Spammer That Sued Spamhaus Now Sued for Spamming

Dave Q. Lintard writes with a link to The Register's coverage of a suit against the spammer that sued Spamhaus. e360 Insight, as the company is known, is accused of using a botnet and compromised headers to get their 'advertising' into the mailboxes of the claimant. These are also the folks that tried to get the Illinois courts to suspend SpamHaus's domain registration when they wouldn't play by e 360's rules. 'e360 Insight sued Spamhaus after the anti-spam organisation blacklisted its domains over alleged spamming. In a default ruling made by an Illinois court in September 2006, Spamhaus was ordered to pay $11.7m in compensation to e360 Insight, pull the organisation's listing, and post a notice stating that it was wrong to say e360 Insight was involved in sending junk mail. UK-based Spamhaus did not defend the case and the ruling was made in its absence.'

Comments

The Ultimate .Forward

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> In a default ruling made by an Illinois court in September 2006,
> Spamhaus was ordered to pay $11.7m in compensation to e360 Insight

Let's all forward our spam to the judge responsible.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[klingens]

If a party doesn't show up to a court date and defend itself, the judge has to rule for the plaintiff. It's the law. Enforcing that decision is of course a different thing as spamhaus is still online.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Anonymous Coward]

you summary is fine except that Spamhaus is NOT a US Incorporated Organisation/Company. The ruling in IL has no effect on them.
If they wanted to do something more effective then they should have sued them in the UK. But there again, Spamhaus did'n break any UK Law did they?
The IL case as (IMHO) just a publicity stunt and the wider community should just ignore them.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Bastard of Subhumani]

That might well be the law. It might be relevant to this case too, if Illinois courts had jurisdiction over the UK.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[asninn]

It was a *default ruling* - Spamhaus didn't have anyone show up for the trial, so they lost by default, and I'm pretty sure the judge didn't have much choice in that regard.

I can certainly *understand* Spamhaus, of course; if somebody sued me in another country, I wouldn't fly there just to attend a trial, either, and I'd certainly ignore the verdict (why do they think they'd have jurisdiction over me, anyway?), but the rules are still the rules, and the judge just did what the rules said, so don't blame him.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Silver Sloth]

And the day that Illinois courts have jurisdiction in the UK we'll start throwing tea (or should that be Starbucks coffee) into the harbour.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[BillGatesLoveChild]

I thought the fun thing about Common Law is judges are allowed to make it up as they go? The Judge could have, in absentia, still found for Spamhaus and sentenced the Spammers to death by hanging. It would have been worth it to see the look on their faces. :-)

It would have of course been overturned on appeal. Maybe.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Deep Ones only drink Starry Wisdom Coffee.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[jimicus]

IANAL but I don't think the judge should rule for anyone if either plaintiff or defendant is outside the judges jurisdiction. And as Spamhaus isn't US based, they're outside of the judges jurisdiction.

The only thing they can't sensibly do now is set up business on US soil, but why would they need to do that?

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[EveLibertine]

IANAL and I'm pretty sure that someone more knowledgeable in this subject than I will post a clarification of this. Still, it should be said that one of the ways the U.S. courts provides to contest jurisdiction is to just not show up, then after a default ruling, they can go ahead in continuing the process of contesting jurisdiction. I gather that another way of doing this is to actually show up in court and declare that there is no jurisdiction. The tricky part is that if you show up in court and first declare that you are not guilty or guilty or whatever, by default you have waved your right to claim that there is no jurisdiction. By claiming one way or the other you have imposed the jurisdiction upon yourself.

Furthermore, it seems that Spamhaus or it's lawyers were (unsurprisingly) at least superficially aware of the rules of how this works, as they had motioned to have the case moved to the Illinois court themselves, instead of a federal court or whatever. Then by not showing up, they set themselves up to appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The default ruling is merely a superficiality that will eventually work itself out through the (I suppose) the appeals process.

Regardless, the judge really had no choice in the matter, given Spamhaus' choice. He doesn't deserve being spammed any more than you or I, and from what I've read he seemed either reluctant to rule against Spamhaus, or perhaps he was just annoyed that Spamhaus didn't handle this in a more direct manner.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Don_dumb]

That might all well be true BUT the U.S. courts can do all they want, Spamhaus are in the UK. And are literally outside of the jurisdiction of the US court. No one should be forced to travel to another country just to say they don't work in that country.
Surely when the writ (or whatever it is called) was registered, the address of the people they were suing (the UK) should have made it clear that they were trying to sue someone they had no right to. IMHO a court system shouldn't process a litigation without an address of the defendant in the jurisdiction of the court system.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[budgenator]

if memory serves me correctly, e360 stated the spamhaus had an office in the United States,and without any further testimony from spamhaus, the court had to except that as true. Now if Silverstein's suit is successful, and e360 is convicted of a spamming charge, spamhaus can appeal and it will pretty much be a slam-dunk and might even get some damages.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[EveLibertine]

Agreed, no one should be forced to travel to another country to say they don't work there. But, you seem to imply that Spamhaus was somehow forced to represent themselves in this case. They weren't, and they didn't even show up anyway. In the end of it all, they'll probably wind up counter-suing for legal costs incurred over the whole venture. About your idea with court systems not processing litigation. I don't know about this. If a court thinks it doesn't have jurisdiction, it should just get bumped up to a higher court who could have jurisdiction, all the way until it reaches the supreme court. It's fairly trivial in this case, as it all worked out in the end, which you'd know if you read anything about what happened _after_ the default ruling.

The federal judge overseeing the e360insight v. Spamhaus case has ruled against a motion to yank Spamhaus' domain name out from under it.

After that, I can't really understand what the big deal is about. Sure, the $11 million fine is still up in the air, but Spamhaus won't pay it, and it seems it pretty much cannot be compelled to do so (at least not by trying to knock it off the internet). They just need to finish the appeal process and everything should be just fine.

