Slashdot Mirror
Australian Spammer Sues Back
Vilorman writes: "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. So, I guess now, not only are we subjected to the spam, but we can't block it either?"
...A robber once successfully sued a homeowner because he fell out of a window and broke his leg while escaping after a heist.
This is bullshit. Spam is theft. Spammers steal the use of bandwidth, machine use, and disk space from ISPs and users. Any court who even thinks twice about letting this go to trial will be so caught up in legal technicalities that it won't hear *any* trial fairly.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I do not care if you have a business, there are too many ways for you to advertise already, you do not have to require the entire world to listen to your sales pitch.
The RBL and similar are volunteer organizations, there is no requirement for them to be used by anyone or any company. This is not even an issue because people are only securing their own networks from overloaded mail traffic. If this gentleman wants to solicit, it would be better to start a page for the company and then go looking for handshakes to put his banner on other pages, if he uses that, then people expect to get ads. Forcing his way into your personal mailbox is not a right in any country that I'm aware of.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
I'm always telling my employer that if he isn't carefull we will get blacklisted, sense we are ridding a "grey line" with our mailings. I'm just waiting for the day I can tell him "I told you so". Now that he purchased an email farming program I be that day will come sooner than later.
I'm usually an extreme free speech advocate. I've even been known to argue for the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. That said, free speech gives you the right to speak, not the right to force someone to hear you, and certainly not the right to force someone else to bear the cost of publication. The newspaper editor doesn't have to pay to publish your letter, Rob Malda and andover.net don't have to pay to let you post your comment, and I don't have to pay to download your spam. And free speech also means the other guy has a right to say, "Don't listen to this guy; he's a knucklehead." (or "don't accept IP traffic from this host, it's a spammer")
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
This lawsuit is against a end user. Not a anti spam list or anything like it. This was a user complainig over spam to an organisation like ORBS. This resulted in a shutdown (whether it's the end users fault or not isn't known) of the spammer...
Well... i would like to see a trial like this over here.. hell... i even volunteer in such a case to be the end user....
$7,907 (AU$14,000) for replacing blocked or compromised IP numbers, $2,683 (AU$4,750) for labor costs of technicians to establish an alternative e-mail system, $2,824 (AU$5,000) to purchase a new server computer and $11,296 (AU$20,000) for loss of income it claims to have incurred over a 20-day waiting period
hmm last I knew it didn't cost $8k to get a new ip?!?! technicians?!? for what changing an ip on a server, nevermind about buying a new server, and if their isp takes 20 days to issue a new ip, they should be sueing their isp! I've worked at a company that got blackballed for relaying mail way back when spammers just started bouncing mail around, once we discovered the problem it was literally, turn off relaying - 5 minutes(max), get new ip from isp - one phone call (about 10 minutes), reassign ip and reboot server - 10 minutes. This is a ton of horsecrap, nevermind the fact that they're stealling people's bandwidth for sending unsolicited unwanted e-mail, I pay for it and get your crap off of it!!
Good things never end "eum" they end in "MANIA" or "teria"
The official web site of the defence is at http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/ (Mirror). There are also plans to set up a defence fund.
If they're losing ~$10,000USD in 20 days, can they even afford the legal fees for long? Is it worth it for them, if they are that low profit, to invest thousands and thousands of dollars into lawyers for a court battle?
/.ers...we could each send them a dollar to recoup their 'losses'.... just make sure you write something nasty about spammers on the bill.
;-)
Think about it all you American
Or we could send the bill to the guy being sued to use in his defense...we'd bury T3 Direct's legal fund in a day
Or...I could buy a soda. Mmmm...caffeine...
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
Apparently, the IP addresses counted as "equipment" that had to be replaced, not to mention the email system.
T3 is seeking loss and damages of $7,907 (AU$14,000) for replacing blocked or compromised IP numbers, $2,683 (AU$4,750) for labor costs of technicians to establish an alternative e-mail system, $2,824 (AU$5,000) to purchase a new server computer and $11,296 (AU$20,000) for loss of income it claims to have incurred over a 20-day waiting period for a new Internet connection to be installed.
None of which was necessary. Change business models so as *not* to spam, which was the action requested (and quite probably spelled out in email to the spammer at one point), and none of that moeny would have had to be spent (unless "closing open relays and no longer spamming" counts as "establishing an alternative email system", but that's still brought upon self).
Jeremy Malcolm, an independent Perth-based solicitor who specializes in IT law and is representing McNichol [the defendant], said he wouldn't be putting in a defense straight away and would be applying for a summary judgment in the hopes of not having to go to trial.
