Slashdot Log In
Spammers, Privacy, Anti-Spam, and Lawsuits
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Apr 07, 2003 08:35 AM
from the oh-my dept.
from the oh-my dept.
Digital Eco Freak writes "The Washington Post is running a story about a spammer suing to keep his address and personal info private. George Allen Moore Jr. of Linthicum, MD has sued Francis Uy for posting his contact information on the web. He has gotten threatening phone calls and messages, as well as an over-abundance of unsolicited catalgs and packages as a result of Uy's actions. The spammer is getting a taste of his own medicine, but the guy's business address turns out to be the same as his home address, so there may be real safety concerns. Should spammers get some privacy protection too?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Privacy protection? (Score:5, Funny)
Daniel
Re:Privacy protection? (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, I think the only decision we have to make is "hunt to extinction" or seasonal hunting only.
Parent
Re:Privacy protection? (Score:5, Informative)
Maryland Internet Marketing LLC, George Alan Moore Jr, 300 Twin Oaks Rd, Linthicum MD, 21090-2154, 877-655-3438, 410-963-8226.
Clearly he has suffered enough already at the hands of that cruel, cruel Francis Uy!
Parent
Re:Privacy protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do want to point out something a bit more fundamental, though. Rights aren't any good if they can be casually taken away.
When everyone in the world despises you, when the government *hates* you and wants you *dead*.... that's when you need rights.
If you only have them when you are popular, you don't have them.
Parent
Home/Business (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the risk you run by running a business out of your home, privacy for him and his family are due, but not for his business that offends many people.
If he runs a questionable business from his home, he can't expect to have any kind of protection. The spam business sure dosen't deserve any. He should of known better.
Re:Home/Business (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if someone could arrange to get a couple tons of manure delivered to his front lawn, that would be funny.
Parent
I can help! (Score:4, Funny)
Well, last month I ate two pounds of cheese a day, and didn't crap at all. This month, I've been eating nothing but fiber, greasy food, and hot chicken wings. I still haven't dumped for another two weeks, and I think things are ready to go.
So if someone could just drive me to his house, I think I can manage the job for you.
Parent
Re:Home/Business (Score:4, Insightful)
Why didn't moore use a P.O. box?
The reason spam has grown to such an epidemic is that there are idiots out there who actually open the spam and then order the products or services that they are offering thus funding and encouraging the spammers to further spam. All we need to do is have some sort of idiot test performed by ISPs. Within the first few days of signing up for internet and logging on the ISP should send an email advertising a product or service that fits the demographics of the user and if the user attempts to order the product or service they should get cut off. That should eliminate the pesky spammers.
Parent
Actually, it wouldn't help much. (Score:5, Insightful)
Many spammers make money not by selling to the email targets, but by selling spamming services.
And then there are the companies that view it as cheap advertising. Even if they make no sales, the fact that they get their name out is good in their eyes. They don't quite understand yet that they are generating badwill because even a bad commercial is good as long as you remember the name.
Unfortunately, it's gonna get much worse before it gets better. Companies have only recently discovered the use of email as advertising instead of merely selling.
Parent
Re:Home/Business (Score:5, Insightful)
From unwanted catalogs? You are absolutely correct. From threatening phone calls and harassment? You are incorrect. Additionally, this is not a questionable business - it is perfectly legitamate. Maybe you don't approve of it, but your approval or disapproval does not make something legal, illegal, or "questionable".
Parent
Re:Home/Business (Score:4, Interesting)
For the moment, that may be a technically true statement. However, according to many of the articles found on a google search, his spam is selling pirated copies of Norton Systemworks. Symantec is shutting his sites down as fast as he can bring them up.
But you are correct in that even if he's found guilty in a criminal court, it's not in anyone's place to physically harass him. That's for the courts to decide. I just wish they'd hurry the process up a bit.
Parent
Re:Home/Business (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it most certainly is.
it is perfectly legitamate.
In the same way that server hacking is legitimate?
Spamming is, at best "questionable".
It's not a matter of opinion: many states have laws banning it, and it's against the TOS of every reputable ISP.
If it was not questionable, spammers wouldn't have to rape misconfigured relays, and they wouldn't have to play "whack-a-mole", jumping from ISP to ISP to continue to harrass everybody else.
Parent
And for proof of fraud... (was Re:Home/Business) (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Home/Business (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as spamming and junk mail remains legal, which it likely will, as it is part of that touchy subject of the first ammendment, he will be in the right.
What is more illegal is the intentional harassment of the spammer by others. If they were mailing and calling him with political or commercial requests, they probably cannot be stopped (other than by a no-call list). However, the intentional harrassment might be considered illegal, if it can be proven.
