Slashdot Mirror
NY AG Sues MonsterHut Over Marketing Spam
Ian Hill writes: "This BBC article tells how NY State Attorney Elliot Spitzer has sued marketing firm MonsterHut.com over "millions" of unsolicited e-mails. He claims MonsterHut.com falsely told its clients that e-mails sent on their behalf were sent to addresses who registered themselves as interested parties. Also at question is how exactly these addresses were collected." eviljim adds a link to a press release from New York's Attorney General and a reminder of how MonsterHut was disconnected from their ISP.
It is about time some of the cost associated w/spam got moved to the spammer. More of this can only be a good thing. If it gets too expensive, maybe it will slow down.
I do worry though about legal remedies just moving the problem to where the laws don't exist.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
It'd be really cool to see mandatory micropayments for UBE - I would be willing to accept the extra load on my mailservers if I know I was making a tenth of a penny per message.
:).
Hell, running an open relay would rapidly go from moronic to profitable
--
Phil
All the logic is there an the anti-junk-fax laws. It just needs to be applied to e-mail. This way it would be much easier to prosecute groups like monsterhut.
On a sidenote (with regard to the quest for the email address source), it's fairly common knowledge (enough so that Paetec mentioned it somewhere on litigation.paetec.net back when they were soliciting affidavits from spammed parties) that a number of the addresses used came from WHOIS records.
...came to my attention last week when my wife signed up for text messaging for her cell phone. Her plan allows the first 100 messages each month free, with extras for an additional price after that. What happens if (when) that number gets on spam lists it can be sent in the form of an email, ie, cell-number@provider.com? At the rate I get spam in my inbox, surely she'll run over the 100 limit, and it WILL cost me money to receive spam. Surely there's cause for recourse at that point?
Wouldn't be too hard to take the ball and run with this one. Get on the message boards and put your number in your sig. Too bad I don't have the time or resources to do it.
The only thing stopping the AG's and other law enforcement is a lack of imagination, not a lack of laws. If spam is fraud, pursue it as fraud. If someone is violating copyright, go after the individual. How freaking hard is it?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I am a New York State resident and I must say that Elliot Spitzer has been nothing short of wonderful when it comes to protecting the consumer.
.02
First it was unsoliticited phone calls (we were one of the first states to set up a no-call list). Now I recieve maybe 1 unsoliticited call every 2-3 months instead of 1 or 2 a day (and at dinner time.... arrrrgggg).
Then it was dissent on the microsoft case. In all likelyhood, New York State served as a keystone for the 9 dissident states.
Now we've got Spitzer battling the evil spam demons. My guess is that once again, Spitzer will come out on top.
Spitzer is a definately a defendant of consumer rights and privacy and has been unwavering in his cause.
my
Hey, Coward, this is not a speech issue. It's a property rights issue. I don't get upset about junk mail in my postal mailbox; I don't have to pay for it. The sender pays the postage to have it delivered to me. I just carry it to my trash.
Spam, on the other hand, is often times paid for by the recipient. If you want to play First Amendment with me, I'll play Fifth Amendment with you:
Since you say that Spam is the sender's First Amendment right, it appears that delivery of said spam is "public use," and can't be paid for by the recipient because there's no just compensation. Spammers can't take my money (private property) to deliver your message (public use) without paying me (just compensation) in return for paying for your message's transmittal.
By the same token, you can't use the Freedom of the Press clause-- for the same reason. I can't be forced to pay (private property) for the publication (reception) of spam (public use) without paying me (just compensation).
If they want to pay me to receive their messages, that would be constitutional. As it stands, sending people unsolicited messages that they must pay for is not only not protected speech, but unconstitutional.
Read more about it
Amen.
I'll see your Fifth Amendment response, and, I'll raise you a Supreme Court ruling.
A man's home - and his email box - is his castle. Any spammer invoking the First Amendment is full of it.
Attorney General Spitzer, YOU ROCK.
