Spamhaus to Ignore $11.7M Judgement

6031769 writes, "As reported on CNet, Spamhaus is choosing to ignore a judgement of $11.7M against them in an uncontested trial in an Illinois court. According to Spamhaus, the judgement has no impact on them, since they are a British organization." From the Spamhaus reply to the judgment: "Default judgments obtained in US county, state or federal courts have no validity in the UK and can not be enforced under the British legal system... As spamming is illegal in the UK, an Illinois court ordering a British organization to stop blocking incoming Illinois spam in Britain goes contrary to UK law which orders all spammers to cease sending spam in the first place."

Comments

wow

[freakybob]

I love how you can just ignore a multimillion dollar judgement. It's their attitude that I find amusing - they really couldn't give a shit.

Re:wow

[mustafap]

>It's their attitude that I find amusing - they really couldn't give a shit.

It's your attitude that I find amusing - They are preventing an illegal acting being commited in our country. Why should they give a shit?

Re:wow

[LiquidCoooled]

I would agree with you if they didn't reach into America, but on their site they say the following:

The Spamhaus Block List

The SBL is a realtime database of IP addresses of verified spam sources (including spammers, spam gangs and spam support services), maintained by the Spamhaus Project team and supplied as a free service to help email administrators better manage incoming email streams.

The SBL is queriable in realtime by mail systems thoughout the Internet, allowing email administrators to identify or block incoming connections from IP addresses involved in the sending of Unsolicited Bulk Email.

The SBL database is updated 24/7 by a dedicated international Spamhaus team (US, UK, NL, IT, CA, JP, CN) and is broadcast by 32 SBL zone mirror servers based in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, UK and USA.

Google cannot ignore the laws of the land where their servers are based, if they want to operate in foreign countries they should follow local laws.

Re:wow

[theckhd]

They are preventing an illegal acting being commited in our country. Why should they give a shit?

Now let's pretend that the plaintiff in the case wasn't a spam company with a stupid name, but instead is a regular user who gets put on the list by mistake. From what I've read about Spamhaus, they tend to "not give a shit" in that sort of situation either, which is unfortunate. A good example why vigilante justice isn't always a good thing.

An even more interesting quandry: What if a large, well-recognized organization with deep pockets gets put on the list by mistake in the same fashion? Any bets as to how long it would take before they get removed?

Re:wow

[legoburner]

Google operate businesses in countries where they operate, so have to obey local laws as they can be punished. Services like spamhaus are not legally based in other countries so only have to obey their patron law.

Re:wow

[ledow]

Not a chance. Failing to reply to an incorrectly served, non-jurisdictional court order for a country that you don't operate in, by a Judge with no savvy at all and on a law that not only doesn't exist in the UK but which operates under the OPPOSITE principle (i.e. if you spam, that's illegal in itself)? They wouldn't even give it a second thought.

They'd probably use it AGAINST the people who were trying to sue Spamhaus - poor lawyering, scaremongering, trying to impose laws across international jurisdictions, playing judges off against one another etc.

Re:wow

[Fnkmaster]

Absolutely. There are cases in civil law where by *responding* in a certain way in a jurisdiction you actually are acknowledging the jurisdiction of that court.

My guess is their UK lawyer told them it was lower risk to just ignore the whole thing, default judgment and all, then to spend all the money on a US lawyer to contest the jurisdiction and run a chance that they could lose a real case.

Re:wow

[IPFreely]

So a spammer in the US is sending spam into the UK. It's illegal to spam there, so the US spammer is breaking UK law. Can the UK convict this spammer and bring them to justice? If the spammer ignored the conviction, would that be any different than Spamhaus?

Maybe spammers should also follow local laws in the foreign countries in which they spam^H^H^H^H^H operate.

Re:wow

[LiquidCoooled]

No because the spammer does not own property in the UK, spamhous do.
they run a mirror of their servers from within the US, therefore they should either remove their servers from the country or abide by the laws and regulations placed in that country.

Re:wow

[diersing]

An even more interesting quandry: What if a large, well-recognized organization with deep pockets gets put on the list by mistake in the same fashion? Any bets as to how long it would take before they get removed?

My last employer was one of the ten largest banks in the world. Our outbound SMTP servers where blacklisted by a "dedicated group of spam fighters" providing a blacklist service - SPEWS. I'm not sure how Spamhaus works, but I can tell you the SPEWS admins did not care much for our plight. They were chasing a particular spammer and to eliminate the problem they blocked a whole freaking subnet owned by MCI - we just happened to have our IPs in that subnet. I found that in this case, the blacklist admins were lazy (for blocking a whole subnet) and non-responsive (poor contact information is provided and pleas for removal where large ignored or flamed - following their procedure of posting in a forum to get removed). The whole process can be VERY frustrating.

Our saving grace was advising those email customers to drop SPEWS which 100% of them where willing to do.

As for this case, even though the "victim" is based in the US it really comes down to where the "crime" took place - on individual email servers using the Spamhaus BL around the world. I'm sure SH would argue in UK court that they offer a list, they don't enforce it and the onus lies on email administrators wherever they might be.

Re:wow

[devilspgd]

You're confusing SPEWS and Spamhaus... Spamhaus goes out of their way to avoid listing innocent bystanders.

