ISP Sued Over Suspended Email Account 405
Saint Aardvark writes "A Canadian woman is suing her former ISP over their suspension of her email account. Their accounting system screwed up, and they suspended her account while they sought payment from her. What she didn't realize was that email sent to that address continued to pile up, without any notification to the sender that she had no access to it. She lost a chance at a $65,000 contract job at the Discovery channel because of this. Read the article at CNet, the complaint she brought to the Canadian Privacy Commisioner, and further details from the woman herself on Cryptome.org."
maybe a little too far (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:maybe a little too far (Score:3, Insightful)
Any ISP should have a disclaimer anyway that email and other account matters are provided as is, etc.
that really sucks, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
And as such , the telco is responsible to either completly block the service or completly allow it. Not an half way.
I wouldn't be so sure (Score:5, Insightful)
I ran an ISP with the same suspension policy. Email was allowed to pile up because to bounce it might damage the credibility of the account holder more than their not responding.
If a suspended customer wanted mail bounced or forwarded, we would honor that request; but the default was to simply lock the account. Nearly all suspended customers resolved their situation within hours (poor, addicted L-users), and many of the unresolved suspensions were the result of clients moving or dying (really.)
I feel for her, but the only alternative for ISPs is to pursue collections of overdue accounts. This is simply way too expensive. Bill in advance and suspend non-payers is the only efficient model. Anything else spikes your costs.
Re:I wouldn't be so sure (Score:3, Interesting)
If you've worked in the industry for more than five minutes, you'd know the answer lies in between. NO ONE wants the Internet to be a utility if they understand what that means.
Remember the telephone calls in 2001? People actually believed that the telephone would get to be ludicrously cheap.
If the Internet were to reach utility status, it would become highly regulated. Complying with telco-like regulation would double costs. Small ISPs couldn't even afford the lawyers to keep their filings up to date. Net result: Massive consolidation, much higher prices, and terrible customer service. Working at ISPs, I've dealt with many telco's to resolve technical issues and I can tell you that I'd rather chew on broken glass than have to do that anymore. Currently, it takes some looking to find a good ISP, but atleast you can find one. Give me the name of a utility that's so good, you'd like them to run your ISP...
Make ISP's a utility and instead of getting your Internet service from Bob down the street, you'll be getting it from Ted in Atlanta.
Acount system screw up=ISP fault (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Acount system screw up=ISP fault (Score:2)
Re:Acount system screw up=ISP fault (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Acount system screw up=ISP fault (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Acount system screw up=ISP fault (Score:4, Informative)
6. There is no indication that the potential employer even had the woman's phone number.
Reading the cnet article points out the following fact:
Carter and her potential employer had exchanged telephone messages about the position. Unbeknownst to her, the e-mail would have been the next link in that chain, but by the time she got it, the position had been filled.
So, had the message bounced, the potential employer would have been able to contact her by telephone.
Re:Acount system screw up=ISP fault (Score:3, Insightful)
(snip)
6. There is no indication that the potential employer even had the woman's phone number.
From the cnet article: "Carter and her potential employer had exchanged telephone messages about the position.
Perhaps you will be that "mathematical instance."
Or me. How does a lawyer protect me? The point here is that infallibility is impossible, even for doctors, and certainly for ISPs. Every doctor who sees sick people will make a mistake. Sue them or not, you can't make a perfect doctor.
A doctor can kill patient after patient through malpractice
A review/oversight board brings it to light. If a patient or patient's family makes a compaint, it gets investigated. The courts, and jurors who have no experience or education from which to evaluate the facts of a case, are ill-prepared to handle such cases.
Lost a loved one? Tough. Lump it.
Everyone loses loved ones. People die. Bad things happen. But its not a free ticket to sue everyone who had contact with them.
This ISP made a mistake. She should certainly be compensated in some form. But to hold the ISP responsible for the salary she might have made is pushing it too far. How many others were also in contention for the spot? When my company has been looking to hire people, we don't contact them one-at-a-time. We'll try and interview as many as possible. Also, if we really wanted somebody, and they didn't respond to an email, we'd follow up with a phone-call; we wouldn't give up unless we had somebody else just as qualified that we'd give the job to. My guess is this was far from a sure thing. At most she should be compensated for the value of the contract (it was not a full-time job) divided by her chances of getting it.
Even then, I think its a bit of a stretch to hold an ISP responsible for the potential monetary value of each email going through their system. She should not be paid 65K because of one email. I assume (ICBW) that this was a personal email account, not a business email account. Most ISPs have more expensive services for small businesses. They're more expensive because they have to be mission critical. If you're doing business by email, and if one email could lose you $65k, you should be paying more than me, who's not really doing anything critical with it. I'd just as soon pay the lower rates and take my chances. But since I'm knowingly doing so, I also shouldn't get my drawers in an uproar because I then lose out if I get in a tiff with them and refuse to pay my bill.
Now that said, I do think that the other element in her lawsuit, the change in policy to have emails to suspended accounts bounce rather than stick makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, most of the 'facts' in this case are coming from the aggreived party, so there may be some spin. One question is wether she had told Inter.net that she was cancelling the account, or had simply stopped calling them. That's not clear from her account of the situation (or I missed it). It makes a big difference. It's plausible that their thinking was that the billing dispute would eventually be resolved, and that the account would be re-activated. In which case she then gets all the email that she'd recieved in that time. Some people would probably prefer that, although I wouldn't.
On another note, not all ISPs do the black-hole thing. I've got at&t broadband, and managed to forget to pay a bill while I was on vacation this summer. When my account was suspended, my email account started bouncing messages. I found out because I'd sent an email to my roomate (different address on the same account) and it'd bounced. So I was able to settle up and not lose any emails, although I was still incommunicado til then. They suck other ways, but that's not one of them.
