Slashdot Mirror


When Do You Really Need a Lawyer?

Dr_Harm asks: "I recently had the misfortune to encounter a CEO who had just received the Klez virus. Apparently, he believed the 'From:' header and accused me of not only authoring the virus, but deliberately and maliciously targeting him and his organization. Normally, clueless people like this don't bother me, except he was inclined to sue me and report me to the FBI. Of course, he's got more money and lawyers than I do, and could probably have made me miserable even though I'm completely innocent... but it raises the question: How do I know when I need a lawyer?"

"Clearly, once I've been served with legal papers, a lawyer is necessary. But I'm guessing that there are situations where having a lawyer before it gets to that point would be helpful. I'm interested in some general guidelines for when I should pick up the phone and call a lawyer. I'm especially interested in tales of 'I waited to long and got burned' as well as 'I got a lawyer so early it was smooth sailing'. Like most people, I make a decent living, but I cannot afford high legal bills for very long.

For those who are interested, the CEO in question decided to simply report the incident to the FBI. My guess is that the Feds logged the complaint for their statistics and then dropped the matter. However, the brush with someone with enough money and power to drain me financially has left me distinctly shaken..."

185 of 512 comments (clear)

  1. If you have to ask... by localroger · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...it's a Clue. Also, your situation might be covered by a book or article at http://www.nolo.com, which is an excellent resource for self-help legal stuff.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:If you have to ask... by dirvish · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Make up your mind. Either he should get a lawyer for every situation or he should go with your legal self-help reference. Personally I would wait until I was served with legal papers.

    2. Re:If you have to ask... by localroger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You misread: What moronic logic: "If you think maybe, then definitely"

      That's not what I said. I said if you think you might need one, it's a Clue. If you are being accused of something that could cause conviction or damages to be levied against you, and you are unsure enough about the situation as to not be sure you would prevail, then you need advice.

      One source of such advice is a lawyer.

      What I would definitely say is, if you are in such a situation and you're unsure enough of your position to not know if you would prevail, get some advice. You may save a lot of money if you can get it from nolo instead of a lawyer, but it also depends on the situation. Nolo is great if you're wondering about patent or copyright infringement or you think you might be sued for libel or slander or your tree might fall on your neighbor's house. (Sometimes their advice is "get a lawyer," even though their logo is a shark with a briefcase.)

      If you have been accused of a serious crime involving the possibility of major jail time, it's a no-brainer. Even if you think you do know how it will turn out get a lawyer ASAP. In the situation described by the poster, the lawyer's function might not be so much to avert the dingbat CEO's lawsuit as to engineer the countersuit seeking damages from the CEO for being such a dingbat.

      --
      Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    3. Re:If you have to ask... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting
      IANAL, but - depending onhow nice you want to be- this looks like a real opportunity to bruise a tyrant.

      Get a lawyer who understands the lack of merit in your opponents case.

      Have him take you up on spec.

      It will be VERY easy to conclusively demonstrate that you are not the author of the virus, and that Klez proliferates by spoofing sender addresses.

      Take your sweet time in playing the trump card, make this expensive, long and time-consuming for him.

      You can probably counter-sue for him pressing a nuisance suit. This is what will be salt on the meat for your lawyer to get involved. The minimum will be a suit to recover expenses.

      Make sure that you have your lawyer agree in writing that if you are not successful in pressing suit, his fees are waived. Incentivises him, and removes your financial exposure. Hell, if you have a good laywer, he could spell this whole scenario out to the plaintiff lawyer, and you walk out of the room with a check and no appearance in court!

      When you are done, you will have used this fellow's tools of abuse against him, and he might think twice before committing this sort of institutional violence again.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:If you have to ask... by slickwillie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      institutional violence Did you mean to say corporate terrorism?

    5. Re:If you have to ask... by sqlrob · · Score: 2

      Oh, they never sue for stupid shit in Europe. Glad to know it.

    6. Re:If you have to ask... by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      Oh, come off it...

      First off, it looks more like you'll be the one guilty of barratry if you go through with this.

      A simple 1-page email, with a link to this discussion, would not only make this all go away, but also serve to educate some ignoramus about the facts of life vis. Klez et al.

      Besides, any lawyer who has enough free time to do this, and is stupid/hopeless/clueless enough to take this on can't be all that good.

      Also, a suit to recover expenses won't succeed if you haven't tried other, more reasonable avenues first, and will open you to a countersuit.


      Regards, Tom

    7. Re:If you have to ask... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      Hell, this guy opens himself up for counter-suit bassed on at least harrasment and frivolous lawsuit. That isn't barristry!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re:If you have to ask... by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      but if his boss, as he had said, has already filed a complaint with the FBI, that should be enough to file a suit against him./quote>

      Filing a complaint with any law agency is not in and of itself grounds for defamation.

      As a matter of fact, while threats in general are grounds for legal action, most jurisdictions specifically exclude threats of legal action as being an actionable act (phew - hope you can parse that ok)

      Any lawyer who will take this case without taking a hefty retainer, and soaking the idiot for "fees", is stupider than the original complainant.

    9. Re:If you have to ask... by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      Sorry, but what I meant was that making threats, except threats of legal action, is intimidation.

      Threatening legal action is not intimidation in the eyes of the law. It is specifically excluded from being interpreted as intimidation in the Criminal Code.

      You can't sue somebody for being stupid (which is what this case boils down to - his boss was stupid).
      Now, if his boss had knowingly filed a false report, that would be considered a criminal matter (filing a false report is considered mischief).

      Besides, what damage has he suffered? Or, rather, what provable damage has he suffered? Remember: non minimus lex - the law does not concern itself with trifles.

      Hope this clears this up. :-)

  2. no way, am I gonna answer that question! by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · · Score: 3, Funny

    What if I say something wrong?
    For all I know you could trace me down and sue me!

    --
    "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
    1. Re:no way, am I gonna answer that question! by Rader · · Score: 2

      What's scary is that if things went differently, he wouldn't have been considered evil.

      Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, then Hitler.

    2. Re:no way, am I gonna answer that question! by xtremex · · Score: 2

      Ah, so you'd rather have GORE? This is what he said last week in agreement with Mrs. Feinstein...we should wait until we KNOW they have weapons...
      How will we know 100%? BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
      I'm against war, but it sometimes can't be avoided. Believing we should all live in peace is an idyllistic attitude. *I* believe in peace, however unfortunately there are others who don't have my view point. Take 9/11 as an example..they weren't offering an olive branch, my friend. I want peace, but not at the loss of our freedoms and way of life. Do you protect whats yours? If we believed everyone was inherently good, we wouldnt put locks on our doors, and our prisons wouldnt be overflowing and we wouldnt have the entire Muslim Middle East trying to eradicate our existance. Peace is a noble cause, but it's at times unavoidable. Attacking Iraq now, showing them that we are not to be toyed with is better than Hussein emptying out the Uranium mines in Zaire to launch some missiles at us. Hussein is a smart ma. He wouldnt just launch missiles. Biological warfare is his game. If we can't even protect ourselves from West Nile, what makes you think we can protect ourselves from smallpox?

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    3. Re:no way, am I gonna answer that question! by PurpleBob · · Score: 2

      You're using 9/11 to justify war with Iraq.

      Iraq didn't have a damn thing to do with 9/11.

      Unfortunately, most of America thinks like you.

      *I* believe in peace, however unfortunately there are others who don't have my view point.

      What do you mean by "I believe in peace"? Most people would use it for something stronger than existence, as in "I believe in Santa Claus" or "I believe in the heliocentric solar system". It doesn't take much thought to believe that peace is possible.

      The rest of your post clearly indicates that you don't believe that peace is the best action, which is what most people mean when they say "I believe in peace".

      I won't argue against being a warhawk, just don't freaking lie about it.

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
  3. You probably don't need one yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Save all your correspondence however. In fact, you might want to post them online as well. As far as I know it's perfectly legal (at least, you see it all the time), and maybe this CEO will be humiliated enough to think twice before ignorantly accusing people of things.

    I'd LOVE to know who this person is, by the way, so I can be sure not to ever do business with his or her company.

    1. Re:You probably don't need one yet... by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Gates may not be the nicest guy around when it comes to business practices, but he's not stupid. You don't found a company that grows to MS's size without a hefty bit of wit (not to mention a truckload of luck). He wouldn't be stupid enough to do that.

    2. Re:You probably don't need one yet... by cscx · · Score: 2

      Uhh... Bill Gates is a smart guy... you'd think he'd know about the Klez virus...

    3. Re:You probably don't need one yet... by The+Bungi · · Score: 2
      It was some guy called Bill Gates from Micro$oft!

      OMG! You so funny!

      And the '$' in 'Microsoft'? Wow howdya come up with that??? It's hilarious!!!1!!

    4. Re:You probably don't need one yet... by Technician · · Score: 2

      Oh, ask his laywer for discovery. You want the infected e-mail with the headers intact. If his laywer has a clue and understands headers, he will know where you are going with this. His laywer may inform his client of the error. Hopefully there is no route from your ISP proving you couldn't have sent it.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  4. Check out the legal FAQ by dolphinuser · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can find a good resource here.

    John

    --
    The drops of water don't know themselves to be a river; and yet the river flows.
  5. How much could he actually sue you for? by ebbomega · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At worst, he could find you accountable for the files that were on his computer and _only_ his computer. I would guess that major important documents/programs that your company requires would be backed up elsewhere, and all the other stuff would range from the pr0n on his computer.

    IANAL, but if I remember the legal process correctly, if he's suing you for $3000 or less (I could hardly imagine why a computer virus on his computer and only his computer would result in more than that in damages), then it goes to small claims court, which is jury-less and less formal that a full blown class-action lawsuit type dealy you always see in the movies. So I'd imagine that lawyers aren't _that_ extraordinarily helpful in a small claims court.

    --
    Karma: Non-Heinous
    1. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by singularity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a CEO, I am sure he will sue for lost time to clean up the virus. In addition, it sounds like the CEO (mistakenly) believes that the poster is targetting the corporation, which would mean anything from a few computers up to several thousands (all of the the associated tech support fees for getting rid of the virus).

      So the CEO has lost documents, lost time, and has to pay a computer guy to clean his computer.

      Already the CEO is able to blow this out of proportion to well over $3,000.

      I am not a lawyer, but I am the son of one. My advice? Send a nice note through snail mail. Certify the letter, and keep a copy yourself.

      In the letter, explain the virus and why you are not at fault. Do some research, and include quotes and backing evidence that support your claim. That should not be too hard to do, a simple search of Symantec and Macafee should give you quite a bit right there.

      Start the explanation "I did some research into what seems to have happened, and I see how you mistakenly believe I sent you the email. However..."

      End the letter with something like "Before you decide to follow through on any legal action, I am sure you too will research the computer virus (Klez) you recieved and will come to the same conclusion I did - that I am in no way responsible for the harm that has come to your computer and your corporation."

      For less than an hour of work and about a dollar to send the letter, you can cut off most chances of legal action. In addition, if the CEO decides to go after you, it will never get to the courts. Lawyers on both sides will quickly figure out that there is no case and never let it get that far. You playing nice and courteous goes a long way to show that you are not only innocent, but deserve some slack for your composure under wrongful attack.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    2. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by ari_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're very mistaken. It's just not common to see them there, since most "small claims" are so small that losing the case leaves you better off than if you'd paid for a lawyer and won it. However, as another replier stated, it's very helpful to have one. A good lawyer knows the laws, knows you, knows the judge, and knows the other side's lawyer - and connects all of those to your best advantage.

    3. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by Osty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      (Emphasis added by me.)

      In my experiences with traffic court (lets not get into that), lawyers are especially helpful in the smaller courts. A lawyer on your side is helpful for two reasons I can think of right off. One, you don't do the speaking so you don't accidentally stick your foot in your mouth, and therefore lose the case. Two, when you have a lawyer on your side, no one screws with you. They don't play legal 'tricks' you don't know about, and you're sure to get a much more favorable ruling. If you can afford one (and better yet, if you have a lawyer friend even if it's not their specialty) get the lawyer before entering a courtroom.