Had Spamhaus made the "no jurisdiction" argument at the onset, it may very well have gotten the case dismissed. Instead, it finds itself in the undesirable and difficult position of having to appeal a summary judgment. Spamhaus is "working with lawyers to find a way to both appeal the ruling and stop further nonsense by the spammer," Linford told Ars Technica.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061020-8037 .html/

I hate spammers, I think Spamhaus is fantastic. But it doesn't change the situation at hand, which is that there is potentially or allegedly illegal activity going on in servers located within the U.S. Someone is liable for it, and most likely it's the individuals operating those server. The problem is (for e360 anyway) there are hundreds if not thousands of them, and they can't be bothered with that many individual lawsuits. So, they went straight for the company causing them problems, and fell flat on their faces while doing it. I guess you can get mad at the U.S. court for it "thinking" that it had jurisdiction over a foreign company, but that's just the way the system works. As I said before, at the face, it appears that some illegal activity is happening on servers located in the U.S. Someone in the U.S. is liable for that, and e360 alleged that it was Spamhaus. Be mad that Spamhaus acted like retards over the whole thing, not at the courts for doing their job. Otherwise you've just got your sights on the wrong target, just like e360 did. I think a much bigger issue, one that's actually worth getting pissed off about anyway, is that the activity in question (blocking spammers) is actually possibly illegal in the U.S. The most fantastic part about all of it, is that it isn't in the U.K.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[SkyDude]

IANAL but I don't think the judge should rule for anyone if either plaintiff or defendant is outside the judges jurisdiction. And as Spamhaus isn't US based, they're outside of the judges jurisdiction.

The only thing they can't sensibly do now is set up business on US soil, but why would they need to do that?

As another poster mentioned, when the defendant fails to appear for a hearing, the plaintiff is victorious. The "ruling" is just a technicality.

While Spamhaus probably has no plans to set up in the USA, this ruling wouldn't stop them. I could incorporate a business today called Spamhaus, Inc. and the ruling would not affect my business. A new corporation is a new entity, and, unless a deep investigation into the stockholders was made and revealed an attempt to circumvent the court's ruling, only then could the ruling have any impact. It would still require a significant amount of litigation to prove such a ploy.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[The_Wilschon]

Very dangerous, as it allows any company which primarily does sketchy business in the US to have a mailing address in, say, Malaysia, and designate that their headquarters. Then anybody they do business with is in the US, and thus cannot sue them.

In a world where international business is allowed, there really needs to be some provision for international lawsuits.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[cpt kangarooski]

No, if you want to contest jurisdiction in US courts, the best means is to actually do so, if necessary by means of a special appearance for that purpose so that you don't inadvertently waive the point. So long as you follow the right procedure, it's entirely possible to argue jurisdiction and to argue the merits of the case. Ignoring the court is not a good way to go about things.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Technician]

Let's all forward our spam to the judge responsible.

Let's not send him all our spam. Just send him the spam from e360 insight that was relayed through a forign bot (against US can-spam law) since he has openly denied in court he is not doing this.

Let the mountain of fraud evidence stack up on the judges desk.

Then net the judge know by snail mail that Spamhaus can help with the problem of unwanted junk mail by deciding on using their advisory list to filter their own mail.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[canuck57]

If a party doesn't show up to a court date and defend itself, the judge has to rule for the plaintiff. It's the law. Enforcing that decision is of course a different thing as spamhaus is still online.

But the judge could have also said they have no jurisdiction. Or tossed it out based on stupidity of the claim.

What will be interesting is California judge is in jurisdiction of e360 and there is not much doubt in my mind e360 sent this guy spam.

Lets hope the CA judge tosses e360 and its operators into the poor house with punitive fines and in jail for the laws broken.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Anonymous Coward]

And are literally outside of the jurisdiction of the US court well, that's true to a point. Check the details of the "Natwest Three"(plenty of good links at the bottom of the wiki) who ended up extradited to the US to stand charges on a matter that was not only supposedly committed on UK soil, but already dismissed by the British legal system as not having nearly enough evidence to prosecute.

The US wants to be the world's police, but also the world's judge, jury and executioner. We should never have invented Judge Dredd.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[houghi]

Countries have been invaded for less.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the fun thing about Common Law is judges are allowed to make it up as they go? The Judge could have, in absentia, still found for Spamhaus and sentenced the Spammers to death by hanging.

Last I looked, civil justice systems couldn't hang anyone. And stare decisis is actually binding in criminal cases.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Joebert]

Much less, last I heard India was doing invasions for R1000.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[XSforMe]

Better yet, lets all forward our spam to e360 contact form. Please feed me spam!

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[choongiri]

Unfortunately the problem is the Illinois court does have jurisdiction over the UK company, the reason - if I remember correctly - is that instead of initially presenting the defence of no jurisdiction (which likely would have been ruled in Spamhaus's favour), Spamhaus initially requested the case be transferred to the federal court rather than Illinois, thereby submitting de facto to the jurisdiction of the Illinois court. A defence of no jurisdiction has to be presented in a very specific way at the right time, and Spamhaus f***ed that up big time.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> Last I looked, civil justice systems couldn't hang anyone.

But *they* wouldn't know that! It's what Judge Harry Stone would have done.

> And stare decisis is actually binding in criminal cases.

Oh my wordy! He's quoting Latin at me... I'm clearly outgunned here! Wait! What's that a voice? I heard a voice. Jimmy? Is that you? "Use the Wikipedia, Billy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

Well this case sounds pretty unique to me, otherwise we wouldn't have been talking about it. Here's a precedent for you: "If you don't exceed your authority at least twice a year, you're not doing your job"

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Anonymous Coward]

e360 committed perjury by claiming Spamhaus was doing business the state of Illinois and they could push their claim through. Had he been shown to be lying, he likely wouldn't be in a position of leverage which he thinks he has. Were he challenged, I'm sure some shady method would be "companies in Illinois have the ability to use their assets, so they have a presence here. But considering no one can force domains to utilize BLs, or specific BLs. So why go after those who make the BLS?

e360 should be fortunate to try their case here. In the UK, they enforce their spam laws compared to the U-CAN-SPAM (aka the swiss cheese law). Jerry Cerasale has been a major pain in the tucus for using federal legislation to eliminate the states who had good laws in place but hobbled spammers. Create a federal law, promise the Legislative Branch it would cut down on spam, and provide legitimate businesses with a viable business model. Hey, they (DMA) represent thousands of businesses and if it makes sense to them...why would they hurt themselves, either by deed or money?