Re:Acount system screw up=ISP fault (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Acount system screw up=ISP fault (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most of the responsibility lies with this lady. She knowingly used the service for 14 months without paying. When she refused to pay, they suspended her account. BTW- she doesn't dispute any of this. Her only complaint is that they didn't bounce the emails to her account after it was suspended so people thought the emails were being delivered. Boo hoo- she should have paid her bill then.
The accounting department does share a little responsibility because they screwed up by not sending her a bill, but she is still responsible for the charges. She agreed to pay $x per month when she signed up for the service and she didn't pay it.
Whoever modded this guy up... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big difference between consequential damages (aka liability) and potential damages. In your analogy, you give a great example of product liability...car company is neglegent in constructing their vehicle -- faulty car leads to accident -- accident leads to deaths -- deaths lead to liability lawsuit -- lawyers get rich. Ford and Firestone have already experienced it first hand.
But, the case here is completely different. The "job offer" presented to this independent worker is not set in stone! It is merely an "offer" which she could "apply" for. The fact that she lost the opportunity to apply for the job does not AT ALL equate to $65,000 worth of damages. The difference between this case and a liability case:
She has not lost anything but an opportunity.
Money was not taken away from her. Her significant other / child's / family member's life was not taken from her. Nothing was taken away from her but an opportunity to earn money. I can't sue my roommate for keeping the phone busy when a radio show randomly picked my phone number to award me $1,000. All I did was lose an opportunity to earn money. Civil courts can not and do not put a price value on lost opportunity. It's outrageous that she even thinks that she's entitled to a full $65,000 when, if she was awarded the contract, she would have had to work to earn the money.
Bottom line: she should be awarded three months of ISP fees for the ISP neglecting her the services they were holding hostage, plus a possible $1,000 in punitive damages. Nothing more.
Re:Acount system screw up=ISP fault (Score:5, Informative)
As I said, Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341 (1854) is basically the seminal holding on the subject. The plaintiffs had a mill in Gloucester. A crankshaft broke, and in order to get a new one, the millers had to ship the old one back to the engineers in Greenwich so that they could copy it in making the replacement.
The plaintiffs gave the crankshaft to the defendants, who were couriers. They said that it needed to be sent immediately. However, there was a mix-up and it wound up being rather late, obviously reducing the profit of the plaintiffs, since their mill was totally out of commission during this time.
BUT the defendants only had to pay damages as to the speed of the shipping, and not as to the lost profits. This is because while it was obvious to them that they needed to be fast because that's what the customer insisted on, it wasn't obvious WHY. There was no way that they could have known the full extent of the damages that would result, nor is it commonplace for couriers to know that if they are late delivering _a_ package that someone will lose a fortune as a consequence. That's only true with regards to certain _specific_ packages, or a business that _mostly_ carries critically important packages, such as organ couriers.
The case is even more clear cut here. While people _do_ conduct business over email, a very large quantity of email is spam or personal mail that does not harm people if there is a problem with the non-performing party to the service contract.
Unless the ISP was specifically informed that this PARTICULAR email was of the gravest importance BECAUSE it was worth many thousands of dollars, then they should be able to treat it as though it is any generic email and not worth special care. After all, how could they have possibly known? Are they mind-readers? No. It's unfair to punish them for something that's unforeseen.
If we adopted such a rule, then the possible liabilities of entering into a contract would be so high that we would discourage people from ever so doing, or from doing so affordably in the general case. This is because the party subject to the liability has to predict uncertain and perhaps uncontrollable matters, such as the liklihood of outages caused by someone in a different country running a backhoe through a major fiber line, DDOSes, email viruses, etc.
Since we would rather have lots of transactions occur, we default to the general case, and do not make parties subject to unusually high liabilities unless they are specifically forewarned of them, and can opt not to enter into a contract such as that, knowing the risk they're being asked to take.
Not only did she lose the job offer... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not only did she lose the job offer... (Score:3, Funny)
The ISP's terms and conditions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm, from their terms and conditions:
4.1 Inter.net makes no guarantees as to the continuous availability of the Service or any specific feature of the Service. Inter.net reserves the right to change the Service at any time with or without notice. Features of the Service that are subject to change include, but are not limited to: access procedures, commands, documentation, hours of operation, menu structures, and vendors. Inter.net cannot and will not guarantee that the Service will provide Internet access that is sufficient to meet your needs.
4.2 THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS. NEITHER INTER.NET NOR ITS AFFILIATES WARRANTS THAT THE SERVICE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE OR THAT ANY INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, OR OTHER MATERIAL ACCESSIBLE ON THE SERVICE IS FREE OF VIRUSES, OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS.
As usual, they don't guarantee to offer any service at all. Surely that puts them in the clear here?
Re:The ISP's terms and conditions? (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, a judge is gonna say that the spirit of the contract was for x amount of Net service over x period of time. A lawyer obviously didn't even look at the ISP's contract before they started using it.
Re:The ISP's terms and conditions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm... I would love to see how something like this is dealt with in court... anyone know of any examples?
(i.e. specifically regarding 'we don't guarantee any service' terms for ISPs, software, or other computer-related matters?)
Re:The ISP's terms and conditions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, perhaps, that her ongoing lack of service was due to an explicit suspension after an accounting mistake, and was not due to an inadvertent or accidently dropped e-mail, temporary outage, or virus.
Parking lots typically post disclaimers indemnifying them from any responsibility for stolen or damaged property, but that shouldn't protect them if their own attendents start smashing the windows of parked cars or even if they turn a blind eye to blatant abuse.
Also, her actual complaint has more to do with what happened after she tried to cancel her account (they left her mailbox active and didn't bouce incoming mail) than with her temporary lack of service.
I don't think her case is necessarily that strong or that it falls under these terms and conditions, but even if it did I don't think that such waivers would necessarily put the ISP in the clear.
too bad -- she doesn't have a telephone (Score:2, Interesting)
If it was really all that important to her, she would have paid the $100 she owed the company,
or find a company that hosts email properly.
The free email that comes with the isp package is usually not very good.
Most people figure that out without losing $60,000.
