Major Anti-Spam Lawsuit To Be Filed In VA

Rick Zeman sends us to the Washington Post, which is reporting that a John Doe lawsuit will be filed in US District Court today in spam-unfriendly Alexandria, Virginia. The suit will be filed by Project Honey Pot, which is having a week of big announcements. The suit seeks the identity of individuals responsible for harvesting millions of e-mail addresses on behalf of spammers. From the Post: "The company is filing the suit on behalf of some 20,000 people who use its anti-spam tool. Web site owners use the project's free software to generate pages that feature unique 'spam trap' e-mail addresses each time those pages are visited. The software then records the Internet address of the visitor and the date and time of the visit. Because those addresses are never used to sign up for e-mail lists, the software can help investigators draw connections between harvesters and spammers if an address generated by a spam trap or 'honey pot' later receives junk e-mail."

Comments

how about a link to the actual article?

[Anonymous Coward]

which is here

Re:how about a link to the actual article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or what about a link to the Project Honey Pot page that explains the lawsuit and contains a link to that Washington Post article?

What would the natural response be?

[pzs]

Obviously this kind of litigation is a good step and to be encouraged, but it's interesting to imagine what would happen if nobody took action against spammers through the courts.

Clearly spam works, so the amount of spam being sent would only continue to grow. Would this lead to increased vigilante action? More privacy and restrictions imposed by administrators? Decrease in the use of Email as the signal-to-noise ratio continues to degenerate? All of the above?

Peter

Re:Yeah but what will the judge think

[aadvancedGIR]

Directly proving how the address was collected may indeed be a weak evidence, but you'd better see that as a working base.
Starting evidences:
-A send spam to targeted email, obviously without opt-in.
-B is suspected to have harvested that adress.
And then:
-Investigation shows a link between A and B.
Then you have something solid to sue on.

Vatican spam

[paulatz]

Maybe in the USA nobody knows, but the acronym VA uses to stand for Vatican (http://www.vatican.va/) not Virginia. You may imagine how dazzled I was after reading that the Pope himself will take care of spammers, will they be excommunicated?

Re:Vatican spam

[allscan]

Perhaps a it's time for the SPAMish Inquisition.

Maybe that's the solution.

[Kadin2048]

Maybe the solution to the botnet problem isn't to go after the botnet operators, but to go after the people who are leaving unpatched machines connected to the net? Or, perhaps more to the point, their ISPs?

I understand this wouldn't be an exactly popular solution -- it's sort of the equivalent of a "scorched earth" tactic towards spammers -- but what if you implemented strict liability on all computers under your control? You get rootkitted or botnetted, sorry pal, it's your problem. Don't want to deal with it? Keep your machines up-to-date or keep them unplugged.

Unpatched machines that are connected to the internet are a public nuisance, in the same way that an abandoned house in an otherwise good neighborhood is. It's nearly impossible, and probably a losing battle, to try and go after the individual criminals who are using the abandoned house for nefarious purposes (which isn't to say that we shouldn't try); sometimes the best solution is just to go after the person who owns the house and make them either fix it or raze it.

A compromise, which would avoid true strict liability, would be making it a positive defense that you took reasonable steps to secure a system; i.e. it was kept up-to-date with the latest vendor patches and was behind a firewall. But if you can't take those reasonable steps, or are too incompetent/lazy/ignorant to do it, maybe you shouldn't be on the net at all.