Here's a good set of search terms to run through Google: "jerry cerasale" DMA "viable economic model" "opt in" or click here: From here are four examples which pretty much say the same thing.

It's funny how there [b]are[/b] businesses who do well without spamming. The problem is Cerasale et al didn't want to deal with what they perceived to be overhead to establish themselves. Without personal pursuit, and waiting on the gov't to have a big enough stack of examples, spammers say they are compliant via fiat, links to opt-out are dead, those who want to click on the link have been told never to click a link and show your address is valid. And the popular thing to do now is to send you messages about "FREE" stuff which can only be awarded if you purchase any number of services & products which cost in excess of the value of the FREE stuff. They make sure there are asterisks in the graphics, but not in the text. If they were forced to put "FREE*" on the subject line, filters could effectively wipe out that tactic. And no leet by using "3" for an "e". A string length of five and only five.

The other tactic they are taking is from telemarketers: surveys are legal. Subjects start with "Which is better? Ford or Toyota" as if making it look like a survey means people will let their guard down.

Oh, one other thing: Cerasale has been trying to create a bloc of European countries and the US. What are the odds Europe will have to conform to US legislation? (in order to make Jerry & his cronies happy) There's no way Cerasale et al are going to permit the US to conform to Europe's laws.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal courts have jurisdiction in the US, and spamhaus does a lot of business in the US, including domain name registration. Spamhaus appears to have moved from tucows in Mississippi to Gandi in France, however, this move is probably fraudulent attempt to avoid the judgment. I'm not sure what the procedure will be, but undoubtedly, spamhous.org will be delivered to e360insight. To a court, this is no different than taking a car out of state or out of country after defaulting to the bank. If the bank knows where the car is, there is little difficulty in getting it back.

Spamhaus/Linhardt made a serious blunder in not responding to the defamation suit. In the US, the legal burden is on the plaintiff to show the statements false. By contrast, in the U.K., the burden is on the defendant to show the statements true. Therefore, one wants to defend against defamation in the U.S. Many books are published in the U.S. but not in the U.K. because of the defamation rules. Further, since Spamhaus/Linhardt publicly decided not to defend, it seems possible that it may be denied should they try to cure the default under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b).

I haven't seen the specifics of the suit yet, but the current suit against e360insight has all the markings of a joe-job because e360insight has a reputation as a CAN-SPAM compliant e-mailer. That was their defense originally against the Spamhaus claim. Spamhaus, for some time, has unreasonably claimed that CAN-SPAM compliance isn't sufficient. There has been no previous reason to think that e360insight isn't CAN-SPAM compliant, nor is there any reason for e360insight not to be CAN-SPAM compliant. Given the history, it seems to be an uphill battle to show that e360insight has violated CAN-SPAM, which, by the way, supercedes California state law.

Last, I would like to emphasize that CAN-SPAM compliant emailers are not a legitimate spam problem. By definition, everything that is sent by CAN-SPAM emailers is solicited, and by law, anyone who doesn't want that email can get off the list. Each message contains instructions on how to remove oneself. Spamhaus has been entirely unreasonable in attacking CAN-SPAM compliant emailers. See www.iadl.org for more information on Spamhaus and CAN-SPAM. Spamhaus was involved in the extortive efforts to get Savvis to drop CAN-SPAM compliant customers. See articles about J.A. Terranson.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Anonymous Coward]

David Linhardt owner of e360insight pretending to be someone else writing in his own defence wrote:

> e360insight has a reputation as a CAN-SPAM compliant e-mailer

BBBWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAH! Dude! e360's only reputation is a very spammy one - just ask all the people you spam.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not associated with e360insight. However, one can guess that the issue of whether e360insight is actually CAN-SPAM compliant will be brought out in Court. Supposing e360insight comes to Court, trots out a lot of email that is CAN-SPAM compliant, and shows that it sends CAN-SPAM compliant email as its ordinary practice, it will be hard to convince a judge or jury that they should suddenly and inexplicably decide to unlawfully send non-compliant email through a botnet.

The notion of "spammy" is not a legal element of CAN-SPAM. They can legally send as many CAN-SPAM compliant emails as they choose to. All that is necessary is that they comply with a few fairly trivial requirements.

Of course, forging headers and using a botnet would violate CAN-SPAM. But any judge and jury would ask why a company would stop complying with CAN-SPAM and use a botnet.

Second, we already know that Spamhaus is unconcerned with CAN-SPAM compliance, and that it didn't dispute that e360insight complied with CAN-SPAM. According to Spamhaus, CAN-SPAM compliance is irrelevant. It wasn't the case that Spamhaus asserted that e360insight didn't comply with CAN-SPAM. E360insight said it shouldn't be blocked because it complied with CAN-SPAM. I suspect the probably did comply. Its trivially easy.

And now we have a suit that says they used a botnet. I'm rather doubtful that is the case. I think it much more likely that they were joe-jobbed when they refused to comply with Spamhaus' demands, and sued Spamhaus.

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[www.sorehands.com]

Second, we already know that Spamhaus is unconcerned with CAN-SPAM compliance, and that it didn't dispute that e360insight complied with CAN-SPAM. According to Spamhaus, CAN-SPAM compliance is irrelevant. It wasn't the case that Spamhaus asserted that e360insight didn't comply with CAN-SPAM. I suspect the probably did comply. Its trivially easy.

You make two incorrect assumptions. One can filter spam, whether or not the spam is CAN-SPAM compliant. One can call e-mail spam, if the e-mail is unsolicited commercial e-mail, whether or not it is CAN-SPAM complient.

Here is a thought, if E360 so legitimate, why do they use Moniker's whois protection service?

Re:The Ultimate .Forward

[www.sorehands.com]

Last, I would like to emphasize that CAN-SPAM compliant emailers are not a legitimate spam problem. By definition, everything that is sent by CAN-SPAM emailers is solicited, and by law, anyone who doesn't want that email can get off the list. Each message contains instructions on how to remove oneself.
Look at the plain language of unsolicted. CAN-SPAM sets a set of requirements for commercial e-mails which are not transactional messgages or prior affirmative consen -- unsolicited.

