Slashdot Mirror
Michigander Beats Spammer With "Junk Fax" Law
TastyWords writes "According to this link, it's possible to apply the 'junk fax law' to successfully sue a spammer in small claims court. For those who are stuck in states which either have worthless (or near-worthless) anti-spam legislation, this creative approach of the law presents a creative method of turning the table on those who choose to spam first and ask questions later. All of the details are available for enterprising anti-spammers!" Update: 02/25 00:30 GMT by T : OK, so it's Michigander, not Michiganian. Too long as a Texon, Marylandite and Tennesseenaut.
They didn't appeal, I got my check. They also sent out a contract thing they wanted me to sign as a disclaimer of responsibility and liability and all this nonsense. I talked to their attorney and he said it was standard. I said, "Not standard for me and I'm not signing it, I will be depositing your check however." He wasn't too happy about that, ... Iwonder what was in the disclamer?
Although I think laws such as the junk fax law are a step in the right direction, the problem I see with most spam is that the headers have been forged to the point of illegitimacy. Sure, if they include a link to a website, you could go after the person or people listed in the WHOIS record, but it would be easy for the administrative contact to claim that he or she didn't send the spam.
Sears is an easy target -- they probably sent semi-legitimate spam that included contact and/or removal information, as well as the Sears website. However, I doubt that $500 will steer Sears in the right direction regarding spam. For $500, it's easier for them to write a check than to pursue it in court. I'd guess they made several thousand dollars off the spam mail, and that the $500 was written off as a cost of doing business.
My point is, that between completely illegitimate spam that doesn't even have any real contact information, and companies that make a lot of money off of spam and who don't mind writing a $500 check every once in a while, this law won't be very effective.
I will continue to argue that spam is a technical problem and needs a technical solution to solve it. Ultimately, even if the big companies like Sears stop spamming, there will always be the spammers who send out 100 million penis enlargement spam mails with fake headers and fake return addresses that render the spam nearly impossible to trace. The illegitimate spam problem won't be solved by laws -- it will be solved by the intelligence of the Internet community. I'd rather see this solved by technical prowess than by laws that will only encourage spammers to fake their mail headers to avoid lawsuits.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Lex talionis is not, and never has been, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life". Lex talionis is a view towards law that treats justice as interchangeable with retribution. If someone puts out your eye, then go over and slaughter the sonufabitch--that's lex talionis in a nutshell. What the lex talionis codes did was codify this pre-existing principle and give it color of law.
On the other hand, Hebrew law has not been viewed as proscriptive, but rather prohibitive. Instead of saying "retribution is justice", the Hebrew scriptures actually put limits on the government's ability to authorize retribution--you were forbidden from exacting vengeance past the wrong done to you. If someone put out my eye, I wasn't allowed to put their entire family to the sword.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life" is, like much of the Old Testament, usually read with absolutely no clue about the context in which it was written. Look at the Code of Hammurabi, which is another legal code from roughly the same period in antiquity. The Code can be summed up as "if you transgress these laws in any way, you're going to get killed. Or if your transgression was really minor, just permanently maimed." That was a helluva system of laws, let me tell you. That's all it was: a system of laws. There was no concept of justice at that time, just pure, unadulterated law, and if you broke it, you died.
Then along come the Jews and their principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life"... and this system of laws was hailed as moral, merciful, and just. Why? Because it established limits on what the government could mete out for punishment.
So the next time you feel like condemning Hebrew law ("an eye for an eye") as a "morally bankrupt code", please consider the other options available at the time. And also consider that you're completely misunderstanding what the entire point of the Hebrew "an eye for an eye" instruction was and is.
It was, believe it or not, perhaps the first time in human history that someone put limits on the power of government and established that there were moral limits to governmental power. As such, it deserves our respect.
I was hoping to see a title like "Michiganian Beats Spammer With A Baseball Bat". THAT would have been more to my taste.
Follow your Euro bills at EBT
What I find most interesting about this is not the use of the junk fax law, but that Mark was able to sue Sears about it. This is something I've been wondering lately anyway: even if it might be next to impossible to track down the sender of a spam email, could you not still hold the company whose products are being advertised responsible for the spam?
IANAL, but I don't find it a fair stretch to say that, possibly even in a legal sense, the spammer was respresenting the company. The same can extrapolated to cover owners of websites, etc. -- any person, company or service that is the subject of the spam.
I was doubtful of this until now -- it seems like Mark pulled it off!
So then, why we don't stop trying to stop spammers, and go after the source? By attacking those that fund the spammers the spammers will still go down, and the targets are easier to find.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
Amazing, he did the right thing. He modified his computer until it fell under the fax machine law. He uses a modem to connect over telephone lines (not cable, not dsl). He prints his email to paper, and he has fax software installed to send scanned paper documents to other fax machines. So his equipment can be considered a fax machine.
We saw a similar thing recently, with Lexmark. Everybody can produce a plastic box that fits into Lexmark printers, and nothing can stop them from doing so. Except Lexmark & the DMCA - Lexmark found that they have to mix the plastic box (which is not protected by law) with an intellectual property item (which is protected by copyright) and an access restriction (which is protected by DMCA). Glue all 3 things together, and voila. You've got a plastic box which can not be legally copied.
So, when the law works AGAINST us consumers so often, why shouldn't it work FOR us once or twice?