SPEWS is different, it's not intended to be a list of spammers, SPEWS is a list of spam-friendly networks, more of a way of managing a boycott on the basis that if you're buying service from a spam friendly ISP, you're enabling the ISP to stay in business, and therefore indirectly enabling spammers to continue their operations. By design, this catches non-spamming entities in the crossfire, in an attempt to encourage them to find a less spam-friendly provider.

Re:wow

[speculatrix]

I had some direct experience of spamhaus when I worked for an ISP who once hosted them.

Unlike ORBS and SPEWS, they did care about their reputation, and were responsive as possible - given that they provided a free service and relied on volunteers.

I've heard from people who did get blacklisted that it wasn't too hard.

There's a fairly good chance that many slashdotters benefit indirectly from spamhaus, since most anti-spam systems use a weighting system to identify stuff as spam and will probably look up the sender of an email with spamhaus and use it as part of a "vote" to mark stuff as spam.

Re:wow

[devilspgd]

1) SpamAssassin != Spamhaus
2) So what? That's not SpamAssassin's problem, nor does it make them liable.

Re:wow

[Puchku]

Don't worry. A court has to have jurisdiction over you to actually affect you. There are various kinds of jurisdiction, like pecuniary (financial), writ, and territorial. The most common is territorial, where you are a citizen of, or otherwise resident in, a particular court's area of jurisdiction. This is followed by pecuniary jurisdiction, where you are engaged in some financial transaction with a person/company in the court's jurisdiction. The point is, if you have NO connection to the place where a lawsuit is filed, it can't affect you. Most courts will throw out the case anyway, and even if an ex-parte judgement is passed against you, it can't be enforced until the other party approaches a court which does have jurisdiction over you. And if this happens, all you have to do is plead that the original order is vexatious, since the court did not have jurisdiciton. So basically, you don't need to be afraid of suits being filed against you in far away places.. What you must NOT do is go there to say you are not there... This is often seen as you submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. Bottom line.. Ignore such stupid lawsuits completely, as long as you are sure that there is no element of jurisdiction, which is exactly what Spamhaus did.

Re:wow

[The Evil Couch]

RTFA, or the summary at least.

It's an Illinois STATE court. A state court can't impose their ruling on anyone that's not actually inside their state.

Re:wow

[Robber Baron]

DEAR SIR,

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL

HAVING CONSULTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE AMERICAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO REQUEST FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE TO TRANSFER THE SUM OF $11,700,000.00 (ELEVEN MILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS) INTO YOUR ACCOUNTS. THE ABOVE SUM RESULTED FROM A JUDGEMENT AGAINST THE SPAM BLOCKING SERVICE SPAMHAUS, AS DETERMINED BY AN ILLONOIS COURT. THIS ACTION WAS HOWEVER INTENTIONAL AND SINCE THEN THE FUND HAS BEEN IN A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AT THE CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND.

WE ARE NOW READY TO TRANSFER THE FUND OVERSEAS AND THAT IS WHERE YOU COME IN. IT IS IMPORTANT TO INFORM YOU THAT AS CIVIL SERVANTS, WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO OPERATE A FOREIGN ACCOUNT; THAT IS WHY WE REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE. THE TOTAL SUM WILL BE SHARED AS FOLLOWS: 70% FOR US, 25% FOR YOU AND 5% FOR LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER.

THE TRANSFER IS RISK FREE ON BOTH SIDES. I AM AN ACCOUNTANT WITH THE NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (NNPC). IF YOU FIND THIS PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE, WE SHALL REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:

(A) YOUR BANKER'S NAME, TELEPHONE, ACCOUNT AND FAX NUMBERS.

(B) YOUR PRIVATE TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS -- FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AND EASY COMMUNICATION.

(C) YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER STAMPED AND SIGNED.

ALTERNATIVELY WE WILL FURNISH YOU WITH THE TEXT OF WHAT TO TYPE INTO YOUR LETTER-HEADED PAPER, ALONG WITH A BREAKDOWN EXPLAINING, COMPREHENSIVELY WHAT WE REQUIRE OF YOU. THE BUSINESS WILL TAKE US THIRTY (30) WORKING DAYS TO ACCOMPLISH.

PLEASE REPLY URGENTLY.

BEST REGARDS

Re:wow

[tacocat]

And that is precisely why we are going to initiate a pre-emptive strike against the United Kingdom to prevent such behavior from getting out of control. Imagine the balls they must have to think for an instant that another sovereign nation can ignore anything the comes from the United States Rule of Law. I'm sure they have WMD's over there someplace.

They probably owe us War Restitutions from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 too.

And look what they did to our language. They talk so funny you can hardly understand a word they say.

They drive on the LEFT.

We have no choice but to vaporize their whole bitty little island in the name of Democracy!!!!

Re:wow

[ischorr]

I think another important question here is culpability. Under US (and Illinois) law would a *US-based* operation similar to Spamhaus actually have a legal problem here? Are they potentially doing anything wrong?

It seems to me this Spamhaus is acting in an advisory capacity only. People ask them who they feel aren't sending out "trustworthy" emails, and they attempt to provide advice. Couldn't they just as easily make the same "restriction of trade" argument against, say, consumer reports?