Best possible result would be...

[jcr]

He wins, gets a judgment that sends the fuckers into bankruptcy, someone buys the judgement against Spamhaus from the recievers for $1, and donates it to Spamhaus.

-jcr

Re:Best possible result would be...

[Technician]

someone buys the judgement against Spamhaus from the recievers for $1, and donates it to Spamhaus.

Um no. That would validate the court rulling. Big time No No NO! It's better to have the ruling reversed to set precidence and jail the e360 solutions personel for purgery and fraud.

Re:Best possible result would be...

[jcr]

For the ruling to be reversed, Spamhaus would have to agree to US jurisdiction. That's not going to happen.

-jcr

Re:Best possible result would be...

[Technician]

That's OK. It's better to leave it unsettled than to set a bad baseline. It's not going anywhere unless the spammer (watch me get sued for libel) takes up the case in the UK.

So far, the case is a laughingstock of what is wrong with the US courts. Why validate their decision with a buying of the case for $1.

It is better to prove it is out of their jurisdiction by public shame. A better one is watching what lengths the spammer will go to try to collect. I hope he is stupid enough to bring it up in a UK court. That would be the best outcome.

Re:Best possible result would be...

[jcr]

So far, the case is a laughingstock of what is wrong with the US courts.

Excuse me? Show me another jurisdiction where you can't get a default judgement if the defendant doesn't show up and present a defense. The same thing can hapen in any court in the UK, if a defendant in an action for (say) libel doesn't appear.

-jcr

Re:Best possible result would be...

[SLi]

Finland. Well, at least if you have claims against someone lives in China and who has never been to Finland. Which is quite like the case here.

Spammers Move From Email to the Courts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a lawyer, but after reading through the motions of the court case of e360Insight against SpamHaus, I'd say they reek of spammers moving from e-mail to the courts.

A sad day when our communications channels are jammed with this bullshit. An even sadder day when our justice system is over ridden with it.

Re:Spammers Move From Email to the Courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Our court systems have been jammed with bullshit since the day they allowed people to blame others for their own irresponsibility.

It's time to start holding people accountable for their own actions again. Stop the pandering. Stop the bullshit.

Factual inaccuracy

[Looce]

Default judgments obtained in U.S. County, State or Federal courts have no validity in the United Kingdom and can not be enforced under the British legal system. A Plaintiff seeking to have such an order enforced must re-file the case in a British court of law and prove jurisdiction, as well as the small matter of proving the merits of the case, all of which were in this case bogus and would not have stood up in any court if tested. Spamhaus had advised Mr Linhardt from the start that a U.S. judgement would be invalid outside of the United States and that he would need to re-file his case in the United Kingdom. Spamhaus understands that David Linhardt does not wish to file in the United Kingdom because his activities are illegal here. With source, of course. Emphasis mine. The entire document linked here is worth reading.

TFsummary failed to mention this.

How did Spamhaus lose?

[Ka D'Argo]

Not being upheld in the UK aside, didn't they have proof to show the courts the company in question did in fact use underhanded illegal tactics to achieve it's advertising? I ask cause, not only did they lose but they were forced to de-list the company and basically apologize. It doesn't make sense. When a sex offender is caught, and proof given, they are put on a list and basically not removed, hell the list updates whenever they chose to relocate and such. So why could a spammer, just have this twisted around in the US court? Other than the Judge's ruling TFA didn't get much into detail as to why he chose the way he did.

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[Tarquin Sidebottom]

Spamhaus 'lost' because they didn't accept jurisdiction, so did not turn up. The judge had no option but to give a default ruling in favour of e360.

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[nagora]

Not being upheld in the UK aside, didn't they have proof to show the courts...

It was more important to establish the point that the US judicial system is not a "world court" able to haul anyone in at a whim to spend a small fortune defending themselves against spurious actions which should never have reached a trial. The fact that the judge was a total moron who was unable to see through a pathetic tissue of lies shows how dangerous it would have been to have allowed any person from Spamhaus to become a literal captive hostage in the US while this was being sorted out.

TWW

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[EveLibertine]

Arguing the merits of the case would have been an admission of jurisdiction on Spamhaus' part. This is old anyway.

Also, they weren't forced to delist the company. That was part of the original ruling, and apparently it went to the the feds to appeal to ICANN to have them delisted, and ICANN responded that not only were they incapable of doing so, but it wasn't their responsibility either. It would be up to the domain registrars to delist them. To add further complexity to this issue, Spamhaus' registrar is based out of Canada. I'm pretty sure that's outside of U.S. jurisdiction, but who knows these days.

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[AndroidCat]

The first thing a court does in each case is establish that it has jurisdiction. At that time, the judge had the option of rejecting the case on the legal principle of "What, are you nuts?" (It sounds much better in Latin.)

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[EveLibertine]

This is old anyway.

Should read: "This is old news anyway"

Read these: http://arstechnica.com/search.ars?Tag=spamhaus/

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[EveLibertine]

The fact that the judge was a total moron who was unable to see through a pathetic tissue of lies shows how dangerous it would have been to have allowed any person from Spamhaus to become a literal captive hostage in the US while this was being sorted out.

Look, don't call the judge a moron. He's not. I can't bring myself to call you a moron, though you are obviously ignorant of the facts here. The way the courts work here, and in most other countries, is that the courts assume that they have jurisdiction. I don't mean casually assume, but rather, bound by law to assume they have jurisdiction. It is up to the plaintiff to declare that the courts hold no jurisdiction over them. This is what happened, this is what is supposed to have happened. This is how the system works. So stop sullying the judges good name, will you? Not only is he just doing his job, but he's doing a good job of it too:

The judge, Charles Kocoras, is chief judge of the District Court in Northern Illinois and was last month awarded the Chicago Bar Association's highest honor, the Justice John Paul Stevens Award. This is not a guy who hands out his verdicts like candy.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060915-7757 .html/

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[Entrope]

You are on crack. If Spamhaus were worried that any of their people might get served in the US, they could have spent the $10,000 or so to have the suit tossed out on jurisdictional grounds. They did not bother, and I see the logic in that. (If they had, Spamhaus would likely have been able to get costs and/or sanctions, either for that effort or for any future improperly-venued actions.) Even if someone from Spamhaus could be properly served while on US territory, this was a civil action -- unless the court had held Spamhaus in contempt and ordered jail time, there would be no grounds to arrest or hold any Spamhaus agent in relation to the lawsuit.

