Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MAPS and Experian Settle Lawsuit

Posted by michael on from the one-big-happy-family dept.

dbrower writes: "Experian is trumpeting a settlement with MAPS here, where MAPS agreed not to blackhole them without a court order, and agreed that Experian didn't need to do opt-in. Looks like a loss to me."

6 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Advertising is Pollution by ewhac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...And spamming is the worst type of pollution; they make you pay for the sludge with your connectivity, time, and frustration.

    It would be interesting to know why MAPS decided to cave in. Perhaps a Slashdot interview is in order?

    I'd like to see MAPS publish a list of IPs it's forbidden to add to its main blocklist, so that we could manually add them to our MAPS config.

    Schwab

    --
    Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
  2. I don't get it! by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 5, Interesting

    MAPS only maintains a database that provides information to others, who seek that information.

    That database expresses an opinion: in the opinion of MAPS, the networks listed in the database are suspected of passing through or generating spam.

    Shouldn't this be protected by the First Amendment?

    1. Re:I don't get it! by btempleton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whether it's protected by the 1st amendment is an interesting question. Most probably yes, but not certainly. Clearly the court that issued the TRO didn't think so, since prior restraint on protected speech is supposed to be verboten.

      However, this is not actually relevant. They used the threat of the courts to make a settlement agreement, and settlement agreements are not affected by the first amendment.

      In theory, MAPS could have fought it, and probably (though not certainly) have won on 1st amendment grounds, after a few years and at great expense.

      They always said they were willing to test that out but clearly not that willing. They may be more keen to test it on an actual spammer rather than an operator of single opt-in mailing lists.

      How might the 1st amendment not protect them? I haven't read the TRO, which will have some reasons. However, they might rule that blacklisting isn't a protected activity, even though it involves speech. I wouldn't agree, but I could see courts ruling that way.

      --
      Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  3. MAPS must have been scared by btempleton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Making this settlement goes against all their principles, so Experian must have made them afraid for their very existence with this.

    As noted, unless the agreement is very broad, they can certainly name on their web site the companies they have been compelled not to block, and people configuring their own mail filters could decide case by case whether to include them.

    However, if they made an automated list, effectively an alternate blacklist, I could see a court saying they were violating the spirit of the agreement, unless they wrote it carefully to allow them to do this.

    However, oddly enough, it could be to experian's detriment to have it happen manually. If site admins manually put in blocking for their domains, it will be almost impossible for them to get that blocking removed except over a very long period of time, since each admin would have to manually reconfig.

    Of course, they could change the IP address and domain they send mail from to get around that. Somebody (not MAPS) could provide a service that simply lists mail sending IP addresses used by experian, no other comment made.

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  4. Free speech? by Hanzie · · Score: 5, Interesting
    How in hell can posting a list of spammers be illegal when posting a list of abortion doctors you want murdered be protected speech? Families of future victims are listed by name too. And addresses.

    The crossed off names are people who have been murdered since the list went up. Greyed out means they were only wounded.

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
  5. Interference with contract? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One thought. Now that MAPS is charging for access to their service, can someone paying for their services consider there to be a contract between MAPS and them wherein MAPS agrees to provide a list of IP addresses that meet it's definition of 'spammer'? If so, and Company A goes to court and prevents MAPS from listing their IP addresses even though they meet MAPS' definition, can RBL subscribers sue Company A for damages due to Company A's interference in MAPS' performance of it's duties under it's contract with them?