Or it's somewhat like a situation where someone owns an operation where they send cars up and down neighborhoods with megaphones attached, spouting out advertisements about their pharmaceuticals at low, low prices. Someone analyzes the megaphones and sends out information about how residents can add insulation to their houses to help block the noise, but let other sounds through. The advertiser sues the person providing the info for "restriction of trade". There's a good chance that what the advertiser was doing was violating local laws (noise ordinances, etc) in the first place, but does the provider of info actually have any real legal responsibility here? If a company sells and installs the insulation, is there a legal reprucussion for them?

Re:wow

[DragonWriter]

And because you can't extradite someone to face civil charges anyway.

Re:wow

[DragonWriter]

I think another important question here is culpability. Under US (and Illinois) law would a *US-based* operation similar to Spamhaus actually have a legal problem here?

A US-based service would have probably spent the money to fight the suit, and quite likely, I expect, would have prevailed on the merits. Spamhaus chose not to because, I would guess, they judged that their assets exposed to a US judgement didn't warrant the cost of actually defending the suit, not because they thought they would lose.

Re:wow

[Morphine007]

IANAL, but I believe the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution allows rulings and judgements to be imposed in other states.

IANAG (I Am Not A Geographer), but I believe the United Kingdom is not actually beholden to the US Constitution since (and this my come as a shock to some /. readers) the UK isn't actually a state within the US... I know... I know... shocking... isn't it?

meh... who needs good karma anyway :)

Re:wow

[Tiger4]

"Full Faith and Credit clause "

That only works AFTER they ignore the judgement. No other court, in the US or outside it, will enforce another court's direct ruling on the case. Not their case, not their problem.

However, practically every jurisdiction will enforce a bench warrant of arrest or contempt for another court, and force the persons involved to be extradicted to the governing jurisdiction, where they will answer for their actions. The courts are a sort of union unto themselves, and they definitely do back each other up in this way. It isn't over for Spamhaus. It is just that the battlefield shifted a bit.

Re:wow

[cayenne8]

"Paying court-ordered judgments that are obtained against you is one of the legal requirements for people who do business in the jurisdictions where the judgments were obtained."

But, this is against a non-profit organization, that just compiles a database and allows access for free.

Hardly what I'd call a 'business' in the classical sense. They aren't selling anything, not making money...and not forcing anyone to use their list. I don't see how you can sue someone for making a list of something available...

Re:wow

[Grishnakh]

I don't see how you can sue someone for making a list of something available...

You're obviously not familiar with how we do things in America.

Re:wow

[ahodgson]

From what I've read about Spamhaus, they tend to "not give a shit" in that sort of situation either, which is unfortunate.

My company was listed by mistake once. A spammer was using one of our domains on their IP info.

SpamHaus corrected the mistake within 24 hours.

In my experience, they are by far the most professionally run blocklist ever.

Re:wow

[BrianH]

Yes, the spammer MIGHT be able to recover part of their 11+ million dollar judgment this way. I'll bet those servers might be worth a whole $5000 on eBay!

Spamhaus, in turn, will merely need to set up a new mirror in Canada to serve the US. If they're smart, they should already be contemplating such a move. A Canadian mirror would still serve their US customers just as quickly, but would put the servers out of the courts reach.

First Spam!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey at least it's on topic

Good for Spamhaus

[ronanbear]

The right to block Spam is important. I hope their executives don't try going over to America any time soon though. If I worked for them I'd be pretty nervous about taking transatlantic flights.

Re:Good for Spamhaus

[tygerstripes]

I'd be pretty nervous about taking transatlantic flights

Like everyone isn't already ;-)

Seriously though, it's a civil suit, not criminal. They can't be arrested, can they? Or would they be liable for Contempt of Court? Even then, would it be enforcable outside IL? Any lawyers here to answer this?

Re:Good for Spamhaus

[clickclickdrone]

>They can't be arrested, can they
The poster is probably referring to two british company directors (different firms) who have been arrested as soon as they stepped off the plane because they run Internet gambling firms, quiet legal in the UK but illegal in the US.

Re:Good for Spamhaus

[sharkey]

Or Dmitry Sklyarov.

Re:Good for Spamhaus

[ronanbear]

Or to look at it another way.

American spammer files a nuisance lawsuit British company in Illinois for blocking spam

British company is forced to spend a fortune hiring relevant lawyers and defending itself against a lawsuit without any merit. Spamhaus also have to spend another fortune ensuring that it complies with other regions laws

Spamhaus decide that it is easier to remove spammer from list. Other spammers follow suit and Spamhaus suddenly isn't blocking all that much spam.

Alternatively Spamhaus say that since they are operating in England they should be sued under British law. They ignore the judgement and the FUD attacks and keep doing everything their own way.

The spanner in the works is that an Illinois judge on a power trip takes a disliking to a British company refusing to show up even though the case is bogus and the court shouldn't have taken the case in the first place due to juristiction issues. Wild judgement is issued with massive punative damages which does little to harm Spamhaus. It's so large they'll never be able to comply. Instead, it just forces another company to stay outside the US due to an out of touch legal system. Oh and it adds about $11m to the price any American company that buys Spamhaus has to pay.