Separately, you are on crack. Common law judges are not supposed to make up arguments, except possibly if one of the parties is representing pro se. The judges are supposed to weight the arguments and evidence presented by the parties. If one party does not present an argument or evidence -- as when that party does not appear before the court -- the judge is supposed to accept the other party's arguments and evidence where they are consistent with law and with the rest of the party's theory of the case. If you do not like that, lobby for a change in the rules, but it is unfair to call the judge a moron for doing what the rules require him to do.

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[AndroidCat]

they could have spent the $10,000 or so to have the suit tossed out on jurisdictional grounds.

Do you think the spammers would have stopped with one case then? They're spammers.

If they had, Spamhaus would likely have been able to get costs and/or sanctions

Spammers are also experienced at setting up corporate shells with no assets to collect. Spamhaus could probably eventually blow through that cheesy firewalling, but after how much in legal costs?

Before any evidence is heard, the plaintiff has to establish the court's jurisdiction. How did this case pass that?

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

It is up to the plaintiff to declare that the courts hold no jurisdiction over them.

Why would someone who initiates a lawsuit try to have it declared void? I'd certainly call that person a moron!

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[EveLibertine]

Well, now you're just being a smartass.

I meant to say defendant, I would think that it was rather obvious what I meant. It appears you understood my meaning anyway, so I am not wrong in thinking that it was obvious. Are you finished with the pointless name calling?

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[budgenator]

Well in most cases what you have to do is actually read the law, most start out something like "it is illegal for anyone in the United States to ...." and if that's the case your right the US can't impose jurisdiction; on the other hand if the law reads "it is illegal for anyone to ...." and a SEAL team snatches your ass off the street in your country and when the blindfold comes off your in the United States your screwed! Don't forget if the US is going to spend that kind of resources on you, there are probably two or three other countries waiting in line for you.

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

I don't care what you meant, I'm not a mind reader - I responded to what you wrote. You screwed up, you got called - get over it.

Re: Pointless name calling - I demand you immediately withdraw that groundless and malicious accusation or put up some evidence.

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[AndroidCat]

Until the court establishes its jurisdiction in the case, what defendant?

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[Anonymous Coward]

and if that's the case your right

and a SEAL team snatches your ass

in your country

your in the United States your screwed

Say it with me, please. YOU'RE. As in YOU ARE. You got two of those five right. I challenge you to re-write your post using proper grammar.

your |yôr; yor| possessive adjective 1.belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing : what is your name?
you're |yor; yôr| contraction of you are : you're an angel, Deb!

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[EveLibertine]

Wrong, language is merely a mode of transporting meaning. You understood, thus my language was sufficient.

It may not have been perfectly accurate, but I admitted the mistake in my previous post, so your making a further fuss of it is rather unwarranted. Furthermore, if you didn't care what I meant, why did you bother to correct it? You certainly could have been more kind or civil about it, or at the very least been constructive and offered the correct terminology. You over-reacted, you got called - get over yourself.

Re: Pointless name calling - Evidence: "I'd certainly call that person a moron!" I didn't say that you meant _I_ was a moron, I just said that calling names is pointless, and asked if you were finished. It really isn't that difficult to understand what my question meant, but perhaps I have been misled regarding your intellectual capacity.

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[innocent_white_lamb]

If Spamhaus were worried that any of their people might get served in the US, they could have spent the $10,000 or so to have the suit tossed out on jurisdictional grounds.
 
Why? I suspect that Spamhaus has better things to spend $10,000 on than a lawyer's bill in another country.
 
If you were suddenly served with a summons to appear in court in Mogadishu, would you immediately hire a Somali lawyer and send him $10,000 to defend you? Or would you, like most of us, simply say, "Ridiculous!" and toss the paperwork into the trash.

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[fritsd]

No, sorry, I see the pp's point here -- the fact that you used the wrong word, can be called a "technicality" IIRC.
Now consider, that IIRC, in this case of Spamhaus, their *lawyers* made a wrong response to the Illinois judge, which made it impossible for said judge to dismiss the case as being outside of jurisdiction. Spamhaus then fired their (U.S.A!) lawyers, but it was already too late.
So, normally I would agree with you that pp is a smartass :-) but not when we're talking about a lawsuit that was (IMHO unjustly but lawfully) decided on a technicality.

IANAL, by the way, so please correct me if I'm talking nonsense here (hey, it's Slashdot).

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[Achromatic1978]

Okay, so let me get this straight. You see no issue with the fact that I, as a "defendant", should have to spend large amounts of time to travel overseas, and / or engage the services of a lawyer overseas, in order to tell a court that has no jurisdiction over me that, gasp, it has no jurisdiction over me?

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[Achromatic1978]

In which case, Spamhaus should be looking at malpractice proceedings against their representation. This is a fairly elementary, black and white thing that a reasonable person should be able to presume competent legal counsel would be able to interpret correctly.

Of course, if it's anything like most countries, the simple fact that most politicians are lawyers and don't like the idea of other lawyers that they used to work with being sued have made it either extremely difficult, or waived responsibility for gross incompetence.

Re:How did Spamhaus lose?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

It really isn't that difficult to understand what my question meant, but perhaps I have been misled regarding your intellectual capacity.

Proabably the case - your estimate of your own is certainly way off.

P.S. This is old news

[Looce]

P.S.: Since I had already read about Mr. Linhardt and Spamhaus, I thought this was to bring more info to me on this matter. It seems that this The Register article (from Mar 23, 2007) actually refers to a statement made by Spamhaus from Sep 2006!

This is old news. Or, as I call it, just "olds".

Re:P.S. This is old news

[AndroidCat]

Please post your email address, and we will opt you out of further news on this topic.

Super remove close reason reveal identity known event complaint legal goes. edited AM. delivered Troika system. copy Sandhills Company rights reserved. tool crack mode. If happening anything unable candidate number tested per second branch bytes Software.

