TechSpot

uncleel · #1 03-19-2002

Lawyers sue spammer
Email marketeers pick wrong target
By John Geralds in Silicon Valley [18-03-2002]
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1130171

Quote:

The largest law firm in California (Morrison & Foerster) with more than 1,000 lawyers in 18 offices internationally, has filed suit against an email marketing company (Etracks) claiming it has bombarded it with thousands of unsolicited email advertisements.

The law firm has asked the court to stop Etracks from sending further unsolicited emails. It is also seeking additional relief, which includes attorneys' fees and damages of $50 for each email delivered in violation of the law, up to $25,000 per day.

poertner_1274 · #2 03-19-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by uncleel
Lawyers sue spammer
Email marketeers pick wrong target
By John Geralds in Silicon Valley [18-03-2002]
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1130171

$25,000 per day, that is going to end up being a huge amount then, because I am sure that this has been going on for quite some time now. I wish I could do something like this for all the spam mail I get.

Phantasm66 · #3 03-19-2002

I think they should ALL be sued.

I think that spam, as well as those annoying telemarketting calls, should be declared illegal.

Arris · #4 03-20-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by Phantasm66

Quote:

Bernard Shifman, "Computer Consultant" spammed me in November 2001. I reported him, as I have done with the other 12,000 pieces of spam I have received since 1998, to his ISP, et al. Shifman then began his assault by sending me an obscenity-laden email. Anyway, he then sent some murky legal threat, which was never followed up upon. Shifman sent the spam to an address <neil@alcor.concordia.ca> which has never been used for much of anything apart from POP; a google pretty much confirms it is most directly linked with my anti-spam activities. In fact, I use a number of other addresses for most online activities. He claims he only sent targeted email to the human resources addresses at companies that might hire him. I just checked, I don't actually own, nor work for Concordia University.

Then, again, in December 2001, Shifman spammed the same account! At first, I was incredulous. I mean, after someone informs you they regard your email as spam, why send them more? Then, I complained. THEN I put up this page. Enjoy.

Go here:
http://petemoss.com/spamflames/Shifm...onSpammer.html

So we can check up on the latest about Mr. Shifman

uncleel · #5 04-01-2002

Court Victory for Unsolicited Fax Advertising
http://www.dmnews.com/cgi-bin/artpre...ticle_id=19866
DMNews 4/1/02 Scott Hovanyetz

Quote:

The government's ban on unsolicited fax advertising is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled in a lawsuit by the State
of Missouri against a company accused of issuing "junk faxes,"

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, located in St. Louis, ruled against the Missouri Attorney General's office in its suit against American Blast Fax, a Texas firm that has been the subject of much litigation concerning its fax advertising activities.

The judge ruled that the faxes were protected by the First Amendment, and further ruled that that state had failed to prove its substantial interest in regulating the faxes. The state's arguments that its interest in regulating the faxes was substantial because they unfairly place the cost of advertising on consumers was rejected for lack of evidence, the ATA said.

Quote:

Free Speech as defined by the U.S. CONSTITUTION:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Somehow I fail to see where First Amendment allows spam.

uncleel · #6 04-01-2002

Years ago I started recieving a daily unsolicited fax business "newsletter" & despite all my phone calls explaining that this was a private residence, they continued.
Desperate, I made up a 3' fax paper loop, all BLACK w/ one lil' skull & crossbones in the center w/ text. My note said, "Out of toner yet?" "I'll keep this up until you remove me from your fax list per my telephone request." "This is a residence not a business, Thank You."

I continually sent it for about an hour in the early hours one morning. Magically, they stopped sending the newsletter. Guess toner cartridges were getting expensive.

SuperCheetah · #7 04-01-2002

Very nice indeed uncleel, bravo!!! I might have to try that one day myself!

svtcobra · #8 04-02-2002

Finally, someone is getting hit on this..I am so sick of changing Hotmail accounts every six months because of all the spam mail stinking up my account.

SuperCheetah · #9 04-02-2002

For some reason I don't really get too much spam in my hotmail account. I've had it for over 2 years now, and only every now and then do I get a spam. Guess I'm one of the lucky ones...

uncleel · #10 04-02-2002

once you buy online, it begins.

SuperCheetah · #11 04-02-2002

I bought my entire first home built PC online and still no mail...

svtcobra · #12 04-02-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperCheetah
I bought my entire first home built PC online and still no mail...

Well, some people get the mail, some dont. I have been buying stuff online almost every other week for the past 6 years. I constantly spend online. Just wait. As you buy more you'll see more. Places like Newegg.com, Mwave.com and other small computer companies probably wont spam you or sell your info to spammers.

Now that I think of it, my hotmail address is also my ebay email address. I bet 80% of the spam comes from other Ebay users.

uncleel · #13 08-04-2002

Govenor Taft (Ohio) signs law punishing ‘spammers’
http://www.internetnews.com/IAR/article.php/1439061
[SIZE=1]ASSOCIATED PRESS 8/2/02 | AP/Columbus
[/SIZE]

Quote:

COLUMBUS - Individuals found guilty of sending unwanted e-mail - spam - could face fines under a bill Gov. Bob Taft signed into law yesterday. Ohio’s bill doesn’t ban spam but would levy a fine of $100 for each unsolicited message up to a total of $50,000.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Ron Amstutz, a Wooster Republican, requires companies or individuals who send unsolicited e-mail to provide their name and address and the e-mail of the person sending the message. Senders must also provide instructions for declining future messages.

"This law will allow service providers to go after the hard-core spammers," Senator Amstutz said. "These ads often involve get-rich-quick schemes, pornography, and other undesirable activities that consumers have no interest in."

Similar Topics
Topic	Replies	Forum
Jail Time for Spammer	3	General Discussion
Website 'spammer' problem	1	General Discussion
Buffalo spammer gets 3.5 to 7 years	0	General Discussion
Spammer Gets Junkmailed	1	General Discussion

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

TechSpot

Spammer Sued

Follow TechSpot

Subscribe to our Newsletter