All spammers must die!

[fe105]

It is probably best to kill all spammers! I have been fighting spam for many years now. Why do they get to cause other people so much grieve and work?

Killing people in general is not right, but if you do it in a humane way, like shoot them through the head with a .454 casul?

It can't be hard to find volunteers for doing this. Shooting casul is a blast! ;)

p.s. don't actually do this..

Re:All spammers must die!

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Killing people in general is not right, but if you do it in a humane way, like shoot them through the head with a .454 casul?

Firm, but fair! I don't think anyone could find fault with that!! ;)

The bigger question

[portwojc]

If a company is sending spam why isn't the ISP for that company shutting them down? Isn't it against the AUP of most providers or at least the big carriers?

Re:The bigger question

[Frosty Piss]

Because (as is well known), American public corporations are not ethical. None of them. Money is the prime objective and how you get it is irrelivent.

Re:The bigger question

[aliendisaster]

I used to work for a hosting company (a shitty one). Spam was indeed against the AUP. But as long as the spammer was not over using his resources or clog up the network, nothing was said. Really the only time something was said was when they sent so much spam out that the processes brought down the machine and they called for support. Then the answer was "your sending too much email". After about 4-5 calls, the AUP manager would get the issue and let the customer know that sending spam was against the AUP. And what was the price for breaking the AUP? Upgrade.

Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[dfn5]

For example when you tell them that they blacklisted your IP address and you can vouche that you don't spam, but they won't do anything because you belong to a /16 where somewhere sombody is spamming. blacklisting might be a good idea, but organizations like spamhaus make it bad in practice.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[cortana]

Surely all Spamhaus do is maintain a blacklist of network addresses of known spammers? They don't block the spam themselves. How could they? It seems like the US court order is... insane.

Spamhaus are not liable if the information they published is used by a third party to decide not to accept your mail. Instead, blame the third party for making such a sweeping and unrealistic decision with only a minimum of supporting data.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[tokul]

Are you sure that you haven't confused Spamhaus with SPEWS or some DUL list?

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[Anonymous Coward]

They only block larger parts when the ISP involved does not cleanup the problems or moves the spammer around inside their IP space. As far as 'escalation' listings go, Spamhaus is sure one of the more moderate parties, who only escalate after contacting the ISP fails.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[fostware]

You're thinking of SORBS

spamhaus is actually quite responsive, even with the inherant delays of communicating from Western Australia :P

I have never had SORBS remove a wrong ISP block... well, not until a week later and I'm pretty sure it's not in response to me.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[OverlordQ]

For example when you tell them that they blacklisted your IP address and you can vouche that you don't spam, but they won't do anything because you belong to a /16 where somewhere sombody is spamming. blacklisting might be a good idea, but organizations like spamhaus make it bad in practice.

Complain to people who use the list, not the people making the list.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[cortana]

But they blacklist networks, don't they. They simply state that users of that network send spam. I'm sure they have an entry in their database saying why each network was listed.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[ADRA]

--- or, you can get your ISP / host to do it for you, hence my comments.

Once again, if you're hosting your corporate email, you're more than likely hosting larger than 1 IP. My company had a block of 32 (out of the box) and they gave us our own ASN without even asking for it. If you're running on dynamic blocks, then there's no protection for you (for good reason). If you're buying IP space, make sure to get your own blocks. Some providers offer it, some don't.

The worst case is that you can't get your own CIDR block, your ISP hosts spam providers, the spammers are within your current netblock, and the ISP is unresponsive to the spam activity.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[jhagler]

It doesn't matter how much the judges know about technology, they know the law.

This is where we go back to the statement "default judgment". Since Spamhaus never bothered to show up in court to contest the charges, the judge had to decide in favor of the plaintif and award them whatever they asked.

Now, what the impact of an American civil judgment is on the directors of a British company, I have no clue. But I'll wager the folks at Spamhaus knew exactly what the impact would be and the decision to blow off the case was an educated one.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[Ilgaz]

"For example when you tell them that they blacklisted your IP address and you can vouche that you don't spam, but they won't do anything because you belong to a /16 where somewhere sombody is spamming."

It also means you share the same ISP who doesn't give a f to security, spam reports from naive people who thinks it will mean something and spare their precious time.

The only thing to make that ISP/IP provider take care is: Move to another ISP which cares about security and quality of customers.

You will figure what I mean by checking this:
http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=map;net=bmaxcnt; mask=16777215;sort=spamcnt
"Worst /16 blocks based on total spam count"

That is not some static thing, it is almost realtime. I am still sure about what you will see there. It never changed past 5 years except addition of zero administrated Poland IP monopoly which is owned by Orange to that list.

So, CNData guys (current mega spammer) are blocked likely by Spamhaus and Spamcop, good riddance. Let them close their God damn open proxy ports and freaking port 135!

CNData IP owners are damaged? Lets say, you hang out with some mafia types as a good citizen and whatever happens, police picks you along with them too. Can you blame the police? Or you should take care about your relations?

Am I harsh? Apologies, I am still reporting spam, even sparing my money and time, I see NOTHING being done, NOTHING AT ALL. Those people are sharing the money with those mobs, I am not american and I don't have to be politically correct all times. Those people doesn't manage their system ON PURPOSE. If you are customer and effected? Find a better managed ISP next time.