Parent
Re:Home/Business (Score:5, Insightful)
A company that offends people, wether illegal or legal, should not have the right to be anonymous, anyone receiving his service has to right to complain about it at any time and in any manner.
I don't agree with the threatening phone calls, but if you do something that's bad enough that it will entice someone to commit an illegal act as such in retalition, maybe you should rethink you're service and try to do something that could benifit the community.
IF you don't want to, it's your choice, but the fact remains, people will keep threatening you on the phone because they are very displeased with the service they have tried to stop for a long time.
Parent
Re:Home/Business (Score:4, Insightful)
This is very false, because people ASK for abortions, if people don't agree they should be able to ask, that's a whole different moral issue, the problem here is no one ASKS for bulk email, hence if the mob says no, the democracy should reflect the mob, cuz you can replace mob with citizens.
Parent
Clarify (Score:5, Interesting)
If he runs a questionable business from his home, he can't expect to have any kind of protection. The spam business sure dosen't deserve any. He should of known better.
Agreement, somewhat. In fits of anger and frustration I've felt like, if the spammer was my neighbor I'd go over and give him a knuckle sandwich. Not the best way for me to handle the situation, but by the same token, he should respect my right to privacy and my wishes not to have ads sent to me via forged addresses.
That the spammer conducts a questionable business is general and yet an understatement. If it's a business they conduct until they make enough money to pay their rent, or some other short-term expense then it could hardly be classified as a business, more a simple enterprise. Probably your 'questionable' view is derived from the very dubious products most of these people are selling. Phony pharmacuticals, useless money making schemes, or actual criminal intent to gather personal/financial information.
Here's the thing. Their privacy can only be so well guarded, since you need to contact them, or the person who used their services, to make any transaction. Therefore they need to expose a phone number or a web site. The more clever ones use offshore sites and stolen cell phones. (Ever notice fraud related spam peaks Friday-Sunday, when it's most difficult to contact an ISP/law enforcement? I've been through this a couple times, I know.)
Stupid spammers give out their home phone numbers or a website, which can easily be tracked with a who is lookup. I have one targeted, and he will receive a lot of junk mail, soon. Thanks to his spamming me. I don't feel any remorse about such a practice of harrassment, other than the amount of wastepaper it generates. With most spam it's been a one-way street, they harrass you, you can't even communicate back to them, despite laws on the books or coming soon.
If I could, I would:
DoS attack spammers websites.
Sue those I can track down, for my time and resources in dealing with their garbage.
Find out who Bulkers Warehouse is and shut them down. They spammed, several times, from offshore forging my email address.
Parent
Another clueless journalist (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Another clueless journalist (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Spammers safety (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spammers safety (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy is a bottomfeeder of the Internet. He is no more than a script kiddie, except that he is profiting from his actions, many which could be questionable and IMHO, should be deemed illegal. Spammers in general (I won't comment about his M.O., as I can neither confirm nor deny that he uses open relays, subversive methods to foil spam detection algorithms, which should be a violation of the DMCA in the US) use weaknesses in the current implementation of e-mail to furhter their own cause, and their wallets. I do not see this as a legitimate business, any more than web defacement is. It is because of his bending of the laws that he is hated. His business practices are questionable, plus he is guilty of doing the exact thing that he is complaining about. Check out this this article [internet.com] about his posting of people's personal information on the web.
Parent
Of course... but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if he was physically attacked, injured, etc. as a result of his address being posted then he could possibly sue Mr. Uy for endangerment, have him arrested for being an accessory, etc. but otherwise he's fighting a rather weak legal battle. Especially when he abuses the very same lack of privacy of millions of other people.
Frankly, I don't have much problem with his address being posted. You reap what you sow. If he wasn't such a scumbag it wouldn't be an issue.
Re:Of course... but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know, the laws restricting businesses from calling you at home (at least in my state) don't apply to private individuals. I would say that the publication of Mr.Uy's home address would be covered under the First Amendement, and I think that simply publishing a list of the home addresses of spammers' home addresses and phone numbers would be. However, if such a list was published on a sight telling poeple to go kill the spammers then it would be akin to the much talked about "hit-list" of abortion doctors and would therefore be illegal.
Parent
Karma is alive and well (Score:5, Interesting)
business address vs. home address (Score:5, Interesting)
secondly, i believe that *any* business that doesn't want/hasn't had real person (not voicemail, answering machine, po box) contact info published should be investigated for fraud.
e
Odd (Score:5, Insightful)
reverse situation (Score:5, Insightful)
If he doesn't respect my privacy, i honestly can't sympathise with him either. As harsh as it may sound, I often have the impression that spammers are like kids : you can talk & explain all you want, but unless you send them to their rooms to cry out loud for a while, they won't stop being naughty.