But really, if you are using email for work you should pay and get a good service, or better yet,
set up your own email host, so if something goes wrong, you have someone to fix it.
Re:too bad -- she doesn't have a telephone (Score:2)
The question here is if your ISP messes up your accounting, whether it be failing to register the fact that you paid your bill, or double billing you, or billing you the wrong amount, should they then be allowed to prevent you from accessing your account.
This is why many businesses require written notification to cancel subscription accounts. That way they have a paper trail allowing them to take the actions that are required.
Of course you sometimes experience situations like mine where the ISP thinks I haven't been getting my e-mail so they put the
With the other things that have been happening this week, I have no idea who may have sent me e-mail. Well, ok I know about the spam, but don't really care about that.
-Rusty
Re:too bad -- she doesn't have a telephone (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:too bad -- she doesn't have a telephone (Score:4, Insightful)
person, they might likely have called her sometime over the 4 weeks that she didn't
reply to the email they sent.
What I am saying is that this $60,000 contract was nowhere near a final deal which was
lost because of this email message. She simply wasn't prepared to do the job if she
would let this lead be missed so easily, and her
only connection to the business world is a sketchy email isp account.
The $100 she owed comes from the link she wrote. Here's a quote:
I demanded the email back, but was told I had to pay the $106.87 they said I owed them in order to get my messages.
It really doesn't matter if she owed that or not, if she thought there could be job or contract offerers worth thousands in there, she would have
been happy to pay and then switch the email to somewhere else.
I wonder if (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder if (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder if (Score:2)
Re:I wonder if (Score:3, Insightful)
Sovereign Immunity (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I wonder if (Score:3, Informative)
To explain: the US Postal Service provides various means to traceably mail articles of value - registered mail is kept under lock and key and comes with insurance for milllions in value at an additional fee, basic insurance for up to $5000 is available with options for receipt of delivery, and there are other means that allow you to trace status of mail in and/or confirm delivery out of the system (certified mail, receipt for merchandise, etc., etc., ad nauseam).
The point here is that they have insurance for you to purchase for a reason, and if you are mailing something of that kind of value that, if lost or damaged in transit, you needed to recover the value somehow, you really should be taking advantage of one of the services that insurance is available for.
All shippers, in fact, offer insurance in one form or another - UPS and other non-government shippers offers it for $100 at their base rates, and private couriers are bonded, specifically so that if your article gets lost or damaged, you get reimbursed. It takes time, but a lot less than suing the government.
Isn't it always just like that... (Score:3, Funny)
Noone ever reads those things.. maybe they should. Heh.
Did I read this wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
so, even though the email was sent to her old address (in which case you gotta ask -- did she use an old resume? did she even give out her new address?), she's mad that the old ISP didn't bounce the email?
in other words, she's suing because she would've wanted the potential employer to notice the bounced email, and try to contact her to find out her new address???
Sorry... that just doesn't cut it...
Re:Did I read this wrong? (Score:2)
So yes that does cut it. The fact that it was a mistake in her ISP's accounting system in the first place only makes it worse.
Re:Did I read this wrong? (Score:2)
She will start with max contract length, but will probably wants a month or two pay to cover finding a new job. Obviously if they paid the whole year it would be absolutly unfair. She does not get to sit on her ass for a year because they screwed up, but possibly she gets money to cover her bills while looking for a new job.
Re:Did I read this wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
When your account with an isp is cancelled, they should not be collecting email on your behalf.
When paypal freezes your account for investigation, they should not be accepting payment.
etcetera.
Come on people think about this a moment (Score:4, Insightful)
1. You live in a apartment.
2. They evict you for what ever reason.
3. You never had time to forward/tell people new address.
4. Mail goes to old address.
5. You ask for mail.
6. They tell you "No not until you pay us what you owe".
This is a FEDERAL OFFENSE, punishable by jail time..
This is EXACTLY what they did to her, but only in the "virtual" world..
Email is becoming so important to our everyday lives that maybe laws should be passed to protect email, just like they where passed to protect normal mail.
Re:Come on people think about this a moment (Score:4, Funny)
So she should virtually win the case. The ISP should virtually pay here large amounts of virtual cash for her virtual damages. Seems virtually fair to me.
Re:Come on people think about this a moment (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, and you're going to pay $0.35 per message for the protection. Oh, and that's only for non-guaranteed protected email. If you want a guarantee, we'll charge you $3.50.
What? Did you protection comes free? (Need to watch more Sopranos if you did).
Think about why email is free for a moment - you're paying for Internet transport (essentially layers three and four of the OSI model), and you're free to do whatever you want above that.
But now you're asking for application-layer guarantees. Here's what comes with your demand:
- specification of how you may and may not use your application layer. Count on Microsoft Outlook/Outlook Express as the only permitted email client. Do you think we have time to support your Linux system when 90% or more are happy with Outlook?
- creation of rules on what kinds of messages are permitted; e.g. attachments may not exceed 1 MB, must be known and permitted media types (no MP3s or ZIPs since the RIAA will quickly get into this game)
- a fee per message and per month for your "guaranteed email."
- government rules, regulations and restrictions on the whole business.
Understand that the USPS salivates at your demand for safety/protection/guarantee in a world that doesn't have them. They've prepared numerous proposals for guaranteed email (including my favorite that would make my email address something like sam_scoove_1234_north_elm_street_mycity_st@usps.c
So make sure you're ready to pay the price (in dollars and freedom) before you demand big brother makes email "safe" for you.
*scoove*
Re:Come on people think about this a moment (Score:2)
and the only way out... is suicide!
Re:Come on people think about this a moment (Score:2, Troll)
They tell you "No not until you pay us what you owe".
This is a FEDERAL OFFENSE, punishable by jail time..
Damn, and I thought we had freedom of speech. I'd like to see the U.S. Code that makes this illegal.
In any case...
Email is becoming so important to our everyday lives that maybe laws should be passed to protect email, just like they where passed to protect normal mail.