      Let me first say that I'm just going to stick with traffic courts for this comment, just to make things clear. Now, you explicitly call out "if you can afford [a lawyer]". What most people don't realize is that they can afford a lawyer, especially for traffic tickets. Ignoring the cost of the fine itself (anywhere between $70 and $500, depending on what you were doing), you are almost guaranteed an insurance hike in the case of a ticket. If a traffic lawyer costs $350 (at least, that's what my lawyer generally costs, with it being a bit higher for tickets out of her county), you've just saved close to $600 in insurance fees. It's very easy for a traffic lawyer to get your ticket dismissed or otherwise win the case. All they really have to do is drag out the process by asking for a discovery, which is usually not done in a traffic case but is allowed and must be honored by the court because a traffic ticket is considered a criminal offense and discovery is a right of the defendant in a criminal case. By doing that, the case will drag past the point where it's profitable for the court to continue trying it, and will likely just drop the charges (your lawyer will need to present some sort of plausible case for the charges to be dropped, so the judge can save face, but any good lawyer can do that in his or her sleep). Since traffic tickets are nothing but income for the issuing government, the simple act of fighting the ticket cuts into their profits. The governments prey on those that just blindly pay their tickets and go on their way. Don't you already pay enough in taxes?


      The point, then, is that you can afford a lawyer, and should hire one. Sure, it's more expensive than representing yourself, but it's cheaper than paying the insurance increase, and there's a nearly-100% chance the lawyer will win your case (unless you picked a particularly inept lawyer).

    4. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by cduffy · · Score: 2

      Actually, he's right -- at least in California, where neither party can be represented by a lawyer in small claims court.

    5. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by Glytch · · Score: 2

      (unless you picked a particularly inept lawyer).

      For some reason, this face comes to mind.

    6. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by jpt.d · · Score: 2

      "nd must be honored by the court because a traffic ticket is considered a criminal offense and discovery is a right of the defendant in a criminal case."

      Where do you live? In ontario at least a traffic offense would be a provincial matter, which by definition a criminal offense is federal only.

      --
      What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
    7. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by micromoog · · Score: 2
      The point, then, is that you can afford a lawyer, and should hire one. Sure, it's more expensive than representing yourself, but it's cheaper than paying the insurance increase, and there's a nearly-100% chance the lawyer will win your case . . .

      Even if you're actually guilty?

    8. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by ari_j · · Score: 2

      I stand corrected; but remember that California is only 1/3 of our national population. :)

    9. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by dubiousmike · · Score: 2

      Sending a letter certified means you sent it. It doesn't mean they got it.

      You need to not only send it certified, but also return mail receipt. This forces someone to sign for it and you get their signature on the card back in the mail.

    10. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a lot of work and heartache. I don't know about you, but I'm a busy man and that guy is a stupid asshole. Where I come from, we call meaningless lawsuits provoked by stupid assholes who have no chance of winning "barratry," and we usually recoup a few grand whenever it happens.

      Oh, and I'm a CEO too. I'm just CEO of webslum, though, so I get to wear Carharrt jackets with the long underwear sewn in, and not a polyester sportcoat. Plus I can do my taxes without a team of husky CPAs.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    11. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by micromoog · · Score: 2
      Right . . . so, you're arguing that it's OK, even imperative, to use a loophole to take advantage of the system when you can. And that the line is to be drawn at "something completely outrageous", as defined by you I suppose . . .

      Just because you can get away with something doesn't make it OK. I hear shoplifting is pretty easy.

    12. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by micromoog · · Score: 2
      I'm not sure how much you know about insurance, but your rate is all based on statistics of accidents. People who get more tickets cause more accidents, period. This is not some sort of conspiracy of the insurance company to steal money from you.

      It's just like the fact that your insurance is higher because you're (presumably) male and (presumably) young. There is a correlation.

      If you don't like your insurance policy, you should change companies. If you think speed limits are too low, you should lobby your local politicians about it. Your method has you bringing a fraudulent case, lying to the court, and costing taxpayers money by tying up the court with this bullshit. Just be a man and own up to your actions.

    13. Re:How much could he actually sue you for? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2
      There are municipalities near my home where the speed limit on the highway drops from 60mph to 25mph in a very short distance, and where you'll get a ticket if you're doing 26mph.

      You really think I should "own up to [my] actions" because I'm unable to shed 60% of my highway speed in 200 feet with a tractor trailer truck 50 feet behind me? No - that's just silly. I'll pay a lawyer $100 to get the ticket dropped and go back to being a responsible driver.

      In other words, not all of us have the luxury of living in an ideal world where it's never difficult to obey the letter of the law. Of course, you've never downloaded a song from Napster, and you actually made all of the images on your web site, didn't you?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  6. Free consultation by ooglek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lawyers will usually not charge you for an initial consultation. If you are upfront with them, tell them your situation, they'll usually spend 10 or 20 minutes with you and decide if you might need their services or not. If they say you do, they'll most likely ask for a retainer of some sort. Depending on how serious the lawyer believes your situation to be, it could be between $1,000 and $5,000. On top of the retainer, you have to pay the fees they bill until you "close your account" with them.

    Some smaller lawyers will just bill against the retainer, while larger firms will require payment in addition to the retainer, but will return the retainer in full at your request when you close an account with them.

    Most lawyers charge between $150-$300 an hour unless it is a case where they believe you will win a settlement (in this case, it doesn't seem so; however, you might be able to get lawyer fees if you need to sue if the CEO sues).

    IANAL, but I'm married to one and had to use some for my old business.

    Just go look up a lawyer or get a referal (highly recommended) and see what they say. They'll know better than any of us on slashdot (unless they are lawyers).

  7. Before you need him. by Deanasc · · Score: 4, Funny
    A good lawyer is like a good mechanic or good OBGYN. You should be comfortable with the Doctor before you have him up to his neck in your coochie. You should be changing your oil with a good mechanic so that he knows you care about the car and doesn't rip you for double when your timing belt slips. I'm not saying to keep a lawyer on retainer but have a relationship with one before you need him. And it doesn't matter which branch of law. If he can't help you he'll know who can and it won't be the guy advertising workmans comp scams on 'Springer'.

    Or you can go to Jiffy Lube to save $20 bucks a year and then the mechanic doesn't know you from a hole in the wall. Doesn't think you'll be back after he's done.

    And who want's a total stranger looking up their hooches to find that itch.

    I know I'm crass but it does get the point accross.

    --
    I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    1. Re:Before you need him. by benwb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Funny, I always thought a lawyer was a lot more like a proctologist ;)

  8. Who needs a lawyer... by myov · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... when you could just /. him instead?
    No klez, in fact, no internet

    --
    I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
  9. Re:now ! by Badanov · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unless the CEO's lawyer is a true hothead, it will never get past the first consultation. The CEO will pay his lawyer's consultation fee and go away angry. Most lawsuits begin with a lawyer sending a letter to the putative defendant, usually a request for compensation and a request for any insurance information you have. Give the lawyer no information, but contact him, and calmly discuss your case with him You can hire a lawyer if you have the money but it is in your best interest to entertain the lawyer's contentions seriously and to state your case clearly: that he won't collect, and that there is a long road to go before he can prove you were the authorof Klez. Most lawyers won't push a case if they can't get a quick, big payoff right from the top. Another circumstance is how much you are worth. If you are a wealthy man and have holdings such as stocks, bonds and real estate, you could be in trouble regardless of your guilt because there is very little to stop the lawyer from getting even a nuisnace payoff. BTW, IANAL, but I have learned from business lawsuits, that discussions will save a signifigant portion of a lawyer's claim if you deal with him reasonably.

    --
    Dawn of the Dead
  10. I'm afraid that.. by r2r2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    You need a lawyer to answer that question.

  11. Soo, ummm were you fired? by bogie · · Score: 2

    I surprised you didn't say if you were fired or not, but just FYI, wrongful termination can be a real bitch to prove.

    Regarding when to call a lawyer. If you think you may possibly be charged with a crime, you call a lawyer period. No decent lawyer will not take 5 minutes and listen to your case. You will most likely be told to call back when and if the authorities are going to move against you. If and when that happens you pay a retainer and then go from there. If any lawyer asks for money up front, run away.

    Regarding money, if you truly did nothing wrong you would most likely recoup your legal costs in a summary judgement before the case even got to court. Contrary to popular belief most cases do NOT go to court. They are settled either by an arbitrator or judge before hand.

    As always IANAL but my father is, and I worked at his firm for several years.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Soo, ummm were you fired? by mabinogi · · Score: 2

      > I surprised you didn't say if you were fired or not, but just FYI, wrongful termination can be a real bitch to prove.

      I don't think it was the CEO of his company, just a random CEO off the street ;)

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
  12. Just be sensible by mark_space2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Send him a polite note explaining that he is mistaken. Your were the victim of a virus, and the virus forged your name on the email. Communication like this is important if you do every end up in court (IANAL though!). An attempt to mitigate (or in this case, explain) the damage is required.

    If you DO ever end up in court, after sending the polite note and getting a lawyer, point out that you have no money for him to take, and that if he does sue you, he'll look like a fool. If the CEO continues to press the suit, carry through on your end and go public.

    There are tons of ways for ordinary people to do this. One is your local TV station. My TV station has something called "Channel 3 Reports" which is basically a cosumer line where people can complain if they feel cheated by a business. Channel 3 will send a reporter to the business and make them answer a few questions on camera. This can be REALLY embarrassing, espcially if there is any chance that the business did make a mistake. Many people would rather settle than have a hostile interview on camera.

    Newspapers are also your friend. Alternative ones like the "News and Review" will often do interviews with ordinary people who have run afoul of some large business or government agency. Larger papers too might be interested to run your story.

    I think enough bad press, and hints of more, will end just about any unfair suit from a CEO who has a company and business to worry about.

    Be smart. Be polite. Be truthful. And be persistant. That I think will get you out of any jam that truly isn't your fault.

    Peace.

    1. Re:Just be sensible by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Send him a polite note explaining that he is mistaken. Your were the victim of a virus, and the virus forged your name on the email."

      Keep in mind that Klez does not use your e-mail address found on the sending machine as the from: address in any subsequent e-mails. It gets addresses of other people from your outlook address book.

      So if I'm stupid enough to use outlook and then stupid enough to let Klez loose on my machine and you're in my address book, then your address could appear on the from: field on the next victim's inbox. So even if you are using an ultra-secure unix box and read your mail with pine (which is a text-only client, so it is impossible to get any infection from an e-mail,) your friend who uses outlook can still cause you grief in this way.

      This makes it hard to track down the source of the worm and that's why Klez is still fairly old but running rampant in the wild.

    2. Re:Just be sensible by bear_phillips · · Score: 2

      I agree with the parent poster that it would be good to send a note explaining the virus. As the saying goes "you catch more flies with honey." A nice note may do the trick.

      But sometimes you need to play hardball. If you are worried, talk to an attorney. He may suggest that HE draft a memo stating something like "My client did not send the virus. We can easily prove that because of X, Y and Z. If you pursue fraudulent legal procedings against my client, we will counter sue you for libel, etc etc. "

      Sometimes you have to run from bullies and sometimes you just have to stand up to them.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    3. Re:Just be sensible by Technician · · Score: 2

      Send him a polite note explaining that he is mistaken. Your were the victim of a virus, and the virus forged your name on the email. Communication like this is important if you do every end up in court (IANAL though!). An attempt to mitigate (or in this case, explain) the damage is required

      It also does not hurt to list in the letter the version of anti-virus software you have running and the current date of the signature file in use. Hint that if they were running the same, they would have caught the virus upon arrival and it would not be spreading on their machines.

      Listing your anti-virus subscription goes a long way showing you couldn't have sent it.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  13. How the Klez virus works... by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Informative

    Someone with both him in their Address book and the CEO in their address book got the Klez virus. The Klez virus looks in the currently infected victim's address book for an e-mail address to pretend to be from and sends a message to another address in that address book.

    1. Re:How the Klez virus works... by expunged · · Score: 2

      I believe if he has the original e-mail/access to the server, you can tell who it *really* came from. I have had to do this several times for people in my company accusing me or someone else in the company of sending them Klez.

      With Outhouse, full headers is not exactly inherently obvious, but they are there. If the CEO still has the original e-mail (which I imagine he does, otherwise there isn't really a case is there?), all someone has to do is look at them (or go to the server and dig up the record). Case closed...

  14. I've got an easy answer to your problem by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you're kinda handy with Sendmail, and CEO stubbornly refuses to believe that SMTP From: headers can be faked, guess how surpised he'll be when he receives an email from gwbush@whitehouse.gov giving you a full pardon.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    1. Re:I've got an easy answer to your problem by EvanED · · Score: 2

      ROTFL! This could be the best solution proposed so far.

    2. Re:I've got an easy answer to your problem by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh gooooood. He's accused him of a crime, and so you think he should fraudulently sign the presidents signature to get out of it? That wouldn't get the FBI to sic on him. No siree. Nice suggestion, way to go- not! ;-)

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    3. Re:I've got an easy answer to your problem by KILNA · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually you're on to something. The crux of the CEO's position is the fact that he believes From: headers are gospel. If the tech has the ability to forge headers, then why the hell would he send the virus-infected email from his own address? It would make the foolishness of the CEO's conclusion apparent.