Re:P.S. This is old news

[Looce]

My e-mail address is strongbad@homestarrunner.com . I very eagerly await your e-mails showing the virtues of Vliazzgra, CîàLI5 and RolexReplixas and their ever-increasing importance in our society.

I wish to thank you in advance for this valuable information. You can never get really up-to-date on these things.

awesome!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sc athole.net

Re:like the missle gap

[Antique Geekmeister]

This is confusing. Russia right now is a big *source* of spammer operations that infest Windows machines and lease time on them to spamming companies. They have sharp programmers and no enforcement of computer security abuses to speak of, and an active criminal underground to launder the money through.

Killing them doesn't seem to be all that helpful so far.

Broken link in TFA to spammer's site

[AndroidCat]

For some reason, TFA has a rogue space in the link to the spammer's press release

"The court's ruling today is an important step in defending the rights of legitimate marketers," said Dave Linhardt, e360's President and Founder. "Amazingly, Spamhaus continues to believe it can operate above the laws of the United States. Based on Mr. Linford's refusal to comply with the permanent injuction, it is my opinion that Spamhaus is nothing more than a vigilante, cyber terrorist orgainzation with a dangerous God complex."

Heh.

Re:Broken link in TFA to spammer's site

[CrazyDuke]

Oh, I see Baghdad Bob landed on his feet.

Re:Broken link in TFA to spammer's site

[hutchike]

"Amazingly, Spamhaus continues to believe it can operate above the laws of the United States..."

Last time I checked, US laws mostly only apply inside the US, but maybe the Bush-empire grew while I was sleeping?

Re:Broken link in TFA to spammer's site

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you're thinking of his brain tumor?

Re:Broken link in TFA to spammer's site

[Anonymous Coward]

RESPECT MY AUTHORITAY!

Re:Broken link in TFA to spammer's site

[llefler]

Last time I checked, US laws mostly only apply inside the US, but maybe the Bush-empire grew while I was sleeping?

Apparently it has. We now have this little vacation spot in Cuba.

Re:Broken link in TFA to spammer's site

[Anonymous Coward]

Spamhaus is nothing more than a vigilante, cyber terrorist orgainzation with a dangerous God complex As a hoster I completely agree with this statement. Anti spam witch hunters is much worse than spammers.

Re:like the missle gap

[AndroidCat]

The US isn't scorelesss however. Two Spammers Murdered in New Jersey October 30th, 1999.

So much spam...

[BrownLeopard]

so little bread...

"haha" tag

[rezac]

I'm confused??? Since there is no "haha" tag, that means we are on the side of the spammer...right?

Down with Spamhaus!

Insanely arrogant USA judges

[walterbyrd]

Of course the USA courts had a choice. The court could have said "sorry, we have no jurisdiction" and that would be the end of it. IMO: too many judges have a "god" complex.

Re:Insanely arrogant USA judges

[EveLibertine]

They didn't, at least not in this case. Spamhaus requested that the case be handled by this court. They chould have let it go to any court, then argued that whichever court it was had no jurisdiction, or let the court decide whenever it was handed the case that it didn't have jurisdiction. But that's not what happened. By requesting a specific court, it appeared that Spamhaus was going to actually fight the merits of the case, which would have waved jurisdiction arguements. So, to any court handling the case at this point, it would appear that Spamhaus was going to accept U.S. jurisdiction. But Spamhaus was just moving it to a court that they knew didn't have jurisdiction so that they wouldn't even have to show. I don't know why they didn't just let it go to any court, state or federal, and then claim grounds of no jurisdiction. Maybe their lawyers thought they might run into trouble in U.S. federal courts or something, and thought they had better chances of going this route. Nevertheless, the decision was Spamhaus', not any judge with a "god" complex.

Re:Insanely arrogant USA judges

[gvc]

Spamhouse requested that this case be handled by the court.

This statement requires substantiating evidence.

Re:Insanely arrogant USA judges

[Anonymous Coward]

well, if I had a choice, I'd choose to have it go to a court that I knew 100% didn't have juristiction over me as it would then be easier to tell them to shove off. Rather than risk it going to a court that might think that it did have a case for juristiction. Either way, what this case shows is that civil cases at the very least need a 'public sceptic' appointed by the court who's job it is simply to get the case thrown out for lack of juristiction, or oppose the plaintiff's evidence. If you're sued by someone who has absolutely no case, you shouldn't have to do anything yourself for it to be thrown out, nor should you have to ignore the court, but never visit the country that it's in for fear of being arrested.

Re:Insanely arrogant USA judges

[choongiri]

This statement requires substantiating evidence.

Here you go: http://www.spamsuite.com/files/e360vSpamhausNotice Removal.pdf

By submitting the notice of removal instead of a defence of no jurisdiction, Spamhaus shot themselves in the foot, and submitted by default to the jurisdiction of the Illinois court.

Re:Insanely arrogant USA judges

[skinfitz]

Spamhaus requested that the case be handled by this court. Rubbish.

Re:Insanely arrogant USA judges

[www.sorehands.com]

Incorrect, removal to federal court does not consent to jurisdiction. See Morris & Co. v. Skandinvia Ins. 279 U.S. 405,409 (1929); Phillips v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 101 F.2d 723,727 (9th Circuit 1939).

Did Spamhaus actually pay?

[walterbyrd]

I know spamhaus technically lost, but did they pay? If Spamhaus decided not to pay, what could e360 do?

Re:Did Spamhaus actually pay?

[MadMidnightBomber]

Spamhaus didn't pay, and nor will they.

e360 is a spammer, and they will never obtain judgment against Spamhaus in a UK court. (Because they are a spammer. So sue me, e360.)

Re:Did Spamhaus actually pay?

[someone1234]

Nevertheless, any Spamhaus employee risks their freedom by entering the USA till this ridiculous ruling holds.

Re:Did Spamhaus actually pay?

[Wire3117]

no. the suit is not receivable in Germany.

Re:Did Spamhaus actually pay?

[Wire3117]

err. UK

Re:like the missle gap

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow replacing spam with murders does not seem like an improvement to me.

Comments all about the wrong story!