No, they shouldn't. The internet is not real life. There shouldn't be any laws whatsoever about what I do over the internet.
Re:Come on people think about this a moment (Score:2)
extortion(sp?) is illeagal in usa afaik.
the local mall i go to isn't real life either, i should be able to eat for free at the grocery store.
also the phonecalls i make aren't real because i can't touch the essence of the message.
the routers that route internet aren't real either.
also my talking isn't real.
also this post isn't real.
that's just as weak as saying my religion doesn't allow for intrest rates i should get my loans for zero intrest.
Re:Come on people think about this a moment (Score:2, Insightful)
18 U.S.C. 1700 Desertion of mail
18 U.S.C. 1701 Obstruction of mail generally
18 U.S.C. 1702 Obstruction of correspondence
18 U.S.C. 1703 Delay or destruction of mail or newspapers
and/or
18 U.S.C. 1708 Theft or receipt of stolen mail matter generally
http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/usc18
I have to agree with the victim in the story, it's very bad policy to just collect Email for their own uses.. If I'm an ISP, and you're a customer, when you're no longer a customer, should I collect and potentially read your personal Email? No. When you're no longer a customer, I should delete your account, and let the SMTP server handle the bonuce-backs..
This says the receiver isn't valid.
---
>>> RCPT To:
>>> DATA
550 5.1.1
---
This says the receiver *IS* valid.
---
>>> RCPT To:
>>> DATA
250 2.1.5
----
I would accept the second to receive my message and respond if they were interested. The first will generate an error in my box, where I'll know to contact them in other ways..
As far as the job opprotunity was concerned, she didn't respond because she wasn't interested. And that's the ISP's fault for accepting the Email for a closed account. I don't know that it should be a law, but if that's what it takes to get ISP's to fix their flawed policies, so be it.
Re:Come on people think about this a moment (Score:3, Insightful)
Regarding the laws you cited, I don't really have the time to try to guess which one you thought would apply and how. I don't see how any of them apply.
If I'm an ISP, and you're a customer, when you're no longer a customer, should I collect and potentially read your personal Email?
Unless you contractually agreed not to, I don't see why not.
When you're no longer a customer, I should delete your account, and let the SMTP server handle the bonuce-backs..
OK, now what if someone else wanted to use the same account name? Are you under an obligation to not allow them to? What if you decide you want to use the same account name for your own purposes? No, if you didn't contractually agree to continue providing bounce service after account deletion you're under no obligation to do so.
550 5.1.1 ... User unknown
But the user is known. Besides, I see no reason why RFCs should be enforced by the U.S. government.
Re:Come on people think about this a moment (Score:2)
What defines "REAL" life?
A place where people can get physically injured and/or die.
The Us Post office used to be a small group of people on Ponys, Im sure the first time someone mentioned any type of "law" to protect these people it was shrugged off.. "Why do they need any more protection then anyone else.
Why do they? IMO people on Ponys who work for the U.S. Govt don't deserve any more protection than anyone else.
TV isnt real life is it? Yet there are laws that govern TV...
Yeah but there shouldn't be.
Come on, guys.... (Score:5, Informative)
The accounting system screwed up, ok? She was already paid up and they wanted more money.
Now, the ISP terms said they wouldn't guarantee error-or-interruption-free service. BUT...this isn't covered under that. It was an accounting error, and they suspended her account. This is not the same as if, say, their DNS servers borked.
I'd say she deserves compensation. Definitely. I have had my share of burns from ISP's with OUTRIGHT SHODDY accounting and business practices. Fortunately, nothing so serious...yet. About the only problem was paying THREE TIMES at their suggestion because they said the transaction didn't go through....and then receiving a bill for all three charges. That was an immediate cancel, and lucky for them they credited back the amount.
I hope she wins the case, I'd like to see some of these ISP's get a little more professional. It is a business after all, not a geek club.
Re:Come on, guys.... (Score:5, Informative)
Sound more like she wasn't billed, and for 14 months kept using the service, even though she
knew she wasn't being billed.
"Carter said she agreed to pay half, an arrangement the company initially accepted but later rejected."
And then on top of it, when they realized she wasn't paying, she tried to get out of paying for what she owed.
Re:Come on, guys.... (Score:2)
She wanted to keep her service going, but at the same time didn't want to clean up the mess that was their own fault. I wouldn't have even offered to pay the 200 bucks, and would have canceled the service since they obviously couldn't handle the business.
Many ISP's have a credit-card auto-deduct service. I imagine she didn't pore over her credit card bill every month to look for something that wasn't there.
Re:Come on, guys.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Companies do this rather frequently. If you're using a service and not being charged for it, I would imagine you're still liable to be charged for it. Especially if you want to continue your service with that company.
Free Cable TV (Score:2, Interesting)
About 15 years ago I ordered Cable TV when it just became available. For the first three months I didn't receive a bill, which was also supposed to include my HBO guide. The office was 4 miles away, and each month I stopped by and picked up the guide, and notified them that I wasn't being billed.
Then I just subscribed to TV Guide, and never bothered with this fly-by-night outfit. I continued getting premium cable TV for about 7 years.
During this time the company changed hands about three times, during which I never received a bill. A physical audit finally caused the current company to catch up with me.
So I ordered basic cable from them, which really sucked. Had they demanded payment for all those years, I would have laughed them off.
The next month I cancelled the basic service, and got DirectTV :)
Re:Free Cable TV (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like finding a hundred dollar bill on the ground that someone just dropped in front of you. You go up to them, tell them you saw them drop it, and it's theirs.
They insist it's not yours. You continue to tell them its theirs, and back and forth. Finally you give up after arguing with the guy for 5 minutes, and pocket the bill.
They see you on the street 6 months later, and demand their 100 dollar bill back, or they'll call the police.
In this isp's case, you took the bill, didn't tell the person in front of you, followed them around, and kept picking up the bills they dropped. When they reviewed security camera footage of the area later, realized you were the one that took the 100 dollar bill, you deny it, and then sue them when they tell you to stop following them.