      --
      Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
    4. Re:I've got an easy answer to your problem by Phroggy · · Score: 2

      C'mon, at least use a telnet client, and do it properly.

      What do you think you're telnetting into?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    5. Re:I've got an easy answer to your problem by Kallahar · · Score: 2

      To avoid legal/SS hassles, I suggest using gwbush@whitehouse.com instead of .gov. I'm sure this guy won't have a clue :)

      Travis

  15. well I am one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am a lawyer and I practised in high tech/business for years. I think people run to lawyers far too quickly. I wish they wouldn't panic and waste their own time and money. As soon as I became a lawyer, my father pestered me all the time with issues. I kept saying he should use his head. Figure out what using a lawyer will get you then think about what it will cost (in terms of time, money, frustration, publicity, anger, damage to relationships, etc.)

    You need to take a deep breath and work out the pros and cons of using a lawyer. I think the best time to use one is where you are presented with a situation where:
    (a) you are IN DANGER OF LOSING ESSENTIAL RIGHTS. Examples are signing contracts where you do not understand what people in your position normally can get (or lose);
    (b) you are unfamiliar with the regulations and laws associated with doing certain things (like holding lotteries, running a business, being a landlord etc.); or
    (c) you or your property are seriously injured and you NEED compensation to compensate for some significant loss

    Using lawyers simply as a replacement for common sense is really dumb. Lawyers move SLOWLY and EXPENSIVELY. Why? Well, because (1) they have a lot of stupid work to do; (2) they are often sick of dealing with issues that should be resolved outside the legal system; (3) their profession is focused on looking at what they can get out of someone or how to hit back vs. constructively and quickly resolving disputes.

    Often you will walk into a law office and have a consultation. Suddenly, the lawyer is putting together your case. What the lawyer is SUPPOSED to do is work with you on what you want to get out of this in the end, explain the costs, timelines (which are a lot longer than you think) and the typical results. Results means more than just getting some money. It means the effect of legal action on you and those around you.

    Too often, the lawyer acts more like a plumber who plugs your story into his predefined precedents instead of being a professional who consults with you and educates you about all the factors you should know BEFORE proceeding.

  16. Done. by NetJunkie · · Score: 2

    Recent versions of Outlook won't let a virus access your address book like this. Not to mention anti-virus software has been out forever....

    1. Re:Done. by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Yes - in fact, when I sync my Palm Vx, Outlook pops up saying "A program is attempting to access your address book. Would you like to grant it access for XX minutes?"

  17. Just ask Slashdot! by njchick · · Score: 5, Funny
    it raises the question: How do I know when I need a lawyer?
    You need a lawyer if you ask on Slashdot and none of the comments with score 3 and above answers your question.
  18. Could be time. by wilburdg · · Score: 2

    I would say that the moment you start asking a geek forum for law advice, you probably need a lawyer.

  19. American or Gangster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you are an american, you need a lawyer if you want to, for example, pick your nose.

    In the civilized world, you only need a lawyer if you work in organized crime.

    Special case:
    If you are both american and criminal; you don't need a lawyer - Then you are a lawyer!

  20. You cannot post correspondence by localroger · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a well-established corner of copyright law, you do not own the correspondence you receive from others. You do own the physical media, but you do not have a right to broadcast or republish the material without the author's permission. Unless the author has done something so illegal (e.g. sending a death threat or whatever) that you can be certain of prevailing, and you need the public exposure because you have no other course of action, you should never publish correspondence you receive from others without their permission. It may seem ridiculous, but it is completely illegal almost everywhere on Earth.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:You cannot post correspondence by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Addendum: I recently got into a rather silly flame war with an AOL user who couldn't find her caps lock key. She threatened to sue if I republished our conversation on the Web.

      So I looked into this issue, and it's basically as you say*. But there are a couple of points you didn't mention. First, while you don't have a right to redistribute their creative works, you are allowed to use it in a "fair use" context, and they have no expectation that their message remain private. That is, you can quote the most relevant portions, and explain the whole situation in your own words.

      Also, in the case of works with no real commercial value (most e-mail qualifies), you can be successfully sued, but it's very unlikely that you can be sued for monetary damages. The best they can do is force you to take the correspondence down. If your responses were libelous, it's a different story.

      Having said that, I side with the posters who say that, in the case of the clueless CEO, the best plan is to back away slowly, document everything, and don't do anything to provoke him. And talk to a lawyer if it makes you feel more secure.

      * IANAL, so CYA.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    2. Re:You cannot post correspondence by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      If it's that well established, could you cite some case law please.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:You cannot post correspondence by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      > ...you are allowed to use it in a "fair use"
      > context, and they have no expectation that their
      > message remain private. That is, you can quote
      > the most relevant portions, and explain the whole
      > situation in your own words.

      You can quote the whole thing if that is what it takes to make your point. This is likely to be the case with these sorts of emails.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:You cannot post correspondence by pwarf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, as mentioned in an earlier post, you are allowed to cite excerpts of the work under fair use.

      It would be legal, though not wise, to sell the correspondence on E-bay as "Documents showing the ignorance of [insert company name here]'s CEO. Depending on the profile of the company, you might be able to make a reasonable amount of money.

      Of course, I don't advise this.

      Ask for an appointment to discuss the matter at his convenience. Then, before the appointment, call the CIO or equivalent at the company, and explain what happened, politely. If he's on the ball, he'll bring up the fact that From addresses can be faked without specifically mentioning your case. At the appointment, let the CEO save face about being wrong, and you are in good shape.

      That's my advice, at least.

    5. Re:You cannot post correspondence by evilviper · · Score: 2

      You're right, it does seem ridiculous because it's not true.

      E-Mail is not considered private information, so it would be legal to post it.

      IANAL, but the law is fairly clear on this point.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:You cannot post correspondence by Kagato · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, if they did file a complaint with the FBI, you could request the complaint under FOIA. Whatever the FBI sends you I would assume to be public record unless specifically stated otherwise.

    7. Re:You cannot post correspondence by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      'The Hunt For Red October" isn't private information either. Go ahead and post it.

      > IANAL

      This is very clear.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:You cannot post correspondence by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

      Once you have received correspondence, it is yours to do with as you please. For instance, the New York Post this week printed a letter from New York State Comptroller and gubernatorial candidate Carl McCall's letter to the CEO of Verizon (on McCall's stationery) on the front page. It was quite a nice hatchet job as well, if I do say so myself.

      Granted, you could be sued, but the odds are that the plaintiff will be laughed out of court.

    9. Re:You cannot post correspondence by kmellis · · Score: 2
      You, sir, should read the fine print. Most "letters to the editor" submission addresses I've seen in newspapers and elsewhere explicitly state that such letters are considered submissions for publication and become the property of the newspaper to do with as they please. And there probably doesn't need to be the notice, I'd bet, as the "letters to the editor" convention implicitly is one of sumitting something for publication, not of typical interpersonal correspondence.

      Regular mail or email, whether assumed to be private or not, is, by what I gather from this discussion, generally original creative work that the writer has complete ownership of. After all, I can write a short story and give you a copy, but that doesn't give you the right to publish it. Qualitatively, what's the difference between the short story and a letter, really?

      To summarize....when you write an email and send it, you don't relinquish your copyright to it. Why would you? Whether or not it is considered "private" is a seperate issue from whether or not other people have the right to publish it. As it happens, according to people here, email is not considered private. No one has mentioned what protections there would be on it if it were. Anyway, by publishing someone else's email, you're not going to get in legal trouble for violating their privacy, but you may get in trouble for violating their copyright. But then, copyright law allows for fair use, which would seem to allow for a latitude of inclusion of copyrighted material.

      Try not to so casually call someone an idiot unless you are very certain that in doing so you're not revealing that it is you who is the idiot. "Letters to the editor" are both explicitly and implicitly not equivalent to regular correspondence.

    10. Re:You cannot post correspondence by kmellis · · Score: 2
      And I'd like to add that just because something's legal, that doesn't make it right. Violating someone's privacy without a reasonable justification is a betrayal of trust.

      Many people have probably had experiences similar to an experience that I had years ago where I had discussed something in a private email with a friend who then thoughtlessly forwarded my comments along to a semi-public mailing list where some of my comments caused hurt feelings. The things that I wrote were true and I stood by them, but I never would have expressed them to the people to which the comments applied as callously as I did to my friend, to whom they didn't apply. Thus, people were hurt that needn't have been, and it was because my friend had violated the privacy of our correspondence by sharing it with many other people.

      This happens all the time with simple verbal conversations, of course. I don't know anyone, certainly not myself, who never repeats to other people things they've been told. It would be impractical to assume complete confidentiality of everything everyone ever says in private. But the trick, I think, is to make an effort to put oneself in the other person's shoes and consider whether or not they would feel violated or hurt in some manner by the disclosure. What isn't right is to stand on some insensitive and absolutist rule like "unless you tell me otherwise, I will presume that everything you say to me is not confidential". People that are too self-serving and too lazy to actually struggle through the muddied waters of ethical behavior are the type of people that cling to simplistic, legalistic guidelines for determining (or rationalizing after the fact) what is acceptable. Again, just because something is legal doesn't make it "right". Not by a long-shot.

      I mention this in this context because many people reading the thread may come away from reading it with only the knowledge that email isn't private and not consider that this being the case shouldn't be the final word on the matter. The decision to post people's email willy-nilly on one's web page should be informed by more than merely the legality of doing so.

    11. Re:You cannot post correspondence by arkanes · · Score: 2

      I was under the impression that legal documents, such as the kind you get from lawyers, were considered public domain, as documents of the court. This is why people who're being hassled by lawyers can publish the letters (ref. bnetd, etc)

    12. Re:You cannot post correspondence by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      Sir, read my fucking post.

      This was not a letter to the editor. It was a private letter from Carl McCall, Comptroller of the State of New York, to the CEO of Verizon. In this letter, McCall points out that the New York State Employee Pension Fund, which he controls and makes the investment decisions for, owns (IIRC) 5 million and some-odd shares of Verizon, making it one of the largest shareholders in Verizon. He then asks the CEO to take a look at an enclosed resume, belonging to McCall's daughter. This is not the sort of thing that McCall would want to come out in public.

      Through whatever means, this letter made it to the Post, where it was printed on the front page. Everything printed by any major newspaper is scrutinized by lawyers, especially if there's the slightest hint of impropriety (which there definitely is in this case). The fact that they decided to run it, after a consultation with lawyers indicates that they weren't breaking the law.

      Under your contention, however, that correspondence is copyrighted, this would most definitely be illegal, and could be spotted by the greenest lawyer on the staff. Considering all these facts, I call bullshit.

    13. Re:You cannot post correspondence by kmellis · · Score: 2
      I apologize for badly misreading your post.

      However, you're still wrong. These two letters were written by McCall on state stationary. I have no doubt that such letters are completely covered under various freedom of information laws.

      Finally, again I call bullshit on you. It's absurd to assume that merely sending someone a piece of correspondence relinquishes the presumed copyrights of the author's. Writing and mailing a poem to a girlfriend does not relinquish one's rights to the poem, enabling the girlfriend to do whatever she wants with it. There is no distinction that matters in this context between that poem and anything else one writes. And, it's pretty weak reasoning to assume that if a newspaper did something, it must necessarily be kosher.

    14. Re:You cannot post correspondence by evilviper · · Score: 2

      I can tell you that beating someone into a bloody pulp is against the law and will lead to many years in jail.

      However, according to you, since IANAL I could be completely wrong on this point.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:You cannot post correspondence by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Copyright is a completely different issue.

      When dealing with person-to-person communications, it is the reasonable expectation of privacy that makes it illegial to just record a conversation over the phone, or a private person-to-person conversation... However, a conversation in a public place is legal to record, as is e-mail.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  21. Lawyers by RomSteady · · Score: 2
    Anytime you are unsure if the law is on your side, even in the slightest, get a lawyer. Also, if your entire knowledge of the law on a particular matter revolves around what you have read on Slashdot, you definitely need a lawyer.

    Now, as for how to pay for one, that's another matter. You can try to talk to Legal Aid in your neighborhood. Usually, lawyers participating in Legal Aid will give you pro bono (free) advice until it leads to a courtroom appearance, in which case they do usually require payment.

