Judge Rules In Favor Of Spamhaus 232
Waylon writes "U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras has ruled in favor of The Spamhaus Project. e360 Insight responded on its homepage, saying the judge's ruling was 'a devastating loss of personal freedom for all U.S. citizens'. As opposed to shutting down a voluntary service which tries to mitigate the millions of unsolicited emails that e360 Insight pumps out every single day." From the article: "In his order, Judge Kocoras wrote that the relief e360insight sought is 'too broad to be warranted in this case' and that suspending the domain name would 'cut off all lawful online activities of Spamhaus, not just those that are in contravention' of the default judgment. He also called e360insight's motion one that 'does not correspond to the gravity of the offending conduct.'"
Re:GMAIL FTW! (Score:2, Informative)
Ruling against Spamhaus still stands... (Score:5, Informative)
Update on botnet spammer (Score:5, Informative)
Marginally irrelevant, but good news on spam: Update on Jeanson James Ancheta, botnet spammer. [slashdot.org] The short version: he's now Federal inmate number 32392-112 at the California City Correctional Institution.
Re:The straight dope (Score:5, Informative)
Dave Linhardt is e360. It's a one-man shop. Just another ranting chickenboner -- you should have seen him carry on on NANAE. I can't wait to see him try to collect his precious judgement in a UK court.
Re:"a devastating loss of personal freedom for..." (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ruling against Spamhaus still stands... (Score:3, Informative)
Careful here. They DO have assets in the USA.
From http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section
They have 3 mirror servers located in the US according to the map on that page. Granted, loss of those mirrors won't have too much of an effect but it is still a US asset.
B.
"Contact us" script on E360Insight is a joke (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.e360insight.com/contact.php [e360insight.com]
Re:Meth addicts - please read! (Score:3, Informative)
In New York State, it's harassment to call somebody 2 or more times between the hours of (I think) 11pm and 8am.
Not that they don't deserve it.
So don't do it.
Or if you do it, don't get caught.
They seem to be litigous SOBs.
Re:Ruling against Spamhaus still stands... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Go to the source (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Go to the source (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This ruling is PRO freedom of speech (Score:5, Informative)
1st admendment is to prevent the GOVERNMENT from abridging your right to speech/expression. I can tell you to get off my servers all I want. I can ask someone else to filter your access to my servers as well.
The government CANNOT mandate that a filter be used however, but this is not the case here.
Tom
Re:Go to the source (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The important thing to take away from this (Score:3, Informative)
"Does not do business in Illinois" argument (Score:2, Informative)
Re:About Time (Score:3, Informative)
Mail address to e360 CEO (Score:1, Informative)
Re:The straight dope (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Go to the source (Score:3, Informative)
"This matter comes before the court on the motion of Plaintiff e360 Insight, LLC ("e360"), for a rule to show cause why Defendant The Spamhaus Project ("Spamhaus") should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the injunction issued by this court on September 13, 2006.
Spamhaus has not appeared to defend the allegations against it in this case, but on October 13, 2006, it filed a notice of appeal in the Seventh Circuit seeking review of the default judgment entered on the same date as the injunction. Ordinarily, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction to consider further matters in a case before it. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 402 (1982). However, this rule does not extend to questions regarding compliance with an injunction whose effect has not been stayed. See Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 565-66 (7th Cir. 2000). Thus, we retain jurisdiction to consider the instant motion.
In its moving papers, e360 requested three forms of relief for the claimed noncompliance: first, suspension of Spamhaus's domain name until it complies with the terms of the injunction; second, steps to prevent third parties from accessing Spamhaus's technology or permission to add them as defendants to this suit if they continue to do so; and third, a monetary sanction against Spamhaus for each day that it fails to comply with the injunction. When e360 appeared in court to present the motion, we noted the breadth of the requested relief and directed e360 to submit a draft order that was more tailored.
The proposed order is limited to only the first remedy, suspension of the domain name by The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), the entity responsible for coordinating unique identifiers used for Internet communication, or Tucows, Inc., the registrar through which Spamhaus obtained its domain name. Neither of these outfits are parties to this case. Though more circumscribed than the preceding request, this relief is still too broad to be warranted in this case. First, there has been no indication that ICANN or Tucows are not independent entities, thus preventing a conclusion that either is acting in concert with Spamhaus to such a level that they could be brought within the ambit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). Though our ability to enforce an injunction is not necessarily coterminous with the rule, the limitations on its scope inform an exercise of our power to address contempt. See, e.g., Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 91 F.3d 914, 920 (7th Cir. 1996). Second, the suspension would cut off all lawful online activities of Spamhaus via its existing domain name, not just those that are in contravention of this court's order. While we will not condone or tolerate noncompliance with a valid order of this court, neither will we impose a sanction that does not correspond to the gravity of the offending conduct.
Accordingly, the motion for a rule to show cause is denied without prejudice.
Dated: October 19, 2006 CHARLES P. KOCORAS U.S. District Court Judge"
{Prof. Jonathan Ezor, Touro Law Center}
Not so fast (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"Does not do business in Illinois" argument (Score:1, Informative)
The transaction takes place in both places simultaneously.
Why don't you go read about minimum contacts [wikipedia.org]?