I hope Spamhaus also starts a legal fund just like Spamcop. Next time those crooks sue them, they shouldn't just ignore the order, they should sue back with some über evil lawyers and take to their pants including the moron judge losing his/her job!

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[Pig Hogger]

This is where we go back to the statement "default judgment". Since Spamhaus never bothered to show up in court to contest the charges, the judge had to decide in favor of the plaintif and award them whatever they asked.

Why should have they shown up in court? The court has no jurisdiction!!! If you were sued in Azerbaijan, would you show up? No way!!! They have no more jurisdiction on you than the Illinois court has in England.

Re:Spamhaus does alot of ignoring

[fuzznutz]

They add IPs to the list knowing full well that those IPS will be blocked, intending that those IPs will be blocked, with the result that those IPs are blocked. For practical purposes, what is the difference between this and actually blocking them?

How about the fact that they don't actually block them?

I have never understood the controversy around SBLs unless you are a spammer. If I subsribe to a SBL it means I don't want your email when you are on the blocked list. If the SBL blocks email that I want, I simply don't use them. I can be arbitrary and capricious about my email. I can block you if I don't like your tie or bacause you lastname starts with a "W" or because you voted Libertarian. Spamhaus does not block anybody, I do. Spamhaus just provides me with a convenient list of addresses that they believe harbors spammer.

What makes you or anyone else think that you have some inalienable right to send me email that I don't want? If it affects your business, I say tough shit. You can't come into my house and force me to watch your commercials either. If I rip out all the ads in my latest issue of Islands Magazine, you can't do Jack about it either. SBLs are a Godsend when it comes to spam reduction.

Hmmmm

[BCW2]

Sounds like a very appropriate response. Illinois is trying to enforce an ill-conceived law and Spamhouse is within their rights in under the laws of the country they opperate from. I do want to see the judges reaction to this one, it should be worth a laugh.

Color me confused.

[Kirin Fenrir]

I'm no lawyer, so can somebody explain to me how a court can say that Spamhaus, a service that customers voluntarily sign up for, cannot index IP addresses theat users wish to block? There is nothing Spamhaus does that a local mail server cannot do, they just already have a blacklist for you. Spamhaus is just, "Hey, don't trust these guys."

That's like saying I can't go to Consumer Reports and get an opinion on what car to buy.

Re:Color me confused.

[kalirion]

No, that's more like saying Consumer Reports can't say "Don't buy a Ford Pinto."

Re:Color me confused.

[Kierthos]

Ehhh... not quite. See, e360insight is claiming that they're not a spammer, and thus their inclusion on the Spamhaus list is hurting their business, their image, is defamatory, and/or whatever else they think that they can get away with. And, because of this decision the (obviously clue-impaired) judge agreed with e360insight.

The analogy (with regards to your reference to Consumer Reports) would be if Consumer Reports published an opinion that a car company strongly disagreed with and believed was incorrect. You know, like saying "The new Ford SUV gets excellent mileage, considering it runs on the souls of orphaned children."

Re:Color me confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a default judgement, so the courts really didn't say anything.

Re:Color me confused.

[soarkalm]

I think there might be something in that the blurb says "defualt" judgement. If the defendant doesn't show up, then the case automatically goes against him, no?

Re:Color me confused.

[91degrees]

What if they say "We recommend you don't buy a (product) because it's made from squashed babies". When the product isn't?

Re:Color me confused.

[michajoe]

Damn, with a name like e360insight, is is f*cking OBVIOUS that they are spammers. Or purveyors of fine spyware. Or both.

Re:Color me confused.

[Rucker]

IANAL, the article doesn't have many details, and my legal knowledge on this matter consists solely of Wikipedia entries, but it appears they could have argued Tortious Interference which may qualify as Minimum Contacts giving the court Personal Jurisdiction. Among other things, Personal Jurisdiction is required for enforcement of foreign judgements.

Whew. Gotta love Wikipedia.

Re:Color me confused.

[JoeRandomHacker]

The analogy (with regards to your reference to Consumer Reports) would be if Consumer Reports published an opinion that a car company strongly disagreed with and believed was incorrect.

Funny you should mention that. Consumer Reports was actually sued by the Sharper Image people after CR reported that SI's Ionic Breeze basically didn't do anything. If the facts as determinined by reasoned observations are on your side, it shouldn't matter whether the subject of the observations disagrees; you should still be able to report your observations without fear of legal reprisals.

good luck lads.

[gbjbaanb]

While ignoring the US system of 'Justice' is probably something Americans should do too, especially when it concerns implausibly large damages payouts, I think Spamhaus will need a lawyer or two. I refer the honourable anti-spam heroes to a similar case of fairness, justice and all-round puppy-like agreements.

Re:good luck lads.

[squiggleslash]

The Natwest 3 concerns a criminal case. This is a civil case. There's no risk of extradiction.

Slight error

[Guppy06]

"in an uncontested trial in an Illinois court."

It isn't an Illinois court, it's a federal district court that happens to be in Illinois.

Missed opportunity

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I dont know why Spamhaus missed this great business opportunity.

It shoud send out the following email to everyone.