    If your work offers a legal plan (like mine does), I recommend you sign up for it. I pay $16 a month, but in return, I have full legal coverage for everything except legal actions against my employer.

    --
    RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
  22. No but you'll need one tomorrow after... by martintt · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...you've published the CEO's details here, and he's been,
    LARTed out of his office by a mob trying to win the new 3rd person Darwin Award,
    or at least /.ed off the web.

    go on who is it :-) . . . you know you want to need a lawyer.

  23. counter-suit by tongue · · Score: 2

    in many states,the plaintiff can be made to pay the defendant's legal fees if the case is deemed a frivolous lawsuit, which this case, provided you described it correctly, almost certainly is. my advice is to at least get an initial consultation with a lawyer; most will probably be willing to write you a letter for a small fee ( 500) that may discourage any further action.

    1. Re:counter-suit by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      And showing how uninformed and clueless the CEO in question is, and the subsequent endless ribbing he'll get in the future regarding this, not to mention unwanted publicity, will be bonus perks...

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  24. There's a bad idea... by sterno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Great, you've got a guy who's dumb and rich and a CEO. If he's a CEO he's probably got a decent sized ego. If he's got an ego and you drag his e-mails into the public spotlight, he's probably going to get pissed, especially if the context of the posting is to say "look at what an idiot this guy is". He'll sure for any of a number of reasons, from copyright infringement, to libel (that's the print one right?).

    No, you disturbed a dragon. Leave the cave quietly and pray he doesn't wake up. He might never win in court but that doesn't mean you'll have to have six mortgages on your house before he's done with you.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:There's a bad idea... by plaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, you disturbed a dragon. Leave the cave quietly and pray he doesn't wake up. He might never win in court but that doesn't mean you'll have to have six mortgages on your house before he's done with you.

      How are the costs of legal actions payed in the US? AFAIK, each side pays his/her own bills. This seems quite silly, because in a case such as this, the rich player can simply drown the poor player in legal fees. I see this as a major flaw of the US legal system.

      At least here in Finland, generally the losing side pays both side's expenses (unless decided otherwise by the judge - so nobody has to pay ridiculous expenses). This way nobody can drown the other player out for a silly matter such as this. Of course, this adds risk to filing a suit, which could limit the small man's willingness to sue, but I'd say that on the whole it's a better system. What's your take on it?

      --

      I doubt, therefore I may be.
    2. Re:There's a bad idea... by jovlinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So say I'm wrong and you sue me.

      fine, I lose, and the court awards you damages.

      but you want me to pay your expensive lawyer too!? that should come out of your winnings. Else we are basically giving the lawyer the right to assess damages me as well, but without any legal guidelines as to the ammount.

      Seems fairer to me that the suit bringer always pays his lawyer, and also the defendant's, if the suit is overturned.

      That way, people only sue if they are sure to win, and rich people or companies can't sue poorer people just to harass them into settling out of court.

      And there's no risk in sticking your neck out if you know you are right.

    3. Re:There's a bad idea... by evilviper · · Score: 2

      In the US, you can counter-sue for damages & fees incured.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:There's a bad idea... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We also have the concept of compensatory damages in the US, thanks. And that's what most suits are over.

      Punitive damages are only employed where the party seeking them can convince a jury that the tortfeasor (and other potential tortfeasors who will be basing their future decisions on the outcome of this case) has acted so wrongfully that they need to be taught a lesson.

      I mean, imagine going up against a well-funded toxic waste dumper. If you can only sue him for actual damages that may not be enough to discourage him from dumping _more_ waste. He can afford it, after all.

      As for the McDonalds' case, I STRONGLY suggest you actually look into the details of it; you're clearly just acting on what you've heard from some guy -- not exactly an accurate source.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    5. Re:There's a bad idea... by Astin · · Score: 2

      I think it's similar in Canada, where if I'm sued, and I win, then my legal fees are paid by the person who sued me, at the very least I'd file a counter-suit for the legal fees. Now if I'm sued and I lose, then I would assume that their legal fees would be included in the damages I'd have to pay.

      Of course, the major difference between Canada and the States when it comes to this sort of thing is that Canadian lawyers can only earn an hourly rate, NOT a percentage of the winnings. This definitely helps keep lawsuits down from ridiculous values as there are no lawyers pushing for double the amount you want so they can get 50%.

      --
      - In hell, treason is the work of angels.
    6. Re:There's a bad idea... by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just love how this stuff gets modded so high...

      "but you want me to pay your expensive lawyer too!? that should come out of your winnings."

      ...

      "That way, people only sue if they are sure to win, and rich people or companies can't sue poorer people just to harass them into settling out of court."

      You got it backwards. By not allowing the plaintiff seek reimbursement for legal fees from the defendant, only those that could afford a lawyer on their own would bring cases to court, such as the "rich people (and) companies" you mention above.

      If you make me go so far as to drag you in to court to prove that I'm right and owed money, you, not I, should be responsible for paying for the legal fees as well. It's not like the actual trial is Step 1 in trying to receive your damages. There's a codified process where there is at least one "or else" document delivered to the defendant.

      Hypothetical: You key your name and address on the hood of my car. I contact you and demand that you pay for the new paint job. You refuse and give me a Nelson laugh. What you're suggesting would prevent me from dragging you into court to pay for my new paint job until you do it over and over and over again until I reach the point where all the new paint jobs finally costs more than a lawyer.

      By the way, what you're suggesting would make all loan interest rates (credit cards, mortgages, etc.) double or even triple overnight. If lenders aren't able to recoup legal fees from beligerent debtors directly, they'll have to make that money back some other way...

      "And there's no risk in sticking your neck out if you know you are right."

      Unless you're the plaintiff, because under your system he has to pay for his lawyer no matter how right he is. If you read something other than Slashdot every once in a while you might understand that not all plaintiffs wear black hats and defendents white.

    7. Re:There's a bad idea... by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 2

      Over here (Finlands neighbour Sweden), we also do not have the ridicolous law suits that seems to be so common in the US (or maybe we just hear about those).

      Over here, if someone is stupid enough to burn themselves on coffee they bought, maybe they would get a new cup. Maybe a few hundred (in dollars) even. Over there, or so we hear, that can bring in millions and millions - so you can earn money on being stupid and go to court proving that.

      As a result of this, most law suits here are real complaints. So I understand why you would be worried, but if you had the complete system, noone would make you pay just for being wrong, since it is hardly worth it. At least you wouldn't be paying much. :)

      OTOH, for real cases, that is actual damage done, like burning down your house, you can get damages for. So basically, we decided to not allow sillyness, noone can (in theory) buy their justice, and whomever (as decided by court) is actually the really bad guy gets to pay, not the victim.

      Now, tell me - is that bad and how?

    8. Re:There's a bad idea... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2
      Seems fairer to me that the suit bringer always pays his lawyer, and also the defendant's, if the suit is overturned.

      That's even worse than the current situation. Suppose that I wish to sue a large corporation because of something they've done to me or my family. As soon as I find out that I'll be responsible for the salaries of 20-30 of their $300/hour attornies unless my $150/hour lawyer somehow manages to prevail, I'll drop the suit. I don't care if they poured gas on my house and lit a match - if there's a non-zero chance that it will cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell my story to a judge, then I'd probably be too afraid to risk it. If that happens, then those with the deepest pockets can declare permanent victory.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  25. It's funny 'cos it's true, Marge. by realgone · · Score: 5, Funny
    Here's a old, old joke that has more than a little truth to it:

    Q: When do you need a lawyer?
    A: When you're talking to a lawyer.

    Which is to say, if you ever need to deal with someone else's attorney in any offical capacity, no matter how trivial, you're best served by having your own on-call as well.

  26. First, the CEO needs a lawyer (and a clue) by cfulmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAL...

    It sounds like you just got somebody with a bee in their bonnet. (And, if you want another cliche,) My experience has been that such people's bark is worse than their bite.

    So, if the CEO wants to sue you, first he has to find a lawyer willing to take on the case. In this case, that means that the lawyer would believe that A) there's a reasonable chance of winning in court and B) that if they did sue you, you have enough money to make it worth their while. Now, B is not as critical -- if the CEO in question is a real jerk, he may sue out of spite. But, A... If there isn't a reasonable chance that you'd win and a judge agrees, not only do you win, but the CEO and his attorney could be in trouble for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

    The FBI, luckily is more than smart enough to understand forged headers and also knows more about computer viruses than this CEO evidently does. There may be some record in some computer somewhere, but it won't really mean anything.

    The real questions are:

    1) Is this CEO is the head of the place that *you* work?
    and
    2) Is he slandering you among other people?

    If he is the CEO of your company and he decides to have you fired or something, then you may have a wrongful termination case. If he's going around telling other people about how you wrote this virus and sent it to him, then that's slander (assuming you didn't actually do it...), which is grounds under which you could sue him. In either case, consulting a lawyer may be a good idea.

    Probably the best thing is to take the high road and ignore it.

    1. Re:First, the CEO needs a lawyer (and a clue) by rodgerd · · Score: 2

      The slander would actually be my biggest concern. In the current market having a C*O wandering around the golf course telling his buddies you're a cyberterrorist who he's reported to the FBI would be, well, not good.

      It may be worth having a lawyer draft a letter explaining the salient points, including some advice to the CEO not go spreading malicious rumours.

      Note that you should never do that sort of thing yourself - its very easy to drift from (perfectly legitimately) expressing your concerns and knowledge of your right to protect your reputation into the territory of threats...

  27. A good offense... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...is often the best defense.

    Here's what I would do: write a letter to the CEO in question. Don't rant or rave, but explain the nature of the Klez virus in non-technical terms. Attach a description from one of the major anti-virus manufacturers as proof of your assertions.

    Then drop the bomb. WITHOUT WHINING (that is VERY important), and without OVERDRAMATIZING IT (also VERY important), warn him that his actions may constitute libel and/or slander, and that any further attempts to harm your reputation will be delt with through legal means.

    Try something like this: "Finally, I have tried to be patient. I hope that this explanation has convinced you that I have no role whatsoever in your virus infestation. I know that not everyone is technical, and things like this can be difficult to understand. However, it's a small industry and I will not allow my reputation to be damaged through libellous and/or slanderous accusations. Cease and desist immediately or I will be forced to take legal action."

    You might also think about filing a complaint with the FBI that the guy knowingly filed a false accusation.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:A good offense... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      I should also say that if you don't trust yourself to write the letter so that it sounds sufficiently threatening without being overdramatic or whiny, it's pretty cheap (relatively speaking) to get a lawyer to draft a letter for you. That also has the benefit of making it look more like your serious. I'm just always too cheap to use a lawyer, and I'm generally good at writing threating letters. :)

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:A good offense... by Idarubicin · · Score: 2
      Otherwise, you are guilty of barratry, and can be quite easily sued for all you're worth...

      Well, close, but not quite. Barratry is the actual instigation of frivolous lawsuits. Since we can fairly safely conclude that our hero has a strong case against the unnamed CEO, if he threatens legal action but does not follow through, then he is guilty of either a) generosity or b) laziness. Barratry doesn't enter into this situation. Frankly, it is rather unusual to sue someone because they failed to sue you (or file a countersuit against you.) I'd be intrigued if someone could present a situation where such a suit might be successful...

      There's also another definition of barratry that applies to misappropriation of sea vessels, but I'm pretty sure that that isn't happening here.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    3. Re:A good offense... by TeknoDragon · · Score: 2

      > You might also think about filing a complaint with the FBI that the guy knowingly filed a false accusation.

      If you want to work in any area where your records go under much scrutiny (some fields in the millitary, security, etc...) this is a good idea.

    4. Re:A good offense... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      I would personally avoid using terms that have specific legal interpretations like "libel" or "slander" when writing the letter myself. It sounds pretentious and, well, overdramatic.

      I agree. It would probably be better said more informally, as you say.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  28. Ignore it. by FyRE666 · · Score: 2

    IANAL, but I'd just ignore the idiot. No, wait, I'd encourage him to sue me, for the sheer fun in court - not that it'll ever happen. Even if this CEO is completely clueless, his lawyers (if they have ANY sense) will do at least a little research and conclude it would be an impossible case to win, and he'll be made to look a laughing stock in court.

    The IP the mail was posted from (or at least the mail server it came through) will be right there in the headers. If there's any logging going on then this can be traced back to the remote host used to post the mail. If there's no logging, there's no proof either way!

    Maybe you could go ahead and sue for defamation of character after the case were thrown out? ;-)

  29. One clue... by LordZardoz · · Score: 2

    Might be when you have been arrested. Another is when you are accused of a criminal offense. The best clue that you need a lawyer outside of the two above cirumstances is when you start to become convinced that the only acceptable resolution to your situation involves the use of an Axe and a Shovel with respect to your antagonist.

