Slashdot Mirror
Judge In e360 Vs. Comcast Rules e360 a Spammer
Brielle Bruns writes "Yesterday, Judge James B. Zagel dismissed claims against Comcast by e360. In the decision, the judge says: 'Plaintiff e360Insight, LLC is a marketer. It refers to itself as an Internet marketing company. Some, perhaps even a majority of people in this country, would call it a spammer.' This clears the path for Comcast's counter-suit." e360 is the spammer that got a default judgement against Spamhaus, as we have discussed on numerous occasions.
Comcast vs. e360Insight: Whoever loses, we win.
I get snail mail advertisements all the time; to me they are spam. What's the difference between unsoliticed snail-mail marketing and unsolicited email 'spam'?
A pox on both your houses...
This is like 4chan vs. The Church of Scientolog (except that in that case I have to clarify that it's 4chan I dislike, not the people joining their campaign as "Anonymous", and the Church of Scientology I dislike, not the people who simply believe in the underlying religious philosophy).
Btw, why is it that spammers ever appear in court? Why haven't vigilantes already made it a practice to terrorize anyone who publicly acts in furtherance of spamming?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Where does this leave spamhaus v. e360 though?
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
But... (and IANAL)
It sounded like the judge said, basically, that the stated claims were invalid, but that the unmade claim of bad faith action by comcast may have a chance.
I've had several cases where comcast has silently blocked e-mail sent to me, where I specifically wanted to receive those e-mails.
If this is one of those companies that sends an advertisement with that little opt-out link at the bottom which is more likely to get you even more spam, then I'm all for Comcast blocking them. If this company (and I have not researched it, so I don't know much about it) does indeed require response to an opt-in e-mail prior to sending additional material, then comcast shouldn't be blocking them.
Since I'm so anti-comcast, I have a hard time being able to distinguish when it's a good thing that they were not on the losing side of something.
Everyone knows they are merely a 'high volume email deployer'.
Sure, spam sucks and it's nice to see ISPs raining down lawyers on spammers - but if Comcast wasn't such a collection of corporate asshats, I would feel infinitely better about them winning in court.
It's like seeing the grade school bully ace a math test.
Ever hear of "blue security"? They made a program which, when you got spam email, went to the website and filled out their application with tons of "remove me" messages and junk, making their data files unuseable.
The spammers fought back so hard, they knocked the nation of Israel off the internet (where their offices/server was), for a few days.
The lesson? Spamming is big business.
People already do.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Is it wrong for me to hope that a meteorite falls on that courtroom and takes out both parties (but spares everyone else)?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Finally a swift competent decision from the legal system on an obvious case. If only the silly patent cases could be dismissed as quickly.
Note: I do like other fast food places, just I always seem to end up with stomach problems after going to McDonalds, last time someone convinced me to go, I was off work for a few days.. and he was off for a couple of weeks
which is totally what she said
I am suing e360Insight for illegal spamming. http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam/e360/e360insight.htm
In their failed summary judgment motion (asking the court to dismiss the case based on some evidence), they claim that the spam I tracked to them is not theirs, but it must be someone trying to make them look bad because: 1. They don't spam; 2. That it could have been created in a word processor using publically available information; 3. They don't format their e-mails that way; 4. That it did not come from their IP addresses.
e360 ignored that they have used Atriks, which hides the true IP address by running it through a sort of legal botnet. They also ignored that they use anonymous domain name registrations, so I must have been a good guesser to get most of the domain names correct (their co-Defendant, Moniker, admitted that most of the domain names I identified to e360 were registered through them to bargaindepot.net -- their sister company/codefendant).
Fight Spammers!
Are you saying a rape victim asked for it because she doesn't carry a ak-47? Bernie Goetz tried that, but he still got convicted for illegal discharge of a weapon when he 'felt' threatened on the train in NYC.
Fight Spammers!
Your desire would not result in sufficient suffering for either Comcast or to e360.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Monday (4/7/2008), I had two motion hearings against e360. One was their summary judgment motion to kick their my case against them, the other was my anti-SLAPP motion against their counterclaim.
Entire details at http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam/e360/e360insight.htm
Their counterclaim is for calling libel (calling them a spammer and liar) and abuse of process (asking for their domain names in discovery). At the hearing struck/dismissed their abuse of process claim, and said that their paying my attorney fees for the motion is mandatory. The tentative did not strike the libel claim, but she said she would look into that further as the court needed to investigate if the supplemental request for judicial notice, containing articles quoting Linhardt in the press (Cnet and NY Times, DirectMag.com) is sufficient for limited purpose public figure status.
She denied their summary judgment motion on my claims against e360. Mostly because e360 refused to provide discovery to me, but relied upon that information in their motion. On the my libel claim against them, she denied that, except the portion saying that he implied that I hacked into his system.
Fight Spammers!
It's not often I'm in favor of Comcast these days (and yes, I am a subscriber to it due to lack of other available options, despite the FCC's contention that there's ample competition in broadband), but this time I'm happy that they've won. Spammers, along with Phishers, Virus/Trojan Writers, and 'Bot Herders are the true scum of the Internet.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I've had exactly that same problem with them, which is why I now use a free gMail account.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's trolls like you that waste our mod points.