Spammers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights apply equally to scumbags too.
But that won't stop me from giggeling with glee of course.
How do you like them unsolicited calls, dead trees, emails and sms messages now mr Spammer sir?
Re:Spammers... (Score:5, Insightful)
And when I publish my business address I have no reasonable expectation that someone should treat it as private information.
Parent
Uy is a slashdotter... (Score:5, Informative)
The Journal also has the address of Moore.. enjoy..
Should Spammers get some privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Internet is, before anything else, a system based on sharing and cooperation. Which is what makes it so interesting: people who know what they talk about post interesting information on all kind of subjects, and enrich a global discourse.
Linux/Open Source systems are the best example of this: they were made possible -- and became a force in the computing world -- through sharing and cooperatino. For instance NetBSD added "Net" to "BSD" to reflect its root in the cooperation made possible by the Internet.
On the other hand, spammers do nothing but abuse the resources of the system and inundate people with messages that are othing more than complete scams.
Abusing the cooperation and the good will of the global Internet, and using its resources in an unlawful way (it's a scam, remember?), is IMHO, enough to forfeit all the protections that should be enjoyed by all on the Internet.
Would you protect the privacy of a live-and-still-at-large criminal? I think not. Would you protect the "privacy" of a con artist, knowing full well that he may rip off another person behind your back? I think not.
Remember this: spammers are swindlers. Period. No privay for the wicked, says I.
Besides, sending thousands of email messages per day, on a network known for it lack of security and authentication is just asking for trouble... (Proof enough that they are stupid as well as dishonest!)
Also interesting: go to Cryptome [cryptome.org], and read all about two scam artists of a different kind: these two do not spam, but they swindled the public by offering snake-oil security products. Very, very interesting and recommended reading...
Slightly Off-Topic (Score:5, Interesting)
Porn spam--legal minefield for employers [com.com]
"Just as an employer has a duty to protect from patrons and other people--like the (delivery) guy who fondles a secretary--there's a good theory saying a company has a duty to filter (offensive e-mail) even if the employees are being harassed entirely from far outside the company walls," Volokh said. "If the employer is reasonably capable of filtering the material, and if it doesn't do that, it would be held liable."
Wow, interesting how spam could be the basis for a hostile work enviromnet lawsuit.
later,
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember what we learned in kindergarten: two wrongs don't make a right. I'd say spamming is an acceptable (and decidedly amusing) way of getting your message to him, but when it puts him and his family at risk, you've gone too far.
Re:Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right (Score:5, Interesting)
> violation of his (death threats, etc.) will have any positive results beyond a
> temporary feeling of satisfaction
Tell that to the legal system, concidering thats exactly what its in place to do.
> but when it puts him and his family at risk, you've gone too far.
So let me get this straight.
This dumbass goes out of his way to break the law (It is illegal in his state to spam), and also went out of his way to give his home address where his family lives as his place of business, and this is somehow OUR fault?
I'd say he put his own family at risk by being stupid and breaking laws and pissing off everyone, then told everyone 'legally you must deal with my work related things at my home address'
In addition, if there is a family and say for example the husband commited a murder, and the wife/kids KNEW it happened, and KNOW something will happen in return for that (In this example from law enforcement)
Whos choice again was it for them to stay with the husband?
Now granted it could be totally possible that this spammers family doesnt know he is a criminal or the extent he goes out of his way to start fights with the world at large, but after the light harassment (IE spam the spammers postal mail, sending tons of trash mail, etc) they should get a little bit of a clue that something screwy is going on.
Most people would find it strange to have their S.O. state they have to remain in secret and noone can know what they do, in order to conduct their business.
As the old storys go, when the little gang member kid starts getting into fights, its a shame that it needs done but the parents need to do something about it to get that to stop.
If they willingly choose to ignore it and allow their target child to live with them, they cant with any seriousness expect not to have drive-by shootings at their house which could very well kill them, being innocent bystanders.
Unless some very very specific conditions are met, which most do not appear to be, this guy knowingly broke laws and angered the community, knowingly put his family into danger, and the rest of the family knowingly is keeping themselfs in this danger without doing anything to get out of the situation.
While the kids are probably too young to realize or do much about this, and its ashame both parents are endangering the kids lives this way, thats exactly what it is. Both parents, endangering their kids lives.
But please, blame the stupid fucks actually doing the wrong here. Not the victoms that are doing the only thing they are left to do.
Parent
A Line Has Definitely Been Crossed (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that his business address is the same as his home address does cast some doubt on this, as Uy may not have intended to give out Moore's home address, but from what I gather, he knows now, and has still refused to take down the information, so it's not so much of a point anymore.
Just because you don't like someone or what they do, they still have rights. Uy is walking a dangerous line, it would seem, his fate is in the hands of the masses right now. If harm befalls Mr. Moore, Uy's going to be in a spot of trouble.
Re:A Line Has Definitely Been Crossed (Score:4, Interesting)
Point being that this can actually cause economic harm to you - this is the same reason that telemarketing to cell phones is illegal in most places... the telemarketer, by calling you, is costing you money. In quite a few places, there are laws against telemarketing via fax for the same reason.
Currently, incoming email is free for the most part, but that is slowly changing as ISPs start adopting data-transfer business models (couple stories about that on /. a few months ago) or placing caps on data transferred during a time period.
Finally, for email not blowing up in your face - what about an email with HTML that loads a web site or runs a VBS that then automatically installs some spyware? Most of us aren't running OE or have turned preview off, but what about the rest of the population? What if said spyware crashes their machine, taking out their financial or business records? That could be horribly damaging.
My point is that Moore is not exactly innocent and is skirting legality... Plus, spamming someone could be (and has!) been considered harassment... whether that's in real life or electronically. I agree that no one should be sending him unmarked packages or threatening phone calls, but signing him up for every junk mail list you can find seems not only reasonable and well-deserved, but is also playing by Moore's rules.
-T
Parent
Lawsuit may expose spammer to more trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
Make no mistake, the entertainment value of this case could have far-reaching implications. Mr. Moore will also find out quickly that dissemnation of publically-accessible information is protected free speech. The golden rule rides again...
The Nuremurg Files precedent (Score:5, Informative)
Monetary cost (Score:5, Interesting)
I get somewhere on the order of 400 spam emails a day between eight email addresses coming to my registered domains and the aliases for different jobs. My spamassassin filters snag about 80%-90% leaving 20-40 messages per day. Not a whole lot, but these messages require a few minutes a day to process. Because the ones that do make it past spamassassin appear legitimate, I need to check them in case they are potential customer requests. If it takes me two minutes a day to check this spam (and that's conservative), over a year it will cost me over 12 hours. If I multply that by my hourly rate then that's a good amount of money.
Contrast this to regular, *regulated* snail mail spam:
1) The sender pays for the advertisting.
2) There are no advertisements for, among other things, enlarging my penis, growing my hair, fixing my septic tank, or teenage blondes willing to do anything on Spring Break.
Point 1 is the important thing, IMO. Why should it cost me in time and resources for someone to advertise products in which I have absolutely no interest, and in fact, many of which I find repulsive? Freedom of speech? Bullshit. This is not a free speech issue. Advertisers can't break into my house and paper my walls with flyers and child porn. They are not allowed to call me at all hours of the day. They are not allowed to pretend to be legitimate persons in order to sell something.
I will defend a person or organization's right to publish materials on whatever topic they see fit. This does not mean that they can attempt to force their thoughts or their advertisements on me.
Well whoptie shit (Score:5, Insightful)
If you run an extortion business, expect to have people with guns hanging around. Deal. If you run a drug dealing business, expect to have crazy drug addicts knocking on your door. Deal. If you fence stolen goods, expect to have theives around you often. Deal.
If you are going to send spam, don't complain when you get it back. Deal. Sorry, I've got no sympathy.
If Moore wins that lawsuit ... (Score:5, Funny)
Was it public information? (Score:4, Insightful)
True it sux to be harassed ( all this 'get what he deserves' stuff aside ), but if he's not smart enough to have at least a PO Box for his 'company', then he's a fool.
Laughed out of court, I hope (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's so simple.
See, here's a guy who is - as a business, no less - doing exactly that to other people that he doesn't want done to himself.
Simple answer: "Come back when you've stopped violation others privacy, then we'll hear your case."
Darn, late to my own party (Score:5, Informative)
I arrived at the District Court in Glen Burnie a bit before 9am. My lawyer was there already. ( <plug> Jonathan Biedron, great guy, highly recommended if you need any family law or such in central Maryland </plug> ) We compared notes, made sure we had all our printouts, and went to Courtroom #4.