Analogies are for sucks. (Score:3, Informative)
She isn't entitled to free email, but nor is it clear the company is entitled to extort payment from her. If they chose not to bill her for 14 months, that's their loss. See: estoppel [dictionary.com], laches [dictionary.com].
Sounds like she was playing with fire and got burned. I imagine, though that she'll have her way since she's willing to assert her case in court. She never would if she just sucked it up and paid.
I'm going to sue Hotmail (Score:5, Funny)
Enlarge my penis
Enlarge my breasts
Meet Singles in my area
Meet Sexy singles in my area
Meet my former classmates all over again
Refinance my house at a low, low interest rate
Consolodate my debt
Copy DVDs
Lose weight while I sleep
Work from Home
Accept written guarantees of hundreds, if not thousands of dollars
Get my
Watch out Bill Gates... I've got about 100 million dollars in lost oppurtunity because of you, and I'm going to come and get it!
Similar thing happened to me (Score:2)
I swapped ISPs for a couple of years, and when I went back to the first one, they had never disabled mail and I got 2 years of mail in one download.
Email is a primary method of contact, and I had people that thought I was ignoring them, and they got pissed off. I also had initial contract offers (big ticket items, too) from 2 consulting companies. Since I had moved twice, the old email was the only contact info they had. Oh well...
More power to her... (Score:3, Insightful)
The woman might not be entitled to $65,000, but if she is working right now, she may be easily entitled to the differences between her current job's pay and the new one, for a court-determined period of time (like, a year, or maybe even two or three if it is determined that this amount of time will be required to get back 'on track'.
just my two cents...
sounds a little iffy (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about you guys, but that seems a little bit odd to me. Normally an employer would call you if they were offering a 65k contract job. Maybe if she left them her phone number it would have worked out.
Re:sounds a little iffy (Score:5, Funny)
So, she lost a *chance* at $65k ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I see that she's suing for 2x that ... sounds like a great deal -- sue for double what you might have gotten, 1/3rd goes to your lawyer, netting you more money ($87k) than you would have gotten in the first place (assuming that you even got the job!), and you don't have to even work for it!
Nice to know that the US isn't the only place that's sue-happy.
From the C/Net article --
If my mail is having a temporary problem, and it can be queued up for me until I can access it again, that's what I want -- I don't want it bouncing. Bouncing email is bad bad bad!Are these people aware of what they're asking for?
The ISP's contract appears to be pretty clear -- they don't guarantee that everything will work all the time. Pretty standard, I think. It'll be interesting how this turns out (personally, I hope that this goes to court, and the woman loses.)
I wonder what the next step is -- suing your ISP because their spam filter blocked/flagged an email offering you a $65k job? Or even worse -- suing them because they didn't filter your spam for you, and so you accidently deleted the $65k job offer yourself, think it's spam.
People, email is unreliable (and so is postal mail, for that matter.) If you don't get an email (or postal mail receipt) back that acknowledges receipt of that mail (Return-Recept-To: doesn't quite cut it), or your friend doesn't call you and say `thanks!', you cannot be certain that it's been received. Period.
(Return-Receipt-To: isn't good enough because it's sent by the receiving mail daemon when the mail is received, not when the mail is actually read. After receipt, it could be lost to a disk failure, system problem, spam filter, or just accidently deleted.)
Dead wrong (Score:2)
Surely, you can write down your policies when you run an ISP? And when a new situation arises, or someone points out the deficiency, you can give the person the benefit of the doubt, can't you? Is it that hard?
Re:So, she lost a *chance* at $65k ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It also means that ISP's wouldn't be allowed to recycle e-mail addresses and might even create privacy issues (ironic because she originally filed her complaint with the Federal privacy commissioner). For instance, the CNET article mentions how AOL sends out different notifications to members and non-members, as though this is a bad thing. I think the intention of this type of policy is to prevent outside users from being able to determine between an account that is nonexistent, cancelled, inactive, full, blocking certain addresses, or just temporarily unavailable. Changing these policies could make things even easier for spammers to build accurate lists and to track the status and behavior of individual user accounts.
She raises some valid issues with the reliability of e-mail in general, and some that might even have solutions, but overly dramatic or poorly thought out "solutions" might also create issues far worse than the existing problems. I hope the judge or jury will understand this, even if they side with her individual case.
Re:So, she lost a *chance* at $65k ... (Score:3, Informative)
Note that recent advances in spam fighting/filtering have greatly reduced the inherent reliability of the email system. It used to be that every box would happily relay your mail if it accidently ended up in the wrong place, for example. And nobody filtered their mail to /dev/null because it wasn't needed. And certainly people didn't hit `d' two hundred times in a row deleting spam.
Incorrect.Certainly, my mail client (mutt) doesn't send them out. And I don't want them sent out, certainly not without my knowledge. This would be great for spammers to verify addresses ...
sendmail used to send them out, but there were security issues with that, and so it's been disabled by default. For many years now, it appears. But there was a time that they were sent out as soon as your message was received by the destination sendmail.
Here's a reference [fu-berlin.de] for you. Return-Receipt-To: was a sendmail thing, not in any RFC, except for RFC-1865 (which only mentions it in passing.)
ISPs think the internet is a toy (Score:2, Insightful)
I have had problems with most of the IPS I have tried, and I have never been late on a payment for anything! Other businesses love me (except credit cards, which want you to be late).
This case may be a little frivalous, but it will be a kick in the ass to ISPs to be more professional with their service.
Back to the Main Point (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly why (Score:4, Insightful)
Email is important enough to justify $40 a year to make sure it's going to work when you need it!
Do it yourself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Static IP address, email server software, domain name, free DNS hosting and a PC running all the time. Now, either the DNS is screwed up (rare) or my DSL is down (even more rare). I can do whatever I want, which includes relay with authentication.
