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
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.
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
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