[frdmfghtr]

Wow, I read through the comments posted so far, and in 3-1/2 hours, only one talks about the Silverstein v. e360 lawsuit, which is the article posted (lending proof that Slashdotters don't RTFA) :).

All the comments are on the e360 v. Spamhaus suit. Understandable, since the summary doesn't even talk about the linked article either.

Re:Comments all about the wrong story!

[Mindragon]

I doubt anyone will read this as it is already OldNews(TM). But I find cases where folks sue over 87 pieces of email to be discouraging. As an ISP myself, I have to constantly monitor the emails and what my own customers are doing to ensure that no spam is going out. We're signed up to the different Spam reporting systems from AOL, Yahoo, MSN and others. When someone clicks on "THIS IS SPAM!!!!" we know about it. More than not, the majority (over 90%) of the reported "THIS IS SPAM!!!!" are things like notifications of orders and things like that from our e-commerce stores. Now imagine if one of those people take an ISP to court and say that they're spamming when, in fact, they are only doing business according to the accepted norms of business which is to effectively communicate with the customers as to the status of the order? According to the agreements that AOL, Yahoo and others enforce according to the anti-spam rules, I can now no longer email order notifications and things like that to the folks that click on "THIS IS SPAM!!!!" button. Next, I'm sure these folks (as has happened) called to customer service saying they're not getting order notifications. At that point, they get told that "they gotta stop reporting these things as spam" if they want to continue getting those emails. In my opinion, the suit against these guys for 87 pieces of spam (a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the spam) is frivolous and a complete time wasting enterprise. Spam doesn't account but for a fraction of the bandwidth and with today's anti-spam engines that uses heuristics and not the "cyber-terrorist" actions of others, we don't get that much spam to begin with. The only folks that are making the money on the whole spam versus anti-spammers are the lawyers and the software vendors. Everyone else should be slapped around for being stupid. Quit yer whining!!!

Re:Comments all about the wrong story!

[nuzak]

The law firm handling Silverstein's suit posted on SPAM-L trumpeting the news and linked to their filing. It reads like it was written by a Slashdot editor. It's one guy who wants to represent himself as a service provider (perhaps his wife gets her mail from his system, who knows) and hired a bunch of divorce lawyers for the suit. Normally I wouldn't lay very good odds on him, but e360's Dave Linhardt (e360 *is* Linhardt, it's just one lone chickenbone spammer) has quite a history of shooting his mouth off, so he might find a way to bungle it.

Re:Comments all about the wrong story!

[www.sorehands.com]

My wife does not get e-mail through my service. I provide free service to some non-profit groups. I also provide service to some models, law firms and individuals. Under the law, I am an ISP.

You have to keep in mind that divorce lawyers do have the background of finding assets that a spouse has hidden or transferred to the spouse's lover.

Even so, with this firm, I have not lost a motion, even against competent attorneys.

Re:Comments all about the wrong story!

[ahodgson]

You can imagine all you want, but the fact is is that e360 are long-time spammers, spammers as in send all the UCE they can to people who never asked for it. They are not being sued for e-commerce confirmation notices. They are being sued because they are spamming scum.

It depends who dies offcourse!

[nietsch]

No, you are right in that sense. Killing is worse than spamming. But that does not prevent me from making jokes about it? But don't dawdle, the USSR is get much further ahead of you! Something must be done! Think of the children!

Re:It depends who dies offcourse!

[AJWM]

Killing is worse than spamming.

That's arguable. In terms of aggregate life-minutes lost, spamming is probably a lot worse than a couple of killings.

(Take a 75 year lifespan, that's 60*24*365*75 = 39,420,000 minutes. Send enough spam that 10 million people spend 5 minutes each dealing with it, that's 50,000,000 minutes lost. And there's a lot more spam than that.)

Re:It depends who dies offcourse!

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing is worse than spamming.

I disagree. If I was on a jury trying someone accused of killing a spammer, I would vote for acquittal based upon the principles of juror nullification. As far as I am concerned, there is no crime in killing a spammer.

Re:It depends who dies offcourse!

[asninn]

I don't think that's a valid argument: you're assuming that the effects scale linearly with the amount of time "stolen", and that's not true. In other words, if f is an evaluation function that maps the "objective" severity of the crime (e.g., the amount of time or money stolen) to the "subjective" severity (i.e., the effect it has on the victim), then you're basically assuming that f(a) + f(b) = f(a+b) (that f is a homomorphism), but there is no a priori reason why it would be.

In fact, I think the fact that sending enough spam to 10 million people so that each of them has to spend 5 minutes dealing with it costs the victims more time overall than a murder of a single person would clearly shows that it this NOT the case.

Re:It depends who dies offcourse!

[AJWM]

Subjective severity is irrelevant: once a murder has happened, the victim doesn't care at all.

Jurisdiction has already been determined.

[www.sorehands.com]

I am the one who filed suit against E360Insight and Linhardt.

Courts already ruled that spammers can be sued where the spam is received (known as the effects test from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 804 S. Ct. 1482). My successful brief agaainst a porn spammer is here.

Additionally, E360's sister business (http://www.bargaindepot.net) specifically programmed their web site to take orders from California (via drop down lists).

I don't think that any motion by them saying that there is no jurisdiction over them in Califonia, but they have jurisdiction over Spamhaus in the UK will pass either the smell test or the laugh test.

That is the point!

[www.sorehands.com]

Or at least part of the point. Once I win, and I will one, they cannot sue anybody for calling them a spammer as they did to group of newsgroup posters.

Careful what you say online about E360...

[merc]

The Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email (aka, NANAE) is wonderful for watching E360INSIGHT's Lindtard CEO try and support their suit against Spamhaus, as well as read Spamhaus' Steve Linford rationally explain themselves. Various posters to that newsgroup have outed E360 for spams they have received in the past and present.

Recently E360INSIGHT have filed a suit against those same people, likely for defamation (or libel, not sure). However it's worth noting that they feel they can use the law to suppress anyone who wishes to refer to them as spammers.

The old saying still rings true, that spam is continually being redefined by the spammers as "that which we do not do".

http://spamresource.googlepages.com/e360vFerguson. pdf

Re:Careful what you say online about E360...