Dear Email Recepient,

My name is Sir Arthur Cunnigham, Bar-at-Law, Queen's Bench, City of London, the United Kingdom. The Illinois Supreme court, Chicago Illinois, USA has awarded a judgement against me for the sum of 11 million dollars. If you have received any unsolicited email from me, I will have to pay you, 535$ as your share of the settlement. Even if you have not received any mail from me before, this email itself will entitle you a share towards the settlement.

So please send me your name, your address, your social security number, your bank account number, the routing number of your bank so that I can remit the said sum without undue delay. In addition to verify your identity, please let me have a valid credit card number, its expiration date and the card verification number. Please allow six weeks for me to raid^H^H^H^H credit your account with the money I owe you.

Have a nice day. Thank you

Say what you will

[Billosaur]

Linhardt and his company are indeed spammers and remain on the Spamhaus blocklist, the organization said. Posting a note that e360insignt was inaccurately labeled as a spammer would be a lie, Spamhaus said. If Linhardt wants a ruling that counts, he needs to refile his case in the UK, according to Spamhaus.

There are many out there that have had bad experiences with Spamhaus, but in this case, this guy is a known spammer. I'm surprised the court even gave credence to the lawsuit, but apparently the judge is not up on the Internet and spam. They are correct -- if he wants a judgement, he needs to file in UK court, where, given their recent history of prosecuting spammers, he stands little chance of succeeding.

Jurisdiction?

[interiot]

How did the Illinois judge decide they had jurisdiction over a UK-only company in the first place? I thought courts throw out cases that they have no jurisdiction over.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Swiss banks and lots of others offer banking to US people and they do ignore US Banking laws.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[august sun]

How did the Illinois judge decide they had jurisdiction over a UK-only company in the first place?

Because this all happened in the second worst judicial hellhole in America.

What is a judicial hellhole you ask?

Judicial Hellholes are places that have a disproportionately harmful impact on civil litigation. Litigation tourists, guided by their personal injury lawyers seek out these places because they know they will produce a positive outcome - an excessive verdict or settlement, a favorable precedent, or both.

[quoted from the above link]

Re:Jurisdiction?

[rahrens]

See my post above about this same thing.

Basically, this Federal law allows US citizens to sue foreigners that have harmed them in some way in order to gain compensation from the defendant's US assets. It allows the plaintiff to then hold that judgement for award if or until the losing party does gain sufficient US assets to pay the judgement. Since it a US court, it can order US assets of a foreign entity anywhere in the US to be seized for payment. This was the result of a law passed many years ago. It is NOT intended to give US courts jurisdiction over foreign soil. It is to allow US citizens to gain compensation for damage or harm done to them by persons outside of normal US jurisdiction.

Remember the hostages from the US Iranian embassy? They sued under this law, then ended up fighting the Justice Department over getting the Iranian assets turned over to them to cover the judgement.

Kill Spammers and Politicians

[drewzhrodague]

Agreed. I would support a bill to legalize assassination. Wouldn't our spammers and government officials think twice if their actions were going to get them killed/tortured/beaten/imprisoned?

I occasionally buy products from spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

just to piss the elitist spam haters off. a side benefit is that I am now an incredible lover with a huge penis and I get great deals on real estate loans.

Re:Cost to defend themselves not worth it

[clickclickdrone]

But that's what the US does, assumes whatever works there works throughout the world whether it's laws or just general ways of life. people and companies throughout the world are constantly fending off legal actions in regard to things that are quite legal on their home turf but illegal in the US.

Blues Brothers?

[Stavr0]

ELWOOD
"Illinois spammers."

JAKE
"I hate Illinois spammers"

Re:I'll keep this in mind

[ledow]

Troll and obviously supposed to be sarcasm.

But maybe the next time someone in a foreign country tries to sue you for something that's a) not illegal in your country (in fact, SPAMMING is illegal in the UK, so they are not only obeying UK law but preventing the people in question from violating UK law themselves) b) nothing to do with you and c) without consulting you, serving you correct legal papers (reason enough to ignore any legal document) or bothering to contact any form of legal contact in your country, then maybe you can use your powers of sarcasm to get you out.

Seriously, this case is a joke... serving legal papers by EMAIL? WTF? Of course, email is a guaranteed delivery system that ensures that person on the other end recieves it, is the correct person and cannot deny ever having recieved it (that's how to do real sarcasm, by the way)

DEFAULT judgement

[Balthisar]

Remember... this is a default judgement. If you're sued for anything and don't show up, you lose by default. There's nothing to do with the competence of the judge or the court, the merits of the case, or anything. If I sue you for moderating me down and ask for emotional damage compensation, you'd better show up to defend yourself or I'm going to win by default. If you're got a super low user id, I may ask the court to hand over your account to me.

Re:DEFAULT judgement

[ledow]

Yeah, but the question of whether it would be legally binding or not also depends on a lot of other things, such as the jurisdiction and whether it's a reasonable venue... an Illinois court is no more a reasonable venue for a UK-only company than the planet Jupiter. You could not be reasonably expected to absorb the costs of defending yourself in a foreign country like that, without even mentioning travel costs, legal costs, unfamiliarity with the law etc. the fact that what you did is not illegal in your country etc.