No, this current approach is a losing battle. What we must have is transparency. The Spammer cannot be allowed to use fake email addresses. I have complained about commercial emails with fake addressee, and the providers refuse to do anything. There must be an opt-out link or email address that is in the same domain as the from and return address. These address must be in the owner domain, and not Yahoo, Hotmail, or whatever free service they use for one time addresses. The subject line must clearly identify the company being advertised. If the email is to a website, the website must have an email link, and, if it is a DBA, must have a link to the corporation or person.
These guidelines will create a proper and honorable two-way communication. There are companies like (I think) Virtual Holdings that cowardly hide behind fake addresses and do not even put a real address on their domain registration. They keep their costs down by hiding behind fraudulent websites that do not have a single method of communicating with the owner. It is the highest form of arrogance that they think they have the right to spam us, but we don't have the right to spam them.
I know it has been said before, but let me say it again. Get a free email account. When you get a spam, especially with a fake email, look up the registration for the websites advertised. Look up the registration for the DNS providers. Send an email to every address you can find stated how cowardly and dishonorable using fake email addresses is. Let them know we know they are vermin. You do not even have to include your own information, as you are complaining about bad netiquette, not Spam.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I'll call your ruling:
Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.
Not that I think that spam is good, rather the argument that "My mail server is mine, thus spam is illegal" does not follow.
- Justice Black, U.S. Supreme Court, Marsh v. State of Ala., 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
I'm the best IRC client ever.
In the US, your mailbox doesn't actually belong to you - it belongs to the US Post Office. They allow you to take mail out of it.
I don't like junk mail, but someone's paying the US Post Office to deliver the snail junkmail to mailboxes which are the US Post Office's property. (To be absolutely technical - I think it's something like "you may purchase and own the physical container on the fencepost near the driveway, but the USPS still owns the space within it.")
> (in addition, materials garbage bags, etc.) What about electricity used to power the doorbell when a solicitor comes?
OK, fair enough :)
The (non-property-rights) issue with spam is the one of scale -- junk mail costs money for the sender to deliver. Door-to-door solicitors are throttled by the time/effort that it takes to walk from door to door. Even telemarketers are rate-limited by the number of drones they can have behind the predictive dialers. (Which is we've passed laws to try and combat the use of prerecorded telephone messages. But even these are rate-limited by the time it takes the recording to play back into the victim's voicemail.)
Spam, regrettably, has no such bottleneck. Even if you don't agree that it's theft of the recipient's mailbox, most of it comes through open proxies and open relays -- which clearly qualifies as stealing service from the victimized hosts.
Whether they're stealing very small amounts from millions of victims (the recipients) or larger amounts from a few victims (the bandwidth stolen from unauthorized abuse of intermediate open relays and open proxies) - spammers are thieves.
Paetec made the mistake of agreeing to contract terms that specified that if 2% (I think that was the figure) of the addresses were found to be non-opt-in, that this would be an acceptable margin of error. Presumably MonsterHut would have removed them from the list if asked. Even in the worst case of assuming that every complaint was one of those non-opt-in addresses, the complaints would have had to reach the level of 2% for Paetec to disconnect them under terms of the contact. It's that contact that allowed MonsterHut to get the injunction. MonsterHut didn't need to say that 100% were opt-in ... it only needed to say that 98% were opt-in, and Paetec didn't have enough numbers to prove that more than 2% were genuinely non-opt-in, at least not initially.
Paetec made some legal blunders. The rest of us can learn from their mistakes. I'll give Paetec the benefit of the doubt for being fooled in this case. A future company will not get that from me.
One step an ISP can do (if they didn't stupidly sign away any rights to do this) is to put the spammer on static IP and set up reverse DNS to name them with the spammer's domain name. Then I can block the spammer without blocking the ISP, regardless of the stupidity of the ISP's lawyers. And this is my common practice ... I block just the spammer if they are in reverse DNS identified static addresses. And I block them by their domain name, so if they move, even to another ISP, they are still blocked. They have to change domain name to evade this (and I'm sure many have).
Also, I do all my anti-spam blocking at the server during the SMTP session. I don't want their spam in my servers, and I don't want rejection notices to sit undelivered for days, either. By stopping spam before the mail is delivered, it doesn't get queued and the sending server has to deal with the rejection (but there is still a rejection in the cases of legitimate mail getting caught so the sender at least knows something happened, and can look for a way around).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars