) (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chatmag ( 646500 ) <editor@chatmag.com> on Wednesday January 19, 2005 @08:10PM (#11415045) Homepage Journal
    From an op-ed on our site dated 19 September 2004

    A recent lawsuit has been filed against Jay Stuler by Brian Haberstroh /aka/ Atriks Inc. /aka/ Distributed Mail Corporation. According to a web site detailing the plight of Mr. Stuler, he is being sued by the company after he complained they had spammed him with unwanted advertisements. The company has filed a suit, alleging that Mr. Stuler has interfered with their normal business, causing them monetary and other harm.

    Virtually every web hosting company posts an "Acceptable Use Policy", in which spamming is prohibited, and sites determined to be spamming can lose their hosting contract. In addition, hosting providers provide an email address to report spam and other violations, generally an abuse@ email address. Hosting providers invite the public to submit alleged spam for investigation.

    Providers in general do not terminate clients for a few complaints, but act when a number of complaints are received. We know of no provider that would terminate a contract after receiving complaints from one person.

    It may well be that Mr. Stuler was singled out from other complainants due to his public participation and comments within NANAE, the Usenet Group devoted to email spam and related issues. While his comments may not of been favorable to the plaintiff, he has every right to state his position regarding spam in general and any alleged spam company. Whether the comments he made falls into the category of slander is up to a court to determine, should the case come to trial.

    The broader issue is whether we as Internet users have the right to file complaints regarding spam, and the right to publicly participate in online discussions regarding the growing spam problem.

    Suits such as this are often times filed to dissuade people from participating in anti spam activities or posting within news groups or discussion forums. The general term is SLAPP, Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and is not legal in most U.S. States. It would be up to the court to determine if this particular suit falls within the guidelines of a SLAPP.

    As long as Internet web hosts provide an abuse email address, we encourage users to continue to complain about alleged spamming operations, and allow the hosting providers to determine whether a company violates their Acceptable Use Policy, and deal with the company in a timely manner. Public participation on discussion boards and news groups is a fundamental part of online life, and we are opposed to the attempts by some to stife discussions of the issues.

Slashdot Top Deals

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Close