    If you can at all avoid it, however, do not start paying a lawyer until your sure that things are getting beyond your ability to control.

    END COMMUNICATION

  30. Re:no win, no fee? by pete-classic · · Score: 2

    Only for plaintiffs, because we don't have loser pays :-(

    -Peter

  31. The only way to know... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

    ... is to ask a lawyer...

  32. When you need a lawyer by richie2000 · · Score: 3, Funny
    How do I know when I need a lawyer?

    When a policeman gives you a dime.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
    1. Re:When you need a lawyer by sconeu · · Score: 2

      It's 35-50 cents now in CA.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  33. Re:now ! by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Give the lawyer no information, but contact him, and calmly discuss your case with him You can hire a lawyer if you have the money but it is in your best interest to entertain the lawyer's contentions seriously and to state your case clearly: that he won't collect, and that there is a long road to go before he can prove you were the authorof Klez.

    NOT UNLESS YOU TELL THE LAWYER THE CONVERSATION IS WITHOUT Predjudice .

    Otherwise anything you can and will be used against you.

    However in a case of this type the lawyer is almost certain to be more resonable than his client. If you could provide the lawyer with a link to one of the Virus sites that describes this behavior of Klez the lawyer might even get the CEO to back off and appologise.

    Incidentally what sort of CEO are we talking about? Like CEO of bogswater technology net revenue $300K per year can probably be blown off without as much worry as the CEO of an F500 company. The downside is that the CEO of bogswater Inc. is much more likely to be a complete and utter prick.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  34. Tit for tat. by xenoweeno · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is easily demonstrable that the Klez virus was not written by you and did not come from you. You are safe on that front.

    If you have received a letter specifically and clearly accusing you of the things you mentioned, then congratulations, because you have a valid and clear-cut libel case on your hands.

    Send him a cheerful letter in return that explains the nature of the virus, and attach pages upon pages of URLs and other documentation to/from leading anti-virus software makers on the subject. Inform him that if he pursues, you'll pursue.

    1. Re:Tit for tat. by fermion · · Score: 2

      I guess the hallmark of Ask Slahdot is the answer you get has little to do with the question. For example, many people have said 'counter sue' in response to the question of 'when do you need a lawyer?' This of course is silly. Although the Klez virus can spoof the from address, there is nothing I have read that says it always does. Although it may be possible to prove the email did not come from you, why bother. You are just playing on the CEO fields by the CEO rules. You obviously don't have a lawyer, and are not familiar with the rules. Take the better advice. Explain the situation, and hope the CEO gets a clue.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  35. Re:If you don't mind me asking... by cscx · · Score: 2

    Outlook 2002/XP hardly allows anything access -- shoot it won't even let you save .EXE attachments unless you make a change deep in the registry, or on the Exchange server.

    There are pathes available for Outlook 2000, and the previous version as well that adds this functionality, or at least patches the holes. You are misinformed.

  36. Re:If you don't mind me asking... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
    Here is a non-fiction story: Some years ago, a luser deliberately sent thousands of threatening messages to a local grade-school with my e-mail in the from: field. The school called the police and eventually I was interviewed.

    Basically I explained to the officer (who admitted she didn't even own a computer and didn't know why she got the case) how it was extremely easy to forge all of this, and from the header snippets in the printout (they knew nothing about full headers) that it probably came from a certain local ISP.

    The officer understood and I never heard anything about it again.

    If the CEO is stupid enough to go to law enforcement to try to have you put away and the law enforcement doesn't laugh it off, you can probably explain it to the officers and the CEO will get the results of the investigation and hopefully realise that s/he was pretty clueless to persue the whole endavour.

  37. Wake up! by zulux · · Score: 2


    This twit is trying to bitch-slap you, wrongly. And to give it a fine coating of 'acceptability' he's using 'the law' as his weapon of choice.

    I suggest that your weapon be somthing other than 'the law.' - If someone fights unfairly, you are under no obligation to be fight fair yourself, and just because he's in a suit doesen't meen he's fighting fair.

    The gravest mistake in encating revenge is the urge to gloat. This give your opponent evidence and can cause him to escelate the battle because he knows who to target. Insead, cary out your revenge some time in the future, be anonymous and untraceable. Refraqin from checking to see if your act of revenge was a sucess. Do not tell *anybody* about the revenge, if you can't keep a scecret then you shouldent expect others to do so.

    Good luck and happy trails.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  38. Re:now ! by coolgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do not even *think* of speaking to the other lawyer without representation. They are the masters of spin and they will take anything you say and turn it against you. If you speak to him/her and offer no information, then you're uncooperative. That's their job, to make you look like a schmuck. How much money do you think Mr. CEO will invest in his retribution? I'd say if his computer Klez'd an important and equally clueless customer or investor, he's got no choice but to grind you into meatballs.

    If Mr. CEO doesn't come to his senses, or if you receive notice of some action, you will need a lawyer who can speak the lingo to tell Mr. CEO's firm why it is a well documented fact that mail headers do not indicate actual message senders, and what sort of filings your side intends to pursue if they do not lay off.

    You might even get a clever lawyer who can snooker them into pursuing some cause of action that, once the true facts are presented, will only piss a judge off. And lawyers avoid angering a judge at all costs. Once they're in that position, it's like they're Superman and you've got the Kryptonite. Such a situation might garner you a tidy settlement, out of court and confidential, of course. Yeah I don't favor use of the legal system for personal gain, although I do favor a little "Legal System Aikito (sp?)" when some jackass won't listen to reason.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
  39. Right Now by Hungus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Depending on the laws of your state he may be claiming you have committed a felony. I am being absolutely serious about this. Do not talk to the police at all with out a lawyer present. No matter what they say. they will lie to you, decive you and try and trick you. You make think the charges asinine .. but dont laugh at them .. and make certain you document everything. How do I know all of this ..? Because I was hit with a pair of computer related felonies and didnt take legal action quickly enough. Talk to a lawyer Immediately. Just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they are not really after you. feel free to contact me directly.
    Robert K. Brumbelow
    rkbrumbelow@go-ssi.com

    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  40. Prepaid Legal by oran · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because of my work with technology and with most people not understanding what it can and can't do I amd glad I have a Prepaid Legal Plan http://www.jtgrant.net that lets me talk to a lawyer when I have questions as part of my monthly fee of 26 dollars...I had an incounter with the FBI a few years back due to fueding ISPs...I really did not know what I should say and what I should not say or what they could legally ask me...being able to talk to a lawyer is one thing you really should be able to do...no matter how small the issue is you should talk to a lawyer to make sure you know your rights...I am sure that CEO has lawyers he has talked to able this to make sure he is in his legal rights, anyone that is successful knows to use lawyers...you should to...

    --
    If I am tech support, Who the fuck is going to help me... http://www.ibtechsolutions.com
  41. Pre-Paid Legal anyone? by macrom · · Score: 2

    I didn't see this mentioned anywhere : Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.

    I pay about $20 a month and accrue hours that can be used toward a trial, in the event I'm sued or need to sue. I also get (as far as I can tell) unlimited phone access to attorneys for questions and concerns. Everytime I call, all of my issues are addressed and the lawyer on the other line gives advice on my options is the advice doesn't pan out.

    You buy car insurance before your car is whacked in an accident. You get renter's/homeowner's insurance before your dwelling is burglarized. Why not get "legal insurance" before your sued. Check out Pre-Paid Legal -- I haven't regretted my purchase thus far. Besides, if you're querying non-legal websites for advice on what to do when you're legally harassed, you are way past the point of needing legal counsel.

  42. Do your own due-dili. by Deal-a-Neil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We often consult with them because it makes us feel better; however, I am a strong believer in doing your own due-diligence. Look for case records on similar topics that apply to your situation. Look for press releases and news articles, etc. You're looking for any type of information for which you can arm yourself and your attorney.

    I'm gonna say it -- I can't stand lawyers. I think that many of their practices are just plain bullsh*t, particularly when it comes to how many "hours" they work on preparing documents and doing research. So, do your own, and when you work with a firm, share with them, and stay on top of the firm so that you know exactly how much work their billing you for, what they're doing, etc.

    You need a lawyer when you think that it might come to litigation. However, even before that day comes, you must do your own due diligence. That is most important because often, in cases like this, that deal with "high-tech" topics -- attorneys don't have the knowledge or experience to handle your case in the most effective manner. You can save time, a ton of money, and your ass (in terms of winning the case) at the end of the day.

  43. Beg yer pardon... by rocjoe71 · · Score: 2
    But CEOs are like dogs-- their bark is worse than their bite. He/she was all crossed up over this virus invading their system and they just vented all over you.

    If that CEO really wanted to sue you, they never would have confronted you in the first place. You would have had some other 'suit' serve you papers out of the blue, putting that CEO at the advantage... Now that he/she's confronted you they've already played their hand.

    Obviously the CEO's display has got you scared enough to think twice about messing with him (which is what he accused you of...) and that's probably all he really wants. Cross him off your list of contacts and delete his email address from Outlook and sleep tight knowing there's one fellow you *do not* owe any favours to!

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  44. Is everyone oblivous? ... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 2

    But if my nickname was Dr_Harm, chances are I'd think you were being deliberate, too ;)

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  45. A bit of perspective by dr00g911 · · Score: 5, Informative


    Just because someone's a CEO doesn't mean they have more money, power, lawyers (or brains, apparently) than you.

    All it takes to become a CEO of an S-Corp or an LLC is to send your $50-300 plus paperwork, depending on your state.

    I'm actually the CEO of a small web development boutique (read: 3 partners, a few freelancers, no employees) and have been threatened with a couple of lawsuits and the like in the past. We have very little capital (particularly in the current economic climate) to defend ourselves legally -- so we take the talking route until either the issue goes away (almost all the time) or things get verifiably ugly (lawyers/legal documents appear).

    The trick is to talk politely but formally (read: certified mail, business-style) directly to the other individual involved, and keep records of every single piece of correspondence -- at this point you're trying to keep the odds of actually getting in a lawsuit to a minimum.

    You explain your complete lack of culpability in the incident (including whatever documentation from Symantec/CERN/etc.), and state (FIRMLY) that you take the *threat* of a lawsuit very, very seriously and if necessary you will pursue that route in kind to reclaim lost time, money and any slander/libel damages that may be due to you.

    More often than not (in my experience), when people threaten this type of action, they're looking for easy money in an out-of-court settlement -- or they're looking to scare you into submission (completing a project for free, etc.) Being firm and standing up to these kind of idiots gives them pause.

    Obviously, taking this route, you need follow-through. The moment a lawyer or legal paperwork rears their respective ugly heads, all bets are off. Get thee a lawyer and be merciless.

    Just keep in mind:

    1. Just because they talk big doesn't mean they are
    2. If they've got money to bring a frivolous lawsuit against you for something that they could verify easily with a google search -- they've got the money to pay out counterdamages. Most lawyers would be willing to take the case with very little retainer.
    </IANAL>

  46. Despite Slashdot sentiment by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

    the FBI are a lot more tech-saavy than your average CEO.

    The answer as to when you need a lawyer depends on just how much money you have and how much legal knowledge you have. Don't forget, if you don't have much money, you're not a very good target for a lawsuit.

  47. Re:If you don't mind me asking... by cscx · · Score: 2

    Bzzt. It cites this:
    Among the issues Smith called critical is the ability for an e-mail that includes a special HTML tag, known as an IFRAME, to run an attached program. That weakness could be used by a virus to spread to computers through Outlook.

    Klez uses IFRAME. Someone sent me Klez the other day. I recognized it as a Klez email right away, but just for yuks, decided to test Outlook. Opening the Klez email did nothing. Problem seems solved to me.

    If you want to stick to Pine, that's your problem. I'll take a modern PIM/E-mail client, thanks.

  48. The BOFH defense is the best by dattaway · · Score: 2

    This is how I would handle the situation. It will surely inflame the asshole and hopefully his lawyer will have a clue before they enter it into court. Imagine the fun publicity the case will generate in the media.

  49. Re:If you don't mind me asking... by shepd · · Score: 2

    >I'll take a modern PIM/E-mail client, thanks.

    Exactly. That's why I use Pine. Addressbooks, mail folders, automatic forwarding, connection to usenet, opening applications to view attachments (only when I want it to), ability to choose any editor I like, configurability to the extreme, simplicity to connect to any standard type of mail server, price, footprint, speed, ease of use, overall stability, simplicity to backup your mail and address book, safe defaults, ease of use, awesome help system, use of internet standard mail (ie: No HTML), platform invisibility, being able to use it over telnet/ssh/whatever-you-like, the list goes on and on for the reasons you should switch to Pine immediately.