[XSforMe]

"Recently E360INSIGHT have filed a suit against those same people, likely for defamation (or libel, not sure)."

Well, then make sure you call them by their name: "SPAMMERS

Re:Careful what you say online about E360...

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently E360INSIGHT have filed a suit against those same people, likely for defamation (or libel, not sure). However it's worth noting that they feel they can use the law to suppress anyone who wishes to refer to them as spammers.

Remember, they're not called 'spammers' anymore. They're called 'high volume email deployers' :-)

(thank you Daily Show)

I'm not being very original...

[msimm]

But reposting Spamhaus' own statement here seems reasonable. I hadn't read it before today myself.

A SLAPP lawsuit filed in an Illinois (United States) court by David Linhardt (aka e360 Insight LLC) against The Spamhaus Project Ltd., a British-based non-profit organization over which the US court had no jurisdiction, went predictably to default judgement when Spamhaus did not accept U.S. jurisdiction.

To get the lawsuit case accepted in Illinois, instead of filing in the correct jurisdiction (United Kingdom), David Linhardt fabricated under oath that Spamhaus "operates a business in Illinois". Despite being fully aware that Spamhaus was UK-based and that the British organization had correctly filed an Answer to the court declaring there was no jurisdiction, Illinois District Court Judge Charles Kocoras accepted Linhardt's false claim and proceeded, without asking to see proof of jurisdiction, to rule the British-based organization to be in Illinois jurisdiction. The Spamhaus Project in fact operates no business in the United States, has no U.S. office, agents or employees in Illinois or any other U.S. state.

The default judgement issued by Judge Charles Kocoras awards Linhardt, a one-man bulk email marketing outfit based in Chicago, compensatory damages for ficticious 'lost contracts' totaling US$11.7 million, orders Spamhaus to supress evidence of illegal spamming by Linhardt and to permanently remove Linhardt's spam evidence records, orders Spamhaus to lie to the public by posting a notice on its website stating that Linhardt is "not a spammer" and orders Spamhaus to cease stopping spam sent by Linhardt's company e360 Insight LLC to Spamhaus' users.

Spamhaus firmly stands by its position that Linhardt is a spammer (i.e: "a sender of unsolicited bulk email"), Spamhaus has a large evidence archive of spam sent by Linhardt and spam advertising Linhardt's website www.bargaindepot.net, sent to Spamtraps and non-existent users, including spam sent by Linhardt to a number of Spamhaus own investigators. Plus Spamhaus has many complaints from Internet users ready to testify they never opted-in to any such list and were being spammed by Linhardt/e360. (see samples of e360 spam below)

Spamhaus additionally has samples of spams advertising www.bargaindepot.net sent, in violation of the U.S. CAN-SPAM Act, with false routing information, from compromised computers on ADSL lines in Vietnam, China, Korea, Taiwan and Norway.

Spamhaus also stands by the absolute right, under the European Convention on Human Rights, of Spamhaus' users to refuse access to their private mailboxes on their private networks to senders of unsolicited bulk email or indeed any unwanted email, a right established also in U.S. law by Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court, who ruled: "The asserted right of a mailer stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain". Spamhaus maintains that while Linhardt has a right under U.S. law to send as much unsolicited bulk email as he likes, he has no right under any law to force Spamhaus users to receive it.

The Illinois ruling shows that U.S. courts can be gamed by spammers with ease, and that no proof is required in order to obtain judgments over clearly foreign entities. Additionally, as spamming is illegal in the United Kingdom, a U.S. judge ordering a British organization to not block incoming Illinois spam into Britain goes contrary to U.K. law which orders all spammers to cease sending spam in the first place.

Default judgments obtained in U.S. County, State or Federal courts have no validity in the United Kingdom and can not be enforced under the British legal system. A Plaintiff seeking to have such an order enforced must re-file the case in a British court of law and prove jurisdiction, as well as the small matter of proving the merits of the case, all of which were in this case bogus and would not have stood up in any court if tested. Spamhaus h

How to sue anybody anywhere and win!

[BillGatesLoveChild]

If I decide to take a short holiday I can strap on my backpack and go for a 30-country tour, stopping in each and filing a motion against my victim. Even big companies would find it time-consuming and expensive to respond to each complaint. Medium, small companies and individuals have no chance of handling them all. One gets through, and by not appearing, the Judge rules that I am the winner and demands my victim makes payment.

In theory unenforcable, but if my victim steps foot in said company, opens a local office, enters a partnership, buys a holiday house or mail order, well, their assets are mine! (laughs manically)

It's all very well for this judge make findings like this against Limey corporations, but it can work the other way. Libel laws in Australia are draconian. When Australian Businessman Joe Gutnick was named in an article by Dow Jones that he had an association with a money launderer. Gutnick sued Dow Jones, but instad of suing Dow Jones in America, the place of duplication, Gutnick found amenable Australian Courts that said he could sue in Australia because that's where Gutnick read the article. What a can of worms that opened.

http://www.vho.org/News/GB/News1_03.html "Internet: Can Everybody Sue Everybody everywhere?"
http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/2104.htm

Fact is judges should not make rulings about cases that have no jurisdiction. If the judge made the ruling because he was annoyed, then he's an ass and not fit for the job. If he made it because it's the law, the law's an ass.

I'll make a prediction: When multi-million dollar judgements start getting made in other countries against big American companies, you'll see the law quickly changed by Congress and pushed through to other countries using the "sign this treaty or life will get very hard" approach used with the DMCA. Why this hasn't happened already I'm not sure. Dow Jones is big enough.

e360 insight's No Spam Policy

[Don Giovanni]

The second paragraph here:
http://www.e360insight.com/about-us.php

NO SPAM POLICY - e360 has a strict, no spam policy. Spam is a serious industry problem for consumers, internet service providers, and legitimate marketers. e360's policy is to only send email messages to those who want to receive them. e360 provides consumers with notification, choice and control as it relates to the receipt of marketing messages. Consumers opt-in to e360's programs and must meet e360's confirmation standards in order to receive marketing messages. Once entered, consumers can opt-out to cancel their subscription at any time for any reason.

LOL