As a person who works for a large ISP....... (Score:2, Interesting)
The reason why the email accounts still accept mail and are not deleted immediately is due to the fact that some people may at times simply forget to pay the bill or have an outside entity (main corporate office) that pays the bill for them and may be a wee bit slow paying some months. This gives them the time to pay without having to lose their email accounts or any email that may have been delivered to them in the up to 2 months+ that they were in non-pay status. I can only imagine the hell there would be to pay if all accounts were deleted instantly at the time of nonpayment. As far as her storefront analogy goes....it doesn't even make sense. She is comparing apples to oranges here. The ISP is NOT operating her business and acting as her agent in obtaining contracts. Lets say at her store that customers were mailing payments to her using the good old fashioned US Postal Service. It would NOT be her landlords responsibility to notify all her clients that her store was now closed....It would be HER responsibility to do this via a change of address notification to all of her clients. Also, how are we sure that the ISP was in error?? Most people seem to have a hard time grasping the concept of their bill being payed for services in advance and not in arrears. Also, when people get late charges...they tend to think that they can simply pay the bill and not pay the late charges which can and DO accumulate over the months. I for one am waiting to see proof that the ISP was in error and it was simply not her own ignorance that caused the account to become delinquent in the first place. She should be happy that the ISP keeps her email for her for long enough to pay her damned bill or notify her contacts of her new address!!
Re:As a person who works for a large ISP....... (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone please mod Mr. "I work for AOL, so you better listen to my massive years of experience" down, he didn't even read the story.
The lady did pay her bill in this case. It was the ISP who made the accounting mistake and wrongfully turned off her account.
If my internet service was wrongfully disconnected, I would immedietly call and get it straightened out over the phone with the ISP directly. I can't imagine the amount of time required to make that call being enough time to actually lose any email. Mail usually gets queued up somewhere when it can't be sent immedietly, and internet service accounts usually get suspended first, not shutoff. Someone was obviously being over-zealous in this case.
I also would add that people who rely on their ISP for 100% flawless email delivery are kidding themselves. Anything important should be sent to a domain name you registered and have hosted by an actual hosting company or co-lo service. There and only there will you find accountability for services.
I am destiney and I'm an IT Manager for a profitable dot-com who didn't die in the bust..
Re:As a person who works for a large ISP....... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly I agree with you.
It is alleged in this case that the problem is not that she failed to pay for services, but that the ISP's accounting system overcharged her for services, which she refused to pay, and that the accounting department failed to address the situation. Having been on both sides of the border between customer and running an ISP, I do have to say that this is a very real problem, and can make ISPs liable.
I have too many times encountered people who simply assume that computer systems are 100% correct, and that if the computer says it, it must be so. And the sad fact is such concepts seem to be the rule in customer service and accounting departments. More often, accounting issues are directed by customer service to a different accounting department phone number or email address. My first such experience was with Netcom (before the Earthlink merger) where they had double charged my CC for one month. Customer service (which could never be reached any sooner than a 45 minute wait, though fortunately on a local phone number) referred me to a long distance number for accounting, which I wasted 30 minutes in long distance charges trying to reach and never could. I left a message and they they never called back. I emailed them several times and got automated responses about half the time, usually after 2-3 days. The problem was not resolved so 3 months later I tried to cancel. Customer service then said that I had to call accounting to cancel. I emailed my cancellation notice several times but the CC charges kept coming. Finally I called my CC company and they not only reversed all the charges all the way back to and including both postings of the double billing, they also blocked that merchant account on my CC account so future charges would not be posted. So NOW I get 2 messages left on MY answering machine from Netcom. I just never called them back.
So, *IFF* she can make the case that the ISP is at fault in having caused the account to be canceled or closed when it otherwise would not be, even though she switched to another ISP because of being unhappy with the situation, due to a failure of the accounting system combined with a failure of the staff to realize a problem and override the accounting system, then I think the ISP should be liable. But the ISP also has a defense depending on when the email regarding her potential employment was sent. If that email was sent sufficiently later than when she opened another account intended to replace her prior account, then she should have been responsible for notifying the sender that her email address had changed, as long as she had prior communications with that sender.
If the problem is in the accounting system software, the ISP then may be able to sue the provider of that accounting system for the losses, including customer losses and lost staff time dealing with it all. More often, I think, it's simply incorrect administration, setup, configuration, or the underlying OS.
Lost job offer (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure that they would have been glad to welcome her to the team when they read a "This email address has been suspended" auto-message.
Filmmaker Peter Hall vs Earthlink (Score:5, Informative)
Check out his film [metal-tiger.com] while you're at it...
If you use your e-mail for business... (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Notify ALL of your clients if you change your e-mail address.
3) If you are changing, expect to receive e-mail at your old address. You may want to hold onto that old address for a short while (6 months?) and ensure the bills are paid (pre-pay if you have to)
Blame: Stamped, Addressed, and Delivered (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, as for the ISP...
Some say that email is free, which makes it different from smail. This isn't entirely true; while smail requires "stamps," email works on a subscription service. Pay your ISP, the ISP provides you with an address which you can send to and from. Because they have costs too -- supporting the lines and hubs you dial in on, connecting to other hubs, etc.
If you change addresses, and start getting mail sent to a different address, what happens?
In the case of the smail, you get the stuff forwarded from your old address to the new address -- and that's perfectly fair because the sender paid to get the letter or package to you. This is helped considerably by the fact that all the post offices are owned by the same company. BTW, this is probably the only case I can think of in which a monopoly helps the consumer.
In the case of email, what happens? One person pays a fee to send the email, which goes out onto the network. (This is a recipe for disaster in some peoples' minds -- we promisenot to read it. Really!) All other systems agree to pass it along, until it gets to the other end.
The receiver pays as well, to send and receive messages. This would seem to last as long as the user pays. But some of that time is wasted at the start because people have to publish or otherwise get that new email address out, same as if you changed your smail address.