    Best email client ever. Outlook Express only wishes it could do half of what Pine already has covered.

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  50. Wrong Question by sunset · · Score: 3
    Knowing when you need a lawyer is not nearly as important as knowing a lawyer who is both competent and trustworthy.

    In my experience there are way too many crooks in the legal profession. They will try to scare you into believing that you need expensive services, and then bill you for useless work.

    One good resource I've found is the Martindale site. This will help you to find a lawyer in the appropriate field, and may even tell you how highly they are regarded by their peers, both in terms of competence and ethics.

  51. Re:This sounds like BS to me by NMerriam · · Score: 2

    I'm unsure about US law, but in the United Kingdom, you have to have a good reason to accuse someone of something, and to have them tried in a court of law.

    Two different things -- in the USA you can sue anyone for anything (I could sue my neighbor for wearing an ugly dress if I wanted to). But it will never get to court.

    For that matter, is it a criminal offence to wrongly accuse someone in the US?

    depends -- if you say someone is a muderer, you could be charged with making false statements to the police (or perjury if in court), but 99% of the time the real risk is that you'll be sued for libel/slander or frivilous lawsuit.

    So yes, you can sue for anything, but you can also get sued back if your lawsuit was a pointless waste of time (which is what would happen in a case like this where the facts are easy to discover and the CEO is basically just an idiot).

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  52. Beware the bluff... by Davorama · · Score: 2

    Of course, he's got more money and lawyers than I do
    This is a bit orthagonal to your question but not all CEO's have allot of money. I've worked for my share of very small companies where neither the owner, company, or CEO had enough assets on hand to out lawyer your average "decent living" individual.
    --

    Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.

  53. Don't do that, but do something similar. by gnovos · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would caution against using the President's address, because we all know what a great sense of humor the Secret Service has, right? Instead, send him an email "from" himself. Something like "Hi me, If you will notice the 'from' address, this email is being sent from you to you. Since it is impossible to forge headers in your mind, this must have been written by you while you were sleepwalking. Basically I'm your subconcious telling you to drop the case."

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    1. Re:Don't do that, but do something similar. by Professor2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      DON'T use the president's address.

      A few months ago I was playing around on the sendmail port, sending messages from god@heaven.net and devil@hell.com to my coworkers sitting beside me. All the messages I sent went thru instantaneously - we all used the same mail server. Just for kicks, I decided to send one from president@whitehouse.gov.

      It took four hours to deliver. The message did not have to leave our local network. Just like the others I sent.

      I was a touch spooked out when I sent my 'presidential email' and it did not arrive when it was supposed to. I sent my God/Devil messages and they still went thru instantly, but my presidetial message was out in limbo....I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I would like a better technical explanation other than "Echlon".

  54. Why a lawyer? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2

    If you are at all technically oriented, you should ask the CEO if you can be given a chance to prove to him that it was not you. If you are given the opportunity to give him a presentation explaining the Klez worm and how it spreads you could maybe persude him that he's incorrecy. Noone should be fired for a virus sneaking in because it's easy for it to happen. Unless it happens again and again, I don't think anyone should be punished for it. That said, where are YOUR superiors? Your superiors should also stand up for you. If you don't have their trust enough for that to happen, well, I don't know what to tell you. If I was the laweyer in this, I would research it if I did not know anything about it. Within ten minutes of doing a google search, this CEO could be proven wrong. It would surprise me very much if a company lawyer would even consider this case. Although, stranger things have happened.

    --

    Gorkman

  55. Whatever you do, make sure you file a reply by hsitz · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am a lawyer. If you've actually been served with a complaint and have no prior experience with this stuff, I'd advise you to contact a lawyer.

    You have a fixed amount of time to file a formal 'Reply' to the complaint you were served with. If you fail to file a Reply within the time limit, a 'default judgment' can be filed against you, basically finding you liable for all the causes of action stated in the complaint. (While 'default judgments' can sometimes be set aside if you appear later and give a good excuse for not having filed a reply, you definitely don't want to have that happen.)

    So, first thing, is definitely make sure that you file a Reply within the time limit. The only reason for not doing that would be if you can get the plaintiff to drop the case before then, but even then you're going to have to make sure that they file a dismissal of their case within the time period.

    I'd get a lawyer, if I were you. But before doing that, I would give the CEO's lawyer a quick phone call. His or her name and number will be on the Complaint that you were served with. Explain that virus emails almost always have forged emails, and give him some reference to a site on the web or a book that documents that so he or she can look it up. The CEO's lawyer is likely to be more rational about this than the CEO, who may be emotionally upset by the virus attack and looking for someone to blame. If the only evidence thay have against you is the forged email address in the from: line -- and if you can convince the CEO's lawyer that those lines are always forged -- then the CEO's lawyer should recommend to the CEO that the case against you be dropped (probably "dismissed with prejudice" so that it can be refiled in the future if they discover more evidence against you).

    In talking to the CEO's lawyer, I wouldn't be very forthcoming with information, if he or she starts asking you lots of questions. The main thing would be to just explain to them that virus emails typically have forged headers, and to point him to some authority to back that up. Also, don't lose your cool. Keep things on a calm and rational level. If the lawyer turns out to be an asshole, you may not make any progress with this step. But still avoid using your cool. You don't want people to get emotionally involved in this thing. Lawyers aren't supposed to get emotionally involved, but some will, so look out and don't let that happen. You don't want to make anybody on the other side mad; it could lead to them doing irrational things (prosecuting a crappy case) and causing you even more trouble.

    If you do contact the CEO's lawyer and aren't successful in persuading him or her to get the case dismissed, then you should hire a lawyer to take over and file your Reply. You won't want to wait until the last minute for this; contact a lawyer at least two or three weeks before the Reply is due, if not sooner. Your lawyer could prepare and file your reply, and take over in trying to convince the other side to dismiss the case without going further, after you explain the virus-email-forging thing to him or her.

    I should include the usual CYA stuff that lawyers have to do when they say stuff like this in a public forum: the above doesn't constitute legal advice. But it is what I would do if I'd been served with a complaint like that and I didn't know anything about maneuvering within the legal system.

  56. Re:If you don't mind me asking... by cscx · · Score: 2

    Hi,

    Did you miss the whole "PIM" part? Pine can't hold my calendar and sync with my palm, and itegrate all that with my e-mail. Want to store an email on my Palm for later viewing? Drag, drop, hit the button on the hotsync cradle and that's it.

    You Unix people amuse me.

  57. Statutory damages by yerricde · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also, in the case of works with no real commercial value (most e-mail qualifies), you can be successfully sued, but it's very unlikely that you can be sued for monetary damages.

    Under United States copyright law, even if the actual damages are less than $20 (lower limit for a jury trial), the plaintiff can pursue statutory damages, which can be as high as $150,000.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Statutory damages by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only if the work was registered at the time of the infringement.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Statutory damages by dhogaza · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Infringement of an unregistered copyright only gets you actual damages if you sue and win. If the copyright is registered, there's the possibility of 3x punitive damanages and the recovery of legal expenses, though this is by no means guaranteed, course.

  58. I did this once by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2
    Seriously, I was in a very similar situation once, but I handled without consulting a lawyer, or /. ;-)

    Interestingly, and ironically IMO, I was accused of something like this by some guy at NASA! No wonder they can't get to the moon with less than $100b(or whatever is cost...)!

    Actually, he wasn't so bad. I emailed him back and explained it wasn't me(forged mail address, pulled from my company's website...) and he was technically minded enough to figure out I was being honest.

    But some advice, don't do like I did and insult their intelligence; I still feel bad about that. He overlooked that and apologized anyway though.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  59. This reminds me of a saying: by CrazyDuke · · Score: 2

    "More dollars than sence"
    ...and the scary part is these are the guys not only in charge of major corporations, but also have major influence in the US government. Forget "bless!" God save America!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  60. Get a lawyer when... by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You want advice about what to do, and doing your own legal research is either too time-consuming, or this is a critical issue. IANAL, but I do my own legal research. I have found that lawyers, like the rest of us, are not perfect, so trying to understand the basic legal framework is not a bad idea.

    In this case, if it is a Klez virus, the documentation is around about the forged from fields. I would think that it is probably a good idea to keep a diary at this point, and if you want a legal consultation, and want to pay for it, go ahead, but it is probably more important to get the documentation together and document every encounter you have with him.

    Also bear in mind that the perspective you get from a lawyer will revolve around a "play-it-safe" mentality, and so the extent that is what you are looking for, legal consultations could be helpful.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  61. Strike back by macdaddy · · Score: 4, Funny

    IANAL but it occurs to me that if the CEO thinks that an email From: is accurate enough for the basis of a lawsuit, write up a nice death threat using racial and sexist remarks, address it to yourself, and make the From: be the CEO's. Now either file a counter-suit with that as the basis for your case or at least confront the CEO with the evidence in hand. The look on his face should at least be priceless. :-) If the CEO can do it, why can't you?

    1. Re:Strike back by Banjonardo · · Score: 2

      Because it's identity fraud?

      --

      -----

      Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

  62. I think you should post his Name and email address by jjonte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Post his name and email address here on Slashdot. Let us know his company name too. Before he knows it he'll be getting email from the President, Bill Gates, Abraham Lincoln...lets see him try to sue Bill Gates...wonder who would win that one.

  63. Re:If you don't mind me asking... by cscx · · Score: 2

    Out of curiosity, can your e-mail client do automatic spam filtering, and public key encryption?

    Of course! :)

  64. Type A personalities by shdragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First things first. Stay home one afternoon, write down some of those number of the TV lawyers. Why? Most of them have free consultation. Tell them your story and see what happens...now, onto the non-redundant part. ;)

    Are you absolutely sure that the CEO did all of these things? I used to work at a company where the CEO was probably the *BIGGEST* asshole. Harassing, egotistical, narcissistic, self-righteous and most importantly a VERY big bullshitter. He would threaten and claim to have done or to do XYZ (i.e., fire people, etc) only to find out later that it never happened.

    From your story, it appears (imo) that your boss is the same sort of person. If so, take a sigh of relief and then ask yourself if you really want to work for someone like that. Now, you will probably do 1 of 2 things. Either milk this for everything it's worth or shrug it off. I tolerated being with that company for longer than I should have. Eventually I changed industries while initially having to take less $$, I'm much happier with the people work with.

    side note - what state is this in? I believe that we could all probably give more directed advice knowing this. :)

    --
    "...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
  65. Uh, by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Funny
    When a party, such as but not limited to a natural person, corporation, nonprofit organization, group of conspirators or any other party, creates a situation in which legal action is occurring or may occur, including but not limited to lawsuits, legal action, legal threats or any other action, and such action affects through means including but not limited to means direct and/or indirect, you or your interests, including but not limited to yourself, your papers and/or effects or any other asset belonging to yourself, it is time to obtain a lawyer.

    I hope this helps.

  66. Email header admissible at all? by fishbowl · · Score: 2

    Is the email header even admissible in court in your state? If "CEO" has no evidence that a judge will consider, you'll never even have a hearing.

    There are two motivations here. One is the defense against the false accusation. Have the FBI acted on the complaint? If so, then it is both a civil AND a criminal matter.

    The second motivation is if the poster would enjoy seeing "CEO" lose his business, pay a whopping huge settlement to the poster (to avoid paying an even more whopping huge fine to the State), or go to jail. For this, you'd need a strong slander and or libel case.

    None of this is going to happen though. The first round of correspondents between lawyers will either end it, or escalate it to the point where it becomes interesting enough for e.g., the EFF to get a precedent.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:Email header admissible at all? by nexex · · Score: 2
      why go for a libel or slander case...


      just counter-sue for lawyer fees and emotional damage.

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
  67. I Have a Form Letter... by youbiquitous · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've gotten sick of replying to people who think I've sent them a worm. I've drafted the following and use it as a quick copy-paste solution to this annoyance.

    Note that I use the term virus in my form letter as most if not all of these people don't know the difference between a virus and a worm.

    ---------

    Did you receive a virus-infected email which appeared to have come from me? If so, the return address of the email you received was spoofed (meaning the email didn't really come from me).

    One of the "features" of many of these viruses is that they use fake reply-to information so you can't easily figure out who has sent you a virus-infected email.

    I assure you that none of my computers are infected with anything. I haven't sent you any viruses. These types of viruses are spread by certain email clients running on Windows computers. I use neither Windows computers nor the email clients which are susceptible to such skullduggery.