District Court is the first level of the civil judicial system, no serious crimes here. All the other cases on the docket were either family disputes or tenant evictions. Upon entering the room, George saw me and sent his lawyer (Cheryl Asensio, from Glen Burnie) to talk to Jon. George was kindly willing to drop the case if I took down my pages. Jon declined. When the judge got to ours he asked if we had settled; he saw that it was going to be long and bizarre, and was hoping to avoid it. No such luck, so he sent us back to wait and asked the judge next door to take our case while he finished up the usual pile of landlords.
[drat, gotta go to IT staff meeting. time passes.]At 9:30 we were sent to Courtroom #3, Judge Robert Wilcox presiding. The plaintiff always goes first. We started out informally, and George narrated his side of the case. By 10:00 Judge Wilcox said that he hadn't heard anything to prove I was responsible for the harrassment. Jon and I are about to pack our bags when Asensio decides to go the whole nine yards with formal witness testimony. Groan.
Citizens have a constitutional right to a proper day in court (except for "material witnesses" and "unlawful combatants" but let's not go there), and that's what George wanted. Asensio examines Fatburn first, and introduces pages from Google Groups into evidence. She cited someone's signature file quoting Dave Barry advocating castration [slashdot.org] of spammers as an indication of the kind of horrible people that inhabit NANAE. (during cross examination George testified that he had never heard of Dave Barry).
Then she questioned me, apparently hoping that I would crack under pressure and confess to secretly organizing a cabal of Anti-Fatburn Terrorists. We got sidetracked for about 5 minutes in a discussion of how I contacted a guy who foolishly hired a spammer to advertise his hydraulic valves [google.com]. Eventually she ran out of ways to try asking me "yes or no, are you going to stop harrassing my client?" and rested her case at 11:30.
District cases usually take between 30 seconds and 5 minutes, so everyone else in the room sighed with relief. The judge was still unconvinced and promptly ruled in my favor. I feel bad for the poor tree that I killed printing up my un-needed defense. Ah well, hopefully it will remain that way; any District ruling can be appealed to Circuit "de novo", meaning we start all over from scratch.
George tried to send me a message, and wanted to make an example of me. Instead I had a message for him: every time you try to mess with me, I will post it on the net, and more people will learn about you. I don't encourage harrassment against you, and I don't need to. The facts speak quite loudly enough. Your best option is to crawl back under a rock and suck it up, or move to some state other than the one I live in.
Re:first post! (Score:4, Interesting)
But what law says that your business address and phone number should be absolutely private? Just because it is also your home address and phone number should have no impact. Either way, freedom of speech trumps freedom of privacy. It is mentioned specifically in the Constitution wheras privacy is only hinted at.
Parent
Re:I give it 50 posts before..... (Score:5, Informative)
300 Twin Oaks Road, Linthicum MD 21090-2154
877-655-3438, 410-963-8226, 410-691-2924, drfatburn@aol.com drfatburn12345@cs.com, formerly maknuthin@aol.com
The info is public Domain, from the SLAPP website: http://www.barbieslapp.com/others/fatburn.htm
Parent
Re:The real question is.. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
What if this guy spoke harshly about the government, would you feel the same?
If he was an abortion doctor would he feel the same?
If he was a communist would you feel the same?
Nice try, but that's not a valid analogy. Which of those three groups you mentioned makes money by violating my privacy rights?
Parent
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
If he stood on my front lawn and yelled with a bullhorn through my window, yes.
If he was an abortion doctor would he feel the same?
If he performed abortions on women who didn't want them, yes.
If he was a communist would you feel the same?
If he forced me to be a communist, yes.
People hate spammers precisely because they inflict their views and solicitations upon others and use subversive means to do so, not because they hate people who sell their kind of products. Also, their actions increase the cost of my internet service. Would you still stand up for the rights of an abortion doctor if his services significantly increased the cost of your health insurance, whether you used his services or not?
Parent
Note to self: remove own head before speaking. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the "personal information" is actually the spammer's listed business address. Businesses have no specific right to privacy. Because Mr. Moore has chosen to run his business from his home is nobody's fault but his own. Assuming he has a Chapter S corporation, he filed the documents himself, listing his own home address on those very publicly filed pieces of paper. He also typed his own address when purchasing his domain names, and that all instantly becomes a matter of record on the domain name server. Nobody dug up anything secret here -- it's all public.
Second, a criminal accusation is very much a matter of public record. If you are arrested, your name is right there in court documents, and there is nothing you can do about it. Just because they're stuck in a filing cabinet in city hall doesn't mean that they're any less public than Mr. Uy posting them on the web. Less noticed and by fewer people, probably, but no less public. Granted, as far as I know Mr. Moore hasn't yet been criminally charged with pirating stolen software, nor has Symantec filed a civil suit against him yet. But the posting of his address is still legitimate on the first point anyway.
Parent