And when the user changes services, what happens to the email still inbound to the box? Some people will say that the email should be shut off, any new messages bounced. Anyone with any sense of fair play would also say that since there was a lag time before the address could be used that anything new that comes into the address should be bounced to the new address, with a message back to the sender that a new address is being used. These are ethical solutions that may be overlooked because we are talking about "business" here, which seems to work by different rules.
The article on C|Net is clear enough on the point: ISPs' handling of email under special circumstances is not merely twisted but actually sprained.
And I consider it a very good point.
Much of the Internet is still frontier-grade in its rules, with its share of rail barons [microsoft.com] and robber barons [riaa.com] and common horse thieves [petemoss.com] and a government that lives very very far away and has little hope of understanding this wild frontier for the next several generations.
What's missing here is not legislation but common sense.
I think that when a user stops service, old and new mail should be forwarded if possible for two to four weeks, and then simply handled like any other bounce. I consider this ethical and sensible. Other peoples' common senses and ethics may say other things.
Which leads to the questions: a) How do we decide on an optimal solution, and b) how do we make the non-ethical, non-sensible people follow suit?
Google Cache (Score:3, Informative)
Inter.net is a horrible service provider (Score:3, Interesting)
Stupid users and stupid ISPs... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes the ISP was at fault for the accounting error and they should have simply dismissed the payment crap because they screwed up and didn't notify her(its called customer service), BUT the bitch is stupid for conversing over email for important matters such as a new job. Ignorance maybe bliss but it doesn't give her the right to sue. If that were the case, I'd sue every damn fast food restaurant everytime they hand me a drink and it spills on my $15 crap khaki's from Walmart just because they got my nuts wet. If the job was that important to her then she should have made it a point to tell the dumb fuck who was going to hire her that she had a new email address.
I don't want the government to step in and start passing laws that ruin the internet(like they do with everything else)....but I'm just an anarchist sum'bitch.
Use Common Sense (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem here is that this company, like other companies with a contract try and use legal clauses to excuse them out of moral responsibilities because of "their own fault" and "shit happens" attitudes. We need Terms of Service that say basically "if we screw up, we claim responsibility and make repairs". People don't want to take the wrap for anything, they just want to pass the blame on to someone else.
Another problem that arises is that customers don't shop around for the best term of service agreement that ISP's that service their area have. They don't have printouts and organize the agreements saying "ah ha, this one has expressed oral consent whereas this one has implied written consent". All they do is become influences by commercials, colleages and friends as to "what's the cheapest and best (as in least busy calls if by analog modem, or however you define best) ISP out there.
Let me know what you think about this.
Whatever. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and if this woman's account had been 'killed' as she suggests, she'd be complaining that important emails got bounced, and if they'd just accepted them until she could call up with a new credit card number, she'd have gotten them, so it's all their fault, and they didn't have the right to deny service, and blah blah blah.
Trying not to "beat a dead horse" here, but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I had this happen once with a local ISP I tried out for a couple months, and then decided not to use. (Luckily for me, I didn't keep them long enough for it to create BIG hassles for me.)
They actually left my email account fully functional, but they simply deleted my password allowing me to establish a PPP connection with them. I had no idea they did this (assuming, of course, they'd delete my mailbox to save disk space and all), until months later. A few people were asking me why I never replied to their email.
I finally realized they'd been sending mail to my old account all this time, and it wasn't bouncing back because it *was* delivered successfully, onto the server I no longer connected to.
By this time, I'd almost forgotten my password, but managed to remember it - and connected to their mail server via my current ISP's connection, and pulled down well over 1500 emails that were piled up in there.
I think everyone important knows my current address now, so I haven't worried about it again -- but for all I know, that account is *still* active on their system today!
This is a PRIVACY ISSUE, wake up (Score:4, Insightful)
The ISP was holding her personal private data and not granting her access to it--that was the issue.
They would have been OK if they had destroyed it.
They would have been OK if they had bounced it.
What they did was silently accept more email after the suspension but refuse to let her access it.
The court is saying the email is her private personal data and she has an "access to information" right to see it.
The ISP had every right to cancel her account. But why not bounce her email at that point?
They kept her email because they believed that holding her personal private data hostage was a way to force her to settle the dispute.
That's wrong.
The ISP should generate better error messages (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the large ones do already, and some smaller ones do these, but it'd be nice if these became common practice:
Your message has not been delivered because...
We do not have such a user. Maybe you made a typo? Have the wrong domain?
The user's mailbox is full. Please use alternative means to contact them -- and do everyone a favor and tell them to empty their inbox? Thanks.
The user's account is suspended temporarily -- please use other contact means.
User is having technical difficulties. They have provided forwarding information. Contact them at $(OTHER EMAIL/PHONE NUMBER/POSTAL ADDRESS).
Humanity solved this problem in 3.0BSD (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad most people are totally oblivious to it, and most ISPs no longer bother to provide the service due to oblivion.
Of course I'm talking about finger! Five years ago most people I dealt with had accounts at ISPs that provided finger services. Among other things, it'll tell you the last time they logged in and checked their email. Plus it is a nifty medium for figuring out what someone has been up to -- .plan, the original blog!
If all accounts provided (opt-outable) finger information and people were used to checking it, maybe this woman wouldn't be out $65,000? And people could stop sending obnoxious messages to their whole address books telling them they're going on vacation?
We seriously need to start a conspiracy to protect and revive UNIXisms.
Ok People... (Score:3, Interesting)
What? She didn't have a phone? Can't phone someone? I know of precious few producers in any form that wait around for E-mail when they can call someone and get to the bottom of the work at that moment. Producers might spec on E-mail, but I don't ever remember hearing about them finalizing any details on anything other than the phone.
A missed opportunity is not the fault of an ISP. If she had played her cards right, she should have used the telephone. And by the way, I am a journalist, and know a TON of freelance journalists. SO she might have been up for some Dixcovery Channel work. SO WHAT. If they want you for a gig, they will call you directly... that is the way it has always worked.