    If you did receive an email with a virus attached which appeared to come from me I suggest you inspect the long (full) header of the email to find out who really sent it to you. If you have a technical support department please contact one of your support people and have them explain the difference between short headers and long headers.

    ---------

    --
    "Clean up the air and treat the animals fair" - Captain Beefheart
  68. Here's a better idea! by leonbev · · Score: 2

    Just send this moron a few links like these, and he'll probably just apolgize and go away:

    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,5217 4, 00.html

    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,5205 5, 00.html

    If he doesn't, go ahead and let him bitch to the FBI. When THEY are done yelling at him for wasting their time, he should leave you alone.

    I would only get a lawyer if the guy was really stupid enough to open a civil suit against you. When that happens, make sure to counter-sue for your legal expenses.

  69. Re:now ! by xtremex · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been taking Aikido for 10 years, I should tell my instructor it's called Aidido! :)

    --
    If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
  70. Quite possibly a huge mistake by werdna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd have to dissent from this view. Speaking to opposing counsel without representation can be very dangerous. Everything you say will be used against you, and admissions of a party are admissible even as hearsay testimony. While I agree entirely that early communications are a great idea -- and amicable resolution is the best result possible in these scenarios -- to do so without your own lawyer may be very risky.

  71. It cuts both ways . . . by werdna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where a losing side pays a winner's expenses, it makes it difficult for poor folk to get competent counsel when they are plaintiffs. The contingency fee, with all its serious problems, is in fact, the only way many people of even moderate means can get justice. Without the contingency fee, only rich folks tend to be able to be plaintiffs.

  72. If you have to ask.... by jsimon12 · · Score: 2

    If you have to ask, then you probably need one. I would at least consult one in this case.

  73. Really? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2

    "I recently had the misfortune to encounter a CEO who had just received the Klez virus. Apparently, he believed the 'From:' header and accused me of not only authoring the virus, but deliberately and maliciously targeting him and his organization.

    Really?? What's his e-mail address?

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  74. Re:no way, am I gonna answer that question! - OT by Gabey · · Score: 3, Funny

    Re: your sig...my favorite GW quote of recent times is:

    "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." --George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair

    (from Bushisms: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms .htm)

  75. Re:Expensive lesson... by shaldannon · · Score: 2

    Ever consider maybe he doesn't use Outlook? These viruses will go through someone's address book, meaning it most likely came through someone else who uses Outlook, maybe even someone he doesn't know. Now the sue-happy CEO on the other hand....

    --


    What is your Slash Rating?
  76. Re:Call the FBI yourself. by shaldannon · · Score: 2

    Depends on if he works for a company that used to be audited by Arthur Anderson :)

    --


    What is your Slash Rating?
  77. newspapers are NOT your friend. by bani · · Score: 2

    with newspapers, it's all about money. if they think they might risk losing even a penny by running your story, they won't.

    if they feel there's a buck in it for them to twist your story around and make YOU look like the bad guy, they will.

    your best option is to NOT approach the newspapers unless you have a rock solid case and a lawyer to back it up. but then they probably won't cover your story, it conflicts with their potential advertising revenue sources.

    ever notice that newspapers rarely, if ever, do negative stories on local companies?

    now you know why.

    1. Re:newspapers are NOT your friend. by Tassach · · Score: 2
      if they think they might risk losing even a penny by running your story, they won't
      Not true. To (greatly) simplifiy it, they will look at it and say if we run this story we will sell $x worth of papers, but we could get sued for $y. As long as $x > $y, it's in their interest to run the story.

      Besides, getting sued isn't necessarily a bad thing -- it gets the paper more publicity, and as the old saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity. The value of that publicity can outweigh the cost of the lawsuit. Printing "dangerous" stories also gives the paper a reputation for journalistic integrity.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    2. Re:newspapers are NOT your friend. by bani · · Score: 2

      no, if they think they might lose or jeopardize a potential source of advertising revenue, they will NOT run the story.

      this includes political parties, BTW.

      newspapers rarely worry about that since there is so much precedent law protecting the press (otherwise, every tabloid would have been sued into bankruptcy ages ago).

      nespaper primary concerns are advertising revenue and circulation revenue. anything that puts either at even the tiniest risk will result in complete and utter censorship.

  78. Don't need lawyer for this BS by dh003i · · Score: 2

    This one's a no-brainer. All you have to do is show how easy it is to fake a To: field or spoof an IP address. Any information about the sender that can be gleamed from the IP address or To: field is so unreliable it won't hold up in any court of law.

    As for what someone else mentioned, yes, any correespondence do belong to the original author. However, if you post them on-line verbatum, the worst that can be done if you post them online (assuming they have no commercial value, as is the case), is that a court may force you to take them down. Thus, you should post a verbatum copy of the correspondence to as well as a posting in your words of what they said. This strengthens your position in court, because you can say that you posted the copy verbatum to prove that you weren't lying. In any case, they can't force you to take down your posting in your own words.

    Regarding that, you should always tell people that in corresponding with you, they give you the right to distribute and modify the correspondence, with modifications noted. Such a notification should be on your e-mails, on your web-pages, on your answering machine, on any letters you send; you should say it when you pick up the phone.

    As a side-note, Alysabeth's Feminist Stripper site had such a disclaimer for her e-mail, as she'd get a lot of jerks e-maling her, and would want to post their e-mails online so her readers could get a laugh.

  79. In defence of Finland by NickB2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Skadet wrote:

    "Finland: A files suit against B. A is richer than B, and drowns them in legal fees so they'll settle/lose/whatever. B loses and pays A + B's legal expenses. "

    For one thing I doubt the strategy of drowning people in legal fees works in Finland -- US Courts are known for enforcing the letter of the law. A lengthy, expensive, legalistic argument over the interpretation of the 4th word of Section IIX, Subsection II, Clause 3, of a contract won't fly in most other systems because it won't matter. The Courts will try to figure out the spirit of the agreement rather then the letter.
    Long legalistic arguments are what tend to make US Litigation so damned expensive. After all you need a team of lawyers (at $300 per hour per lawyer) to even understand what the other side is saying in such an argument.
    The only other method to force someone to pay his lawyer is to constantly make motions. Even under US Law, making motions for motions sake is frowned upon. Because American Courts tend to focus on the letter of the law they tend to look at motions individually -- if there's a sensible reason for a motion to have been made they'll tend to let it slide. In other countrys the Courts would typically say "Fuck you" much more quickly.

    Also, if you settle you haven't technically lost. Therefore you wouldn't be made responsible for legal fees.

    Werdna wrote:

    "Where a losing side pays a winner's expenses, it makes it difficult for poor folk to get competent counsel when they are plaintiffs. The contingency fee, with all its serious problems, is in fact, the only way many people of even moderate means can get justice. Without the contingency fee, only rich folks tend to be able to be plaintiffs"

    You could implement a contingency fee with this system. Just add it to the penalty -- ie: a 33% Contingency raises a $1 million judgement to $1,333,333.

  80. Re:no way, am I gonna answer that question! - OT by Banjonardo · · Score: 2
    --

    -----

    Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

  81. It's likely not his fault by IndependentVik · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Because this worm does use a randomly chosen address that it finds on an infected computer as the "From:" address, numerous cases have been reported in which users of uninfected computers receive complaints that they have sent an infected message to someone else. For example, Linda Anderson is using a computer that is infected with W32.Klez.E@mm; Linda is not using a antivirus program or does not have current virus definitions. When W32.Klez.E@mm performs its emailing routine, it finds the email address of Harold Logan. It inserts Harold's email address into the "From:" line of an infected email that it then sends to Janet Bishop. Janet then contacts Harold and complains that he sent her infected email, but when Harold scans his computer, Norton AntiVirus does not find anything--as would be expected--because his computer is not infected."

    source

    --
    I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
  82. You may not need a lawyer yet by zubaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I had a similar situation happen to me earlier this year. A women whom owned her own furniture business had e-mailed me in late August when I had got back to college. She made a claim that I had sent her an e-mail containing an attachment with a virus (Klez, I believe) from my college acct. Wondering if it may have been true or not (moreso the latter) I did a full virus scan on my hard drives, to no avail. I then proceeded to e-mail the women back regarding that matter, and KINDLY explained to her the situation, and some non-technical information about how e-mail address can be forged by the virus (and in general). I then sent her a link about the Klez virus from Symantec's website. Needless to say, I received an e-mail the next day with her >thanking me for explaining the situation to her. So just give a shot and try to explain matters to the CEO. It may save you time and a headache in the process ;O).

  83. Re:If you don't mind me asking... by jgerman · · Score: 2

    Yes, you can, the fact that you don't know how perform those functions in a Unix environment is not proof that it doesn't exist. That's why you Windows people amuse me, your ignorance. Personally, I don't care what OS you use, as long as the work you need to send to me is platform independent, which is usually not the case with Windows users. So it's usually the more knowledgeable "Unix people" who have to take up the slack by doing the file conversions ect.

    --
    I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
  84. Re:If you don't mind me asking... by cscx · · Score: 2

    We're talking about Pine, not Ximian Evolution... please understand the context of the conversation before going off like a lit match.

  85. You know you need a lawyer when... by Misch · · Score: 2

    You utter the words "$cientology" and "OT III" in the same sentence.

    --

    --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  86. Rules of thumb by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Informative
    If he says "I'm going to take you to court" or something similar...
    1. Stop talking to him.
    2. Give him your mailing address and demand that all further communications (especially those of the "I'm going to sue you" variety) be done in writing (no, e-mail doesn't count). Certified mail is preferable in this case.
    3. If he DOES mail you something, make sure you put it somewhere safe. It may come in handy later.
    4. While you really don't need a lawyer until you see a piece of paper that says "I'm going to sue you" bearing his signature, they are handy to have around to make sure you don't write something you shouldn't in a letter to him. If you must write him a letter, at the very least make sure to read, re-read, and re-re-read what you wrote before you mail it. Avoid things like personal attacks, admitting any wrong-doing and phrases that can be read as "I'm going to sue you."
    Generally speaking, as soon as he says "I'm going to sue you," say nothing to him other than giving him your mailing address. Whether or not you need a lawyer depends on his follow-through and if he actually puts "I'm going to sue you" on paper.

    Beyond that, if you end up needing a lawyer, I hear that talking to the local bar association is handy. You're supposed to tell them how you need a lawyer and they can reccomend those that specialize in that department.

  87. Hey, that's a good idea! by Snafoo · · Score: 2

    Hmm. Now I'm tempted to author a klez-like virus and send it to, oh, I don't know, carly@hp.com, billg@microsoft.com, ashcroft@hotmail.mil. Then, when they get angry, I can claim in(gnorance|nocence).

    --
    - undoware.ca
  88. Some advice... by Max+Nugget · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IANAL, but my father is, and one thing I frequently see him doing is research to find past cases similar to the one he's handling.

    For situations that are relatively unique (such as this one), often you can find a similar case that helps validate your position. There are a few big legal research sites (like lexisnexis.com, etc.), though I don't know if there are any that you can use without paying for them. (I also am not too familiar with the amount of legal knowledge necessary to make productive use of these sites).

    This may or may not be useful to do right now, but I'd imagine if you end up being sued, precedent-establishing cases from the past can be very useful and perhaps persuasive.

    The suggestion made by others to send the CEO a letter *politely* explaining the circumstances seems like a good idea. The suggestion about sending the CEO a forged e-mail to prove the unreliability of the "from:" header is, in my opinion (IANAL), not something you should do. It's a clever idea and may prove your point, but you might be opening up an even bigger can of worms if you do that. While it's obviously not all that malicious, the CEO might equate such an approach to proving that a computer's security system is inadequate by breaking into it. Even if you break in "just to show that the system is insecure" and don't do anything malicious, you're still going to anger people (especially if you can't prove that you didn't do anything malicious). If you do happen to do this, be as tactful and un-assuming as possible in the actual message. I think there is a certain degree of automatic offensiveness to this tactic (from the CEO's viewpoint), though, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea. Also, of course, remember that whatever you send them might be used against you later on.

    One more suggestion I think is worth mentioning is that you should try to obtain a copy of the e-mail message (or at least the header) if you don't already have it. I don't know whethr this would be easy or difficult to accomplish, but this would be good to have.

  89. Have you ever wondered by jsse · · Score: 2

    what's the odd that someone else using exactly YOUR email address to spread virus? Is that someone you know?

    Report to FBI after you've received the legal letter from that CEO because in this case you've legitimate ground for seeking feds help($5000 in total lost iirc).