Judgement or not, it's null and void on more than one account - improperly served, incorrect jurisdiction, unreasonable venue, etc. the list goes on. The error, unfortunately, lies with the judge here for failing to account for jurisdiction.

Re:DEFAULT judgement

[lightspawn]

Remember... this is a default judgement. If you're sued for anything and don't show up, you lose by default.

So how does it work, exactly? If companies all over the world sue the spammers, do they have to show up to defend themselves in dozens of countries or lose all by default?

OK, everybody sue the bastards in your respective country. Problem solved.

What's wrong with the legal system and isn't there any way to fix it?

Okay. So I did a bit of research.

[91degrees]

It looks like there was a pre-existing restraining order. This according to Spamhaus, it was "served" by email. Which is not a legal manner to serve an order and has no effect in the UK anyway.

If the organisation was on the RBL, how do they know they were served?

(Note for the humour impaired - The fact that I have a note for the humour impaired should tell you something).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Lack of a leg to stand on

[chiller2]

At the most basic level the case has no merit for the simple reason that nobody forces system administrators to use Spamhaus. It is an opt-in service and represents a decision by the administrators of the e-mail servers that they do not want mail from hosts listed in said RBL. End of story!

Who is worse? The spammer or the lawyer that gives him the time of day?

Do you know what a default judgment is?

[BKX]

The Illinois judge wasn't trying to enforce some ridiculous law allowing spammers to spam from Chicago. The judge issued a default judgment. In our adversarial system, if you file a suit and the defendant doesn't respond, you automatically win (unless your suit was extremely ridiculous, but this was a standard defamation suit, not a suit alleging that David Letterman killed my baby with mind-rays through the TV). If the defendant can later show that he didn't know about the suit, couldn't get there for some (really good) reason or that the suit was filed in an incorrect jurisdiction, then the default judgment can and will be overturned, and the plaintiff allowed to refile.

Illinois is most certainly not trying to enforce some crazy pro-spam law. Hell, the judge probably just barely skimmed the filing when wrote the decision, and even then, just to make sure his decision made sense when read back by the plaintiff. It wouldn't surprise me if a serious amount of OCR and cut-and-paste was involved. The judge's reaction to Spamhaus's response is probably, "You go, Spamhaus. Keep stoppin those Viagra ads with yo bad self."

Do me a fa0ver

[thegnu]

a side benefit is that I am now an incredible lover with a huge penis and I get great deals on real estate loans.

C0ulddD You sa+isfie my w0me0n Tonite! I'm having trouble, because of my t1ny p//en15.

Spamhaus provide all details to law enforcement

[stiggle]

Spamhaus provide a special version of their ROKSO database to law enforcement (if requested) which not only contains all their details, but logs and other information to backup the claims that they are spammers.

The court case was probably done in the States because they knew Spamhaus would not contest it and then they can turn round and say "we're not spammers and have won court cases to prove it".

Re:great

[VdG]

That went waaay beyond self defense. Shooting someone in the back, from a considerable distance when he tried to run away and could not conceivably have been considered an immediate threat is not acceptable behaviour.

Tony Martin got what he deserved and the whole thing got grotesquely distorted in the press as they tried to make him out to be something other than the nutter he really was for the sake of a good story. Unfortunately, it's made a lingering impression on the public consciousness and still gets trotted out from time to time as an example of how the law is failing us, sob.

There was some back-bencher tried to get a law through earlier this year to enshrine the right to defence in law. A pathetic attempt to garner votes, as the law already makes it clear that you're allowed to defend yourself pretty much however you see fit. (All the stuff about having to lose less force than your attacker is complete nonsense, although like all law it's all pretty complicated and you don't have a completely free hand: killing people is always frowned upon and using an illegal weapon won't do you any favours.)

Costs are also a big difference

[iconnor]

In the USA, each party pays their own costs no matter what happens. However, in the UK, if you file an action and it does not win, then you have to pay the costs for the other party. So, at the best, they can force them in the UK legal system, and because the spammer is not in the UK, they can seek the spammer puts up security for costs (to ensure they pay if they don't win). Thus the spammer would never touch the UK system as they would end up loosing the money they pay their lawyers, plus the cost for spamhaus to defend it.
ps... IANAL - anymore.

Good point

[ldholtsclaw]

A company I used to work for was being harassed by the Department of Revenue from another state demanding we collect sales taxes on mail order items shipped into their state. The advice of our lawyer was to hang up on them whenever they called and just throw away all correspondence without opening it. I was suprised, but they quickly got the hint and left us alone. I was told that if we had actually talked to them, it would be construed as "entering negotiations" and we'd be forced to comply. Our lawyer evidently thought this was what they were trying to do.

As always, IANAL, this is not legal advice and YMMV.

Re:Default Judgements

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Shame on them from not coming to fight it,

So if you get an e-mail message telling you you're being sued in Nigeria, because some of the comments you made on you blog as aprt of your work with a non-profit can be construed as Libel and you're being sued for millions you don't have, you're going to go buy a plane ticket and head to Nigeria?

...and shame on us for putting judges in place that can not see through some technical jargon to realize when something is total crap and dismiss it on lack of merits.