Handle as a temporary problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the condition of being out of space, or some other transient condition, isn't un-common, it won't be viewed as a problem, like this case was.
And semi-intelligent MTA's can notify the sender, that their email is being delayed, so that they can check via alternative means like voice. An ISP that notified the intended receipient would be great, and best done once when the account is flipped to "temporarily unavailable".
A problem that is resolved in a few hours would be transparent to the end users, other than the delay.
Re:So if... (Score:5, Insightful)
If your telephone line is disabled, callers receive a message telling them that "this line is out of service" or suchlike. The complaint here is that her account was not disabled, but she was refused access to it -- email continued to pile up, outside of her reach, while people assumed (from the lack of a bounce message) that it had reached her.
Re:So if... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, some ISPs refuse to bounce email back to fight spam (it confirms the existence of a certain account).
But should the rules be changed? (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't read all the facts in this case, but it sounds as though what you say here is indeed common practice in the industry. The question is, should it be allowed?
E-mail has rapidly become a very important part of many people's daily lives. Everything from bills to job offers is sent by e-mail, and it is assumed (rightly or wrongly) by many organisations that mails they send are received by the addressee, even though there is no equivalent of registered mail.
Under those circumstances, it seems reasonable to mandate that service providers must either perform the service they offer, or inform someone trying to use it (by sending mail) that the service has not been performed. Leaving everyone in the dark, as appears to have happened in this case, clearly can be misleading and cause significant damage to parties involved, as also appears to have happened in this case.
If the service provider is allowed to operate on this basis, and this woman can't get compensation from them having been harmed by their policy, then the law governing the validity of the service provider's Ts&Cs should be reviewed, IMHO. Allowing this behaviour to continue is potentially very harmful to the small person/business, and does no good to anyone, except possibly a service provider holding their customer to ransom (and over their own mistake, at that, in this particular case).
Re:But should the rules be changed? (Score:3, Insightful)
This has been the trend for far too long. There needs to be more standards in the way ISPs handle peoples personal email much like postal mail. If postal mail can be returned to sender why can't e-mail? If I cancel my account with my ISP because I am unhappy with the service why do I not have the option to have my email forwarded to my NEW email address, just like postal mail. Why? Becuase this is just a method of keeping you stuck with that ISP. How difficult would it be to offer this service? Seriously, it would be EASILY done.
I dont know if she should or could win this case but I hope she does. I think she is right and I think there definitely needs to be standards and laws in place for this effective ASAP.
Re:So if... (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA. Hell, RTFH. She was never deliquent. The error was in the accounting department of the ISP.
Re:So if... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So if... (Score:2)
Re:So if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they discovered their mistake and contacted her, saying "We fucked up, you owe us another $214". She complained about what is essentially a surprise balloon payment (and rightfully so), and the ISP agreed to reduce the amount she had to pay them by half. Let me emphasize that this was the arrangement agreed to by both parties! This is the only part of the whole thing that is reasonable.
But then the ISP changed their minds about that, and decided she had to pay the full amount. This is obviously unreasonable, since they had already agreed that she only owed them half the charge for their screw-up! She, rightfully, responds with "Fuck you guys, cancel my account." But they don't, and they subsequently hold her email hostage for payment they have already agreed that they are not owed.
Had they actually canceled her account, as they said they would, the email would have bounced and Discover would likely have tried to contact her another way.
So, yeah, it is totally reasonable that she sue the ISP, who, through it's dishonest and unreasonable behavior, has cost her a large amount of money. In fact, it would be unreasonable for her not to sue.
Re:Terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terms (Score:5, Interesting)
However, having worked for an ISP before, I believe more people would be angry if you suddenly started bouncing all their e-mail if their credit card expired. It is more courteous to just prevent them from accessing it, until they pay up.
Re:Terms (Score:2)
And you send their file to EquiFax or the like...
This is good business practices, extortion is not.
rtfa (Score:2)
Re:That's the thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you mean here... how would a warrant for your arrest become legal grounds to prevent delivery of mail? The only situation I can think of is if somehow the mail is involved (which would require a search warrant of some type, not an arrest warrant).
Suspected criminal or not, you still have rights. Authorities can't enter your home without probable cause or a search warrant, and likewise they can't simply hold your snail-mail (or, worse, open it) unless there is probable cause to do so.
Sorry for the off-topic rant
Do I think she has a case? I'm not sure. The article wasn't entirely clear, but it looks like the ISP was charging her the wrong amount (or not at all), and decided to disable her account when they found the mistake and she didn't want to pay (ignoring the part where she negotiated half etc for the moment).
Now, if she was not aware that she wasn't being charged the right amount, then her case has at least some merit IMO. However, if she *knew* she wasn't being charged the right amount (or at all), and just decided to ignore it, hoping they never catch on -- then throw this case out.
I don't know which is the case here, though... again the article wasn't entirely clear on that. Was she paying what she thought to be the right amount for that 14 months? Did she in fact owe the ISP money at all (figuring if she agreed to pay half, she must have actually owed them something)?
As for the suspension... most ISPs and hosting providers that I am familiar with do this very thing. Their hope is that you'll pay when you realize you can't log in, and you don't lose any of your mail. Typically this will go on for 30-90 days, depending. The ISP in this case accepting and holding her email for 3 weeks is not at all outside of common practice (whether or not this practice is acceptable is a different story).
Re:That's the thing (Score:2)
I applied for and got a free signing/encrypting certificate from www.thawte.com for use with Outlook. Now, I digitally sign all messages I send. When they arrive, there's a little icon that says "Security: Signed" and it confirms that the message wasn't messed with since I sent it.
The only problem with this is, frequently the signature renders the e-mail itself unreadable. Outlook Express doesn't seem able to parse the signature attached to and embedded in the message; and clients like AOL and Juno (For people without regular Internet access or e-mail) either crash or render garbage when presented with a signed e-mail message.
So, some work obviously required, but there exists a standard already in place for "protecting" your messages.