Slashdot Mirror

In his original complaint http://www.spamsuite.com/webfm_send/357 the guy running E360 presented as fact, that Spamhaus had blocked at least 27,345,357 unique messages from E360.

This is like saying, oh, I killed 37 people (and here's a list of who I killed) and that's why the cops are ganging up on me so I'm suing them.

But, what is interesting is the e360Insight, LLC, v. ChoicePoint Precision Marketing, LLC case. He sued them for providing them e-mail addresses for Ferguson, Ferron , and myself. Linhardt claimed he "licensed" our e-mail addresses from Choicepoint. However, Linhardt swore under oath (claimed in the case of Ferguson) with that Ferguson, Ferron, and I signed up with their partner. I am thinking that might apply in any further proceedings, if there are any.

http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351

'He also disguised himself as a mail server.'

'Ritz falsely stated in his interrogatory answers that his only name on the Internet was David Ritz, when he actually went by names including ... "BOFH" ("Bastard Operator From Hell").'

Well, the judge did grant a permanent injunction against the defendant which bars him from making DNS requests on Sierra host names:

...This injunction also applies to DNS lookups on hostnames of Sierra that it does not publish on any of its websites.

You might try reading the actual content of the ruling, not just the article.

http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351

If you had, you would probably at least know that the Judge was a 'she' not a 'he'. If you did actually read the article, this might be a good indicator of how much you actually paid attention to what you were reading...

Several of the 'conclusions of law', as stipulated, are indeed seriously problematic. She did not specify her rulings upon the basis of an injunction. She specified them based upon the actions themselves. THAT is why technically savvy individuals consider her ruling to be badly flawed.

Her conclusions on Zone Transfer Queries, for starters, are seriously flawed. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to make DNS Zone queries when you are not an employee or someone else acting with the explicit permission of the entity who put the server in place. Many ISPs cache entire zones to cut down on excess DNS traffic for requests from their customers, for example.

For another, while it is difficult to say with certainty not knowing the exact details of the testimony of the defense's expert witness, a reading of her response by someone knowledgeable with DNS configuration suggests reasonably that he may have attempted to explain that there are specific methods that would be used to prevent zone transfers to unauthorized servers, that there were other methods that would be used to configure the server to provide zone information in response to external requests, and that by configuring their DNS server in such a way as to give the Zone information, the plaintiffs were authorizing the transfer of information and making the information publicly available. If their DNS server was configured to respond to external Zone Transfer requests, this information would in effect be public, as anyone at all, not just the defendant, who issued a perfectly normal host command would have received that information. If this was not their intent, the issue would be one of incompetence on the part of their technical staff, not one of 'hacking' on the part of the defendant.

Her suggestion that using a command switch for 'host' that is clearly documented to query information that was publicly available constitutes 'unauthorized use of a computer system' is unfounded, overly broad, and, to any technically knowledgeable individual, deplorable. She does not state that she reached her conclusion because of any injunction against the defendant. She states her finding is based upon the facility of the program itself, and her miraculous idea that somehow use of this normal function is somehow mystically, only intended for a specific subset of target users she has imagined. One that is, again, seriously flawed.

'Knowledge available to the average user' should NEVER be used as a yard stick for what constitutes the acceptable bounds of computer use. The 'average user' is ignorant of the actual function and capabilities of their systems to a point that is common to describe them, quite accurately, as largely 'computer illiterate'.

If no one knew more about any particular thing than an 'average' individual does, at any given point in time, we'd still be hunting and gathering. To suggest that this baseline should have anything to do with determination of what constitutes a potential criminal act, if applied to any other circumstance, would immediately render anyone of actual knowledge, rather than vague theories about a subject a criminal.

What do you know, for example, about repairing the engine of your car. Say you know quite a bit about it. Should you be considered a criminal if you make repairs on it, based upon knowledge you have, if you aren't a certified mechanic? How about if you repair your mother's car with that knowledge. Does that make you a criminal? By this Judge's logic, it would.

If you don't like that analogy, try this one. Let's say that the 'average person' knows that telephone bo

When you don't know what you're talking about, it's often a good idea to listen quietly.

A zone file is nothing like an administrative interface. For a start, it isn't an interface: it is publicly published data. If you don't want it to be published, you don't put it in the published zone file. For a second thing, if it wasn't possible to access the data which is summarised in the zone file, it would be impossible to navigate the internet using names - you'd have to use numeric addresses. OK, one doesn't normally ask for hte whole lot at once - but if it wasn't meant to be public, it shouldn't have been published.

Sheesh! Ten years ago, even the trolls on Slashdot were reasonably well informed. What the hell are you doing on this site if you don't understand the basics of how the net hangs together?

Given the choice between concluding that the judge was an idiot, or the plaintiff lied, or Dave Ritz lied, I'd say that it was more likely that the judge and/or plaintiff were in error than that Dave Ritz lied. He's not a liar by nature. He could have been mistaken on something (so many spammers, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes), but I do not believe it likely that he intentionally lied.

This is an exceedingly bad ruling.

Some background reading:

http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2007/10/help-fight-spammer-slapp-suit-donate-to.html
http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351

And, of course, the legal defense fund, desperately needed for an appeal:

http://sfldf.org/

Thank you! People need to read the real information. http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351 The first part of that article is opinion, but the bottom is the findings of fact (posted elsewhere on here as well). This guy used the host transfer to gather information to do other not so nice things. Other people have mentioned the "hijacking of computers". It clearly states in here that "He admitted to hacking Verizon and further admitted to doing so without authorization." I think that information was used as a background for intentions, but it could have also been used for hiding his original IP Address (I'm a bit unclear). He did try to use the private information to shut down their usenet activity. The ruling here is to not allow unauthorized people to gather that information. Authorized people in this case are system/network administrators and authorities of the company. Stop the sensationalism and read.

Did you see the findings?

According to the Findings of Law, item 31, he is guilty of using the name "Bastard Operator From Hell" when his name is really David Ritz.

You just don't do that in North Dakota.

Who do you think ratted him out in the end?

2) When the orders come in, send out authentic-looking prescription medication, but instead of medicine the pills are made of fast-acting poison.

On June 6, 2005, in an act that he later admitted was directly in violation of the Court's preliminary injunction, Smith made two withdrawals from Xpress Pharmacy Direct's U.S. Bank account (of $1,000 each, plus transaction fees) by way of Xpress Pharmacy Direct cash card previously issued to Smith. Smith made the withdrawals from a casino located in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The U.S. Bank account had been frozen by the Court's preliminary injunction, but was temporarily unfrozen by the receiver for the purpose of paying employees.

Bring it on!
Bullies tend to back down when confronted. Take a look at happens when David Linhardt realizes that Mark Ferguson was going to fight back. http://www.spamsuite.com/node/82

This statement requires substantiating evidence.

Here you go: http://www.spamsuite.com/files/e360vSpamhausNotice Removal.pdf

By submitting the notice of removal instead of a defence of no jurisdiction, Spamhaus shot themselves in the foot, and submitted by default to the jurisdiction of the Illinois court.

I'm not a lawyer, but after reading through the motions of the court case of e360Insight against SpamHaus, I'd say they reek of spammers moving from e-mail to the courts.

A sad day when our communications channels are jammed with this bullshit. An even sadder day when our justice system is over ridden with it.