Us? I didn't appoint that judge, so stop blaming me. I really wish you had not appointed him, since that court is listed as one of the most unjust in the country according to the "judicial hellhole" report that monitors notably abusive courts where less than ethical lawyers tend to venue shop for cases with little merit. Stop it.

Re:operating in the US? Umm No

[Pontiac]

Spamhaus operates from London..
I had to setup our contract with them so I have delt with them a few times.

They don't have any offices or servers in the US.

You are mistaken.

[www.sorehands.com]

There is a difference between a valid judgment and an enforcable judgment.

The I have not seen the complaint, but I suspect that the complaint makes the allegation that Spamhaus transmits the data into the judisdiction, causing the harm in the jurisdiction -- thus subject to that jurisdiction.

I won the same argument against TJ Web for their spamming.

If it is correct that UK will not enforce a foreign default judgment, then spamhaus is safe unless they have assets that the Plaintiff finds out about. Remember the Dmitry Sklyarov? He just happened to be in the USA when he was arrested for supposed crimes committed while in Russia.

e360insight has a phenominal site....

[Dewser]

Ok yes that is sarcasm, so if you are truly a legitimate business wouldn't you probably have more to your own website other than just your whining about the injustices of a RBL company putting you on the list??? Anyway as a system admin, I am not saddened by this story one bit. Maybe Lindhart should have thought out their marketing practices better. People hate spam! Maybe focus that marketing money to an actual website and pump the money into getting it recognized by search engines better.

As far as the lawyer, well, I won't get into my feelings on lawyers, in most cases they are right down their with spammers and tape worms.

Here is a copy of what Spamhaus.org has on them:
-----------------------
63.78.194.0/24 is listed on the Register Of Known Spam Operations (ROKSO) database as being assigned to, under the control of, or providing service to a known professional spam operation run by Brian Haberstroh / Atriks.
e360Insight : bargaindepot.net / bargainshoppecorp.com
See also: SBL45648, SBL45649

www.bargaindepot.net. 3600 IN A 63.78.194.2
bargaindepot.net. 3600 IN NS ns12.bargaindepot.net.
ns12.bargaindepot.net. 172800 IN A 63.78.194.2

Registrant:
e360Insight, LLC
ATTN: BARGAINDEPOT.NET
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA. 20172-0447

Domain Name: BARGAINDEPOT.NET

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
e360Insight, LLC qp3zx6n33ee@networksolutionsprivateregistration.co m
ATTN: BARGAINDEPOT.NET
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA 20172-0447
570-708-8780

Record expires on 05-Nov-2008.
Record created on 17-Mar-2005.
Bulk whois optout: Y
Database last updated on 26-Apr-2005 14:32:13 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS12.BARGAINDEPOT.NET 63.78.194.2
NS13.BARGAINDEPOT.NET 63.78.194.3

UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNET63 (NET-63-64-0-0-1)
63.64.0.0 - 63.127.255.255
E360INSIGHT, LLC UU-63-78-194-D8 (NET-63-78-194-0-1)
63.78.194.0 - 63.78.194.255

CustName: E360INSIGHT, LLC
Address: 427 S LA SALLE ST
Address: FL 4
City: CHICAGO
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60605-1029
Country: US
RegDate: 2005-01-27
Updated: 2005-01-27

NetRange: 63.78.194.0 - 63.78.194.255
CIDR: 63.78.194.0/24
NetName: UU-63-78-194-D8
NetHandle: NET-63-78-194-0-1
Parent: NET-63-64-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
Comment: Addresses within this block are non-portable.
RegDate: 2005-01-27
Updated: 2005-01-27
-------------------

So maybe they should review their business practices. boo frickin hoo hoo!

If I Were You

[Nom du Keyboard]

If I were Spamhaus, I'd definitely put any USA travel plans on hold into the indefinite future. Even transiting in airports is dangerous these days.

This word is important: default

[Orgasmatron]

It means that the other side didn't even show up. It also means that the court didn't bother looking into the merits of the case. One of the claims could have been that the operators of Spamhaus were little green men from Pluto and no one would even notice.

No precedent has been set. None.

The court didn't decide that the claimant was right, or that spamhaus was doing anything wrong. The one and only thing that the court gave an opinion on was whether or not the defendant appeared.

Enforcement of US Judgments in the UK

[sweetnjguy29]

First of all, it is not that difficult to enforce a US judgment in England especially since a 1983 decision, Israel Discount Bank v. Hadjipateras, allowed the enforcement of a US $10 million judgment.

Secondly, it must be established that the US Court had jurisdiction under not just U.S., but English law. Jurisdiction can be established if the defendant was physically present in the foreign country or carrying on business in the country "at a definite and reasonably permanent place". I think that English Courts should take the position that a url is a definite and reasonably permanent place.

Thirdly, England might not recognize a US judgement if it is against it's Public Policy. For example, multiple and punitive damages are considered to be contrary to public policy. So, if an English law says "no spam allowed" and an American law says "allow spam", English law trumps.

So, Spamhaus really has nothing to worry about. But the rationale it gave...was slightly confused.

Andrew Jackson said it best.

[techno-vampire]

To quote (approximately) President Andrew Jackson, "The court has rendered its judgement. Now, let's see them enforce it."