Damn straight!
Malcolm described the statement of claim against his client as a ?fairly weak claim?brought about to intimidate a critic of T3 Direct.?
Isn't that the definition of a SLAPP suit in the States?
What kind of precident will it set if he wins? Well, very simply, it will open the doors for DDoS kiddies to get away with thier attacks quite legally (in Austrailia at least) simply by making sure each ping packet that goes out contains an ad for a get rich quick scheme... This is some bad, bad stuff.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Mailservers are private. Nobody can force me to receive anybody's mail. I can block whoever I want using whatever method I like. If I want to block connections using some blacklist, that's MY choice. The blacklist only offers me advice on what connection to accept or not. I can freely choose to follow that advice or not.
In short: sue whoever you like. You'll loose.
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
Click here or here.
Maybe there's more information somewhere else, but, from what I did NOT see in the articles:
First off: Is there any proof whatsoever that being listed in SPEWS is in any way incorrect or libelous? Certainly it is not illegal, even in AU to add an IP block to that address as being friendly to either a known spammer or a known spamvertized site. After all, SPEWS bills itself as being opinion that nobody has to follow.
Unless being added to SPEWS has some form of illegality, what basis is there for suing Mr McNichol for expressing an opinion?
Secondly, if SPEWS is operated secretly, then how can anybody prove that this Joseph McNichol was responsible for them being blocked?
Is there some provable connection between him and SPEWS somehow?
It would certainly seem likely that sufficient people on the receiving end of the spam would have complained sooner or later such that SPEWS would put them onto the blacklist.
And even so - don't SPEWS say in their FAQ that they don't block sites based on complaints? That they depend on the knowledge of the *unknown* people that set up the lists directly? That it requires repeated offenses before a company is considered a 'Known Spammer'?
So where is the evidence - not apparent anywhere in anything I have seen of this matter - that there is any actual connection between Mr. McNichol and SPEWS?
If either of these proofs is missing, then this should be dismissed by the first competent judge in any jurisdiction.
Liquor
Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
I think Wallace may have deliberately sent me spam in order to provoke me -- he knew I'd complain since he was breaching his earlier promise to block my email addresses after earlier complaints. By provoking me to complain, he could claim a "victim" role, by falsely stating that I had "asked" to receive the emails and then unfairly complained and caused his business to lose its only internet connection (every other ISP and backbone provider had blacklisted him years earlier).
Spanford Wallace filed his suit in Pennsylvania (despite lack of jurisdiction) because he knew I'd have to hire an attorney there and spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs to dismiss the suit. He knew the suit would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and he chose not to sue me in California because he knew that California has a SLAPP statute that would have permitted me to collect attorneys' fees and damages (Pennsylvania didn't have a SLAPP statute).
The spammers' only goals in filing lawsuits are to gain "unfair advantage" -- adverse publicity for the opponent, and deliberate choice of an inconvenient and expensive forum.
It worked for Wallace: I stopped making spam complaints for many months because I was so distracted by the lawsuit. And he also deterred others from reporting spam complaints, by loudly and publicly announcing that he (and other spammers) would not hesitate to deliberately abuse the court system in order to punish honest people who make valid complaints.
Wallace's publicity campaign was transparent: he decided to file the lawsuit one day after I appeared on CNBC regarding another consumer advocacy issue; he wanted to "piggy-back" by suing a well-known consumer advocate. He posted a copy of the lawsuit on his web site and emailed dozens of reporters just minutes after the complaint was filed (of course, I learned of the suit only when the reporters called me, and since I couldn't respond to a suit I hadn't seen, Wallace's false and malicious claims were republished as if they were true -- with no follow-up when the suit was abandoned and dismissed several months later.
Although Wallace's suit was filed in Pennsylvania despite the absence of jurisdiction, I was forced to spend $5,000 to hire a Philadelphia attorney to prepare and file a motion to dismiss (I chose an attorney who had previously obtained a judgment against Wallace). As soon as we filed the motion to dismiss, Wallace simply abandoned the lawsuit (he submitted papers to the court claiming that a "settlement had been reached," though there was no settlement.
The only good news is that I haven't heard from him since then, but of course the bad news is that he drained $5,000 of my money and a lot of my time, and simultaneously scared off someone interested in buying a web site I owned (the offer to buy my business for $350,000 was withdrawn the day after the suit was filed, and five months later I sold the business to another buyer for $175,000).
Wallace also successfully deterred many spam complaints by proving his continued willingness to abuse court processes for personal gain.)
I assume that the spammer in the current case filed a suit in the hopes of driving up others' costs and extorting a settlement.
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California