But if I blocked all the credit card offers, how would my wife and I continue to float thousands of dollars at 0% for years and never pay a dime for the privilege???
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
It's the USA that's the biggest problem. Get your own house in order.
I think that is the idea.
The cost per message of sending junk mail through the post office is significant enough that there's an incentive for junk mailers to reduce the number of messages thay send, to the point where lists of good prospects can cost many times the actual cost of producing the mailings (which have to be printed, addressed, and physically mailed) and mailing them, because it's more profitable to send out 1000 letters to people who have responded to solicitations before than 100,000 letters to people who never even buy mail-order. Plus, the post office actually makes a profit on junk mail that subsidizes personal mail.
The result? I get maybe 4 or 5 pieces of junk mail a day, on a heavy day.
The cost per message of sending email through the internet is negligible. It is cheaper for spammers to actually pay the occasional judgement against aggressive spam fighters than to filter even well known high profile anti-spammers from their lists... let alone people who just don't want the stuff. It's cheaper for them to pay fines for violating do-not-spam lists where they exist than to use them. And they don't pay for any of the infrastructure that they're abusing.
The result? At one point I had to block several countries access to port 25 at the router because the junk mail traffic to my server was costing me $750 a month in excess traffic charges, and even just handling "HELO...MAIL FROM...RCPT TO...denied" was pushing things.
I want some real competition - in the Houston market, Comcrap came in and is the monopoly on cable modem service. A TEENSY TINY area is covered by FIOS, and 80% of the areas covered by DSL don't overlap the Comcrap areas. No, I don't consider satellite internet "competition" either, given their 3000+ ms ping times.
Prior to Comcrap, we had Roadrunner (time warner) running the service. Since Comcrap broke the agreement with TW and came in our service has gone down the crapper, we constantly have dead periods, bandwidth is cut in half, and meanwhile they run ads claiming (quite fraudulently) that they are "increasing" the number of channels for the cable subscribers.
Used to be, if we had service outage (say, someone didn't trim their tree and cable got broken) we called the local customer service, we got a tech out, it was fixed within 4 hours. Now, we call customer service and get some fucking moron in India who doesn't speak english, and it takes 2 days just to get some mexican (who also doesn't speak english) in a truck out to verify there's a problem and then say he needs to get some other mexican out to fix it.
Fuck Comcrap. I want them out.
It could be a very small but radioactive meteorite, that doesn't kill them immediately, but gives them cancer. Of the balls.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
After all these years, very few people seem to recognize or understand the obvious nature of the spam problem.
Why make this so complicated? It's very, very simple folks:
1. Email spam comes from hijacked computers
2. The only practical way to end spam is to either charge for sending too many emails, or to recognize hijacked computers sending too many emails and take them off the net until their behavior stops or is validated as legitimate. If the low level ISP fails to take action, the next ISP up the chain must cut them off.
3. The solution in #2 will cost ISPs money and upset their customers so they won't do it unless they have to
4. ISPs have a tremendous amount of money and power and will prevent #2 from being mandated
5. Therefore, spam is going to continue indefinitely
I semi-followed that story, but my question was more: why don't vigilantes go after everyone who shows their face in public as aiding spammers or spamming? The BlueFrog thing was all online activities.
... we do not see this. Spammers and their attorneys do in fact show their faces.
What I'm getting at is, there should be legions of people who hate spam with a passion. While I don't advocate violent vigilante attacks against spammers (so please don't hit me with the "your post advocates a (x) vigilante...), I would imagine that there are enough people ready/willing/able, that every time a spammer *or their attorneys* actually show their faces, then *bam* next thing you know they're a victim of several pranks, get death threats, families threatened, law firms threatened, litigants followed out of court and intimidated, etc etc etc ad infinitum.
I would futher imagine that by this point, spammers would be so afraid of showing their faces, that they would do everything possible to avoid a court appearance, and thus lose every case actually making it to a hearing, by default.
Yet
What am I missing?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Only "stupid" and "bad at spamming" spammers actually show their faces. PharmaMaster and other nameless, faceless net spammers tend to be so good that finding their real identity is hard.
Really, do you want to be known as the guy who harassed the spammer equivalent of the short-bus kid? Or do you want to go act out against the people generating 10-20% of all spam on the net?
Television commercials are spam. Radio commercials are spam. Any kind of commercial is spam. Any kind of product or service promotion is spam.
All packaging should be black or white, with labels that only describe the content and nothing else. This includes your milk cartons, your cereal boxes, etc. It shall be forbidden to know where your product came from, lest you develop a preference.
SERP's are spam, organic or not. How DARE you promote your product or service to people who are expressly engaged in the process of looking for it.
Internet marketing is spam, you say? Then Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. and just about every business with a web presence is guilty of spamming.
Yes, these people were engaged in spamming, but no - netiher marketing nor internet marketing equals spamming, for crissakes.
As if it's not bad enough that e360 is spamming the world, now this company is clogging our court system. Seems like another spam technique to me.