    If they could find this bastard(very likely) you could proceed to sue him/her for covering any legal expenses incurred by CEO's lawsuit, plus expenses need to cure your severe case of depression. :)

    You are the victim ONLY when you chose to be one.

  90. Get a Mediator! by jbayes · · Score: 2, Informative

    In a case like this, where you know it's just a big misunderstanding and all you want is to make it go away, why not talk to a mediator? Mediators are trained to help disputants work out their problems outside of court. And in the event that it does later end up in court, nothing you say during a confidential mediation can be used as evidence in court.

    Often you can get mediation services for free; for example, the Los Angeles City Attourney's office provides free mediators for any dispute in which at least one party lives in LA county. Try a google search; you may be able to find one that will handle your case.

    --

    "It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape." -- Wil Wheaton

  91. Does the CEO owe you money? by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 2

    If the company in question has outstanding balances, I'd say your being shaken down.

    The CEO isn't a CEO your worried about cause he's some random lucky guy who wound up as CEO one day. This guy is only thinking about his company, which, like most companies is having a less than spectacular year. The big fish will shake down the small fish if they can. I've had it happen a couple of times, they don't want to lose their ass, so they come up with BS reasons they aren't satisfied with your work and then shake you down on the invoice.

    It's always something that would be difficult to contest, the more subtle, the better. This guy prolly would rather pay his lawyer a couple of hours (or has retainer hours to use up this quarter) in order to get you to come to an 'agreement' quietly over this 'delicate' matter, especially since he's questioning your professional integrity.

    Make a business decision, figure out what's the best thing for your time and money. Talk to a lawyer to find out the odds and figure out how not to lose too much.

    It sucks, but it's part of working for yourself. If you don't like it, hire a CEO of your own to handle these things. This is part of how they create their value for their company. Don't assume you can just work for honest clients either, too many sleezebags like this out there, it's best to make sure you can bill these expenses into your rate, and find someone who can deal with this waste of time for you.

    Sorry to hear about it, and good luck.

    --
    Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
  92. Re:now ! by God!+Awful · · Score: 2, Informative


    Do not even *think* of speaking to the other lawyer without representation. They are the masters of spin and they will take anything you say and turn it against you.

    That's fine in general, but in this specific situation what can you possibly say to him that can be used against you? If all it takes to clear this up is a phone call and a link to www.mcafee.com, how can you pass that up?

    -a

  93. You don't need a lawyer... by brooks_talley · · Score: 2

    ...you need a gun. Do your part to help evolution.

    So maybe I'm a bit misanthropic.

    -b

  94. Re:If you have to ask...get a retainer agreement by morpheus+2001 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you can afford it, find a competent attorney and sign a retainer aggreement. They come in several types. The most probable type you would want is one where you could pay for a specified amount of legal services up front, for those "Is this something that I should be worried about?" calls. You pay the lawyer up front and they answer the phone whenever you call, they don't need to be worried about getting paid because they already have been. Sometimes you can have as part of this aggreement that you will be refunded a portion of the unused ratainer.

    Another type of retainer is the type where you pay a fee for the attorney to always be available for you, then you pay a reduced hourly fee for their services on top of the retainer.

    I am sure there are other types of retainer and/or prepaid arrangements out there that could add piece of mind. Call your local bar association to find out, the larger bar associations usually pretty good educational and referral services.

  95. You're the problem. by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    This has to be the first case of I've heard of where an employer has accused the employee of an already known virus. Hell, I was cleaning this crap out of users computers for quite a while myself. While I could easily believe this guy is clueless, I also can also make an educated guess that this guy is pissed off at you on a personal level. What'd you do? Shit in his Wheaties? All you have to do is hit the Norton Anti-Virus Homepage for Klez. Of course, this isn't going to stop him from pursecuting you for the real and/or imagined wrong that led up to this (he'll find other shit to throw at you in otherwords), but unless he can prove you're the origin of the epicenter of the worlds entire Klez infection, he's another one of those Mofo's trying to skate uphill.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  96. Steps to Safety by jthomasson · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wow, several hundred posts on this. I may repeat something someone has already said (I lack the time to read all 400 predecessors). Apologies if I do.

    Good advice for anyone who appreciates or fears an imminent legal attack is to not only save all correspondence (like someone above did mention) but to also create a log of all relevant incidents. Times and dates are key. Treat your log like a journal - it will prove indispensable should anything occur.

    As for when you should get a lawyer, that depends really on what you hope to accomplish. If you simply want to fend off any attacks, I'd say wait until you get a letter from the CEO's lawyer, or you're served with something, or the CEO wants to meet with you. Until that point, a log and a record of correspondence will protect you fine. However, if you want (or need) to take a more aggressive defense position (for example if your reputation is at stake and his mere accusation is damaging), then you can get one right now and threaten an "abuse of process" claim or a defamation claim. Threatening someone with a lawsuit without grounds can give you a cause of action in certain situations. Abuse of process can be used either as a preemptive strike or as an effective counterattack.

    As for posting stuff online, I'd recommend against it, as it won't accomplish anything constructive and you may end up shooting yourself in the foot (for example, if you accidently post something sensitive that would otherwise be covered by attorney-client privilege, posting it will dissolve that privilege).

    I'm sure this is too much information, but we lawyers are prone to talk more than we really need to.

    J. Thomasson

  97. are CEOs really that stupid? by Artifex · · Score: 2

    Wow. I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone else do what I would do, because I'm not a lawyer, but I'd tell the CEO simply that I didn't do it, that Klez is a common virus, point him at some virus sites, and then say "bring it on" if he wasn't convinced. Then, if he did try to sue me, I'd alert all my friends here at Slashdot about the CEO, by name, and embarrass him and his company for having such an idiot CEO until I got a public apology plus any damages if I got arrested or my boxes confiscated, etc. With any luck, his shareholders will lose confidence in him and hit him in the pocketbook by driving the stock price down.

    If CEOs are really that stupid, then I can almost believe the idea that most of the recent accounting scandals are the CFOs' fault. Maybe it's like the role of Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Texas. The Lieutenant Governor wields all the real power politically, while the Governor sometimes gets to become U.S. President...

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
  98. defamation by Erris · · Score: 2
    (c) you or your property are seriously injured and you NEED compensation to compensate for some significant loss

    I'd say this fellow was slandered and lost some serious face. It's hard to keep people with nicknames like "Dr. Harm" from getting bad reputations but we might imagine there's one company he won't do work for ever again.

    Evil new laws make the FBI notice damaging. As the federal government has helped itself to wiretaping and other searches without warrent, we can expect Dr Harm to recieve some painful attention. Half the reason the fourth ammendment requires publicaly stated reasons for search and siezure is the harm such searches do. The other half is to preserve personal dignity. Dr. Harm just lost a little dignity and computer usage. They will be watching and some clerk will be reading Dr. Harm's email. Creepy.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  99. Lawyers, CEO's and Psychopaths. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The INSTANT lawyers get involved, everybody loses.

    Best solution:

    Go talk to the fellow and clear up the misunderstanding. It'll save time, money and heartache. If your CEO is human, then I'm sure you can work it out without unpleasantness.

    However, if the fellow happens to be one of those psychopathic CEOs which seem to be popping up everywhere these days, and whom through some sort of mental disorder and total lack of compassion decides he just wants to make you miserable, then it's okay to use a crow bar on his skull. (I certainly wouldn't tell).

    If the crowbar solution is too un-nerving for you, (which I can understand), then it's best to get tactical; Let buddy know up front that he's made an error, show him the stats on how the virus works and that anybody with a software degree could prove it to a court. He'll understand. Subtly raise fears that when he is proven to be mistaken he'll look like a moron in front of everybody, the company will lose stock value, and he will probably lose his position due to a failure in confidence from shareholders and board members.

    Psychopaths can be manipulated just like anybody else, it's just that their buttons are hidden in weird positions. Psychos can lie better than anybody, and they have no sense of shame, so if they are proven wrong, they don't feel stupid. This means that they can tell huge lies without sweating a bit because they fear nothing if it goes wrong. However, psychopaths DO have massive concerns about being walked away from. They are very, very posessive; to reject them when they have decided to control you is the worst torture you can inflict on a psycho. This is often the point where they will start using crowbars. And they don't get squeamish!

    So then buddy, (if he really is a loonytoon), will smell the prospect of his company ditching him and he'll get very worried. Then all you do is offer him an out; tell him that it's very easy to be fooled by such a virus, that 'hackers' specifically design their viruses to get past the very greatest of minds, (who don't have time for all that nerdy software niggling which great minds like Buddy's don't have time to bother with), and that it is in fact, you who has been made a victim. He won't care about your welfare, of course, but if you can suggest ever so subtly that he can win points with you and everybody by hurling his anger at the real criminal, then you're in the clear.

    That might be how I'd handle it, depending on the details, anyway.


    -Fantastic Lad

  100. Blow him off.... by Oliver+Wendell+Holme · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IMAL, and I don't see a lot to sweat here. All I see is a blowhard who's upset that the world isn't perfect. He even knew it wasn't much of a case when he threatened both criminal and civil actions: (which is a distinct no-no in many jurisdictions - it's considered to unfairly use the threat of criminal prosecution to influence civil litigation). Second, what are the level of his damages, i.e. what's he going to collect? lost time? nope, not here. An injunction to stop you from issuing more viruses? nope. his expenses? nope: that's one nice aspect of the 'American' system: the winner has to pay his own expenses. That places a distinct transaction cost on the plaintiff and stops a lot of small-dollar suits in its tracks. I hear a lot of "It's not the money, it's the principle of the matter," until they find out they have to pay something to defend their principles. As for the general question of when you need a lawyer, the first question in my mind is: are you planning on doing something e.g. talk, write, do, or are you planning to react to someone else? If you're the actor, then consult counsel before you act. If you're the reactor, then it's probably best is simply wait until they act. There's more, but it's hard to give a set of rules until we know the facts of the situation. As for this case, you needn't give it another thought until the blowhard actually gets off his duff and pays someone. And given the paucity of damages here, that someone will in all liklihood tell him to forget it.

  101. I would personally welcome being sued for this! by @madeus · · Score: 2

    While your advice is eminately sensible, I would have a differnet take on this situation...

    Now IANAL (nor related to one ;-) but this would make me see $$$ signs in front of my eyes, and get me thinking about counter suits.

    At the very least (and to be honest more relistically, few of us have the time or desire to persue counter suits for small sums of money) I would be utterly extatic that this vindictive and inept boob is about to spend hundreds, possibly thousands of dollars taking quite insane legal action against me for something it's entirely trivial to prove was not my fault.

    I think it would be safe to assume legal assitance is quite appropriate in this insitance (it's not as if court appointed lawyers/soliciters are incompotent) and more than sufficent to let you off the hook (it's not like they have to be Robert Shapiro). Assuming of course the origional poster hasn't been up to anything else he's not admitted to :-)

    It should be noted that fortunately I am in a position where I could afford to take a few days of work to take care of this, again a luxury many people can't afford! :)

  102. Here's your rule of thumb by Chelloveck · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you ever you wonder whether you might need a lawyer, you probably do.

    I'm serious. For most people, this is a seldom-to-never occurance. But when you're in doubt, just spend the $50 for a half-hour consultation and find out.

    ObAnecdote: I was recently fired for a really dumb reason. Was it legal? I didn't know. $50 and half an hour later I'd gotten a legal opinion that yes, it was a really dumb reason, but no, there was no legal recourse. Heck, it was worth the $50 just to keep from sitting up at night wondering, "Should I have sued those bastards?"

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  103. Re:no way, am I gonna answer that question! - OT by greenrd · · Score: 2
    Well of course. Of course Blair's spokesman would deny it was true. "Special relationship", y'know? That doesn't mean it wasn't true.

  104. This is the problem with geeks by hey! · · Score: 2

    Most people, if they saw a bottle labeled "nitroglycerine" in the middle of the sidewalk, would sensibly avoid it and perhaps somebody in authority so a compenetent bomb disposal technician could be dispatched.

    A geek would be attracted to it like a moth to a flame.

    The same goes for any kind of legal entanglement. It's not an opportunity to show off your social engineering hacking skills. Its something to avoid if you can, else hand to your lawyer.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  105. Re:If you don't mind me asking... by jgerman · · Score: 2

    Did I mention Evolution, no, do you know what you're talking about no. Is your intelligence level such that you need a point and grunt interface, I'm not sure, but I'd take that bet.

    --
    I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
  106. Please, tell me who this guy is... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2

    so I can short his company's stock!

    --
    Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.