What's new

Admin's woes


Unswerving cyclist
14 Mar 2002
Some people really make you wonder...

Yesterday someone from Australia signed up to the forum. So far, so good. Upon receiving his confirmation mail which I assume he mistook for spam, he threatened me to "take legal action within one day" if I didn't remove him "from this" immediately. Trembling with fear, his wish was my command.

Sheesh. :mad:

Post his E-Mail and all the members can send him things to drive him nuts.
I hate too when someone joins, but gives no info about themselves and never replys to any threads; why join???
I just love people who threaten legal action over every single thing... :mad: Mostly, they're just full of hot air and nothing else.

Anyway, he's gone now, so let's carry on! 😄
Re: Payback!!

Originally posted by Frank D. White
why join???

The forum holds our central user database, so a lot of people join in order to submit links to our directory. Or, because they cannot view attachments without registering.

Anyhow, forgive me my ranting. :)
"Post his E-Mail and all the members can send him things to drive him nuts."

I like that idea, sign me up 8-p
Re: Payback!!

Originally posted by Frank D. White
Post his E-Mail and all the members can send him things to drive him nuts.

Muhahaha, i love this idea..... and let's see what kind of "legal action" he can take within a day...

Though what if he takes legal action from the fact that his email address was given away breaking the site privacy statement rule stating that email addresses would not be distributed, yatta, yatta, yatta. If I can come up with something like that, who knows what others can do. x_x
there could always be a disclaimer for hate/stupid mails and such in the privacy statement. saying something like,
"if i, the admin, receive any stupid/hate/junk/spam emails then the senders address, regardless of being a member of this forum or not, can be put up for public display. also i deceide what is stupid/hate/junk/spam."
Actually, that reaction could be explained.

My girlfriend has an email-address which contains a very common name in Thailand. It's amazing how often she receives confirmation emails from all sorts of sites, just because someone else entered a fake (and in this case somebody else's) email-address into a forum or mailinglist.

I wouldn't be surprised if this Australian guy was a victim of the same "crime".
I think Twisted could be right, and it may explain why this man overreacted in such an extreme manner. Nevertheless, even if that was the case, Japan Reference would not be expected to investigate each and every recipient's correct address. Japan Reference merely followed the request submitted by this member. How could they know it was not his real address? Furthermore, Japan Reference did not send many, many intrusive and unrequested emails over time, but rather, a single "confirmation" email, which provided an opt out procedure. Plus, this guy is from Australia, so good luck ever pressing charges in international waters, even if he did have a case, which he doesn't! For further reading on this subject:

World Beat

November 2002

Courtesy of eLaw Practice (http://www.elawpractice.com.au)

Spam, Courts and Crusaders

Tough legislation and court actions are not making a dent in the growing spam juggernaut. However, individuals and organisations are fighting back and there are sensible practices which can limit the damage.

Spam costs. Writing in the Los Angeles Times, David Coker cites a European Commission 2001 survey that found that spam costs $US8.8 billion in network time alone. When you add the time it takes to get rid of it, the space it takes up on your machine, the possibility that it contains a virus and the nuisance value, it is easy to see why whole organisations have arisen to try to stem its abuse.

Twenty states in the US now have anti-spam laws. The toughest are to be found in the State of Delaware which in effect does away with spam by legislating that you can't send unsolicited e-mail advertising without permission from the recipient. California's legislation requires that unsolicited e-mail advertising cannot be sent unless the subject line begins with ADV or ADV: ADLT if the message relates to sexual items. Moreover, the sender of such messages must give a contact e-mail that permits the recipient of spam to opt out.

Many of the statutes legislating against spam confer a right upon the ISP provider to take action, though often a limit (usually US$10 per message) is put on the recovery of any damages - assuming the defendant can be found and the court is willing to award damages.

Unfortunately, most of these laws are proving to be paper tigers and there have been very few anti-spam cases in the courts. There are numerous reasons for this. One is the reality that the Internet makes it very difficult to track who sent the spam. Given the cross-border nature of the Internet, it is not difficult to find a regulation free haven in which to place a server that sends spam across the Internet. Even if you can find the server, unlike a warehouse full of goods that cannot readily be moved, a server and accompanying spam operation can be taken down and moved to another jurisdiction within minutes.

Secondly, criminal laws are difficult enough to enforce when all of the activity takes place in one jurisdiction. When you depend upon international cooperation and fight the battles of distance, different languages, different laws, different cultures, law enforcement becomes exceedingly difficult. In the few cases so far, the courts have treated spammers fairly lightly, for example, by limiting relief to an injunction but not awarding damages. Even if you win a judgment, enforcing it is also likely to be difficult.

Thirdly, spammers are getting more sophisticated, for example, by altering the "FROM" box to make it look as though the e-mail was sent by someone else. The spammers also have ways to search the world for electronically unprotected servers and they send the spam through them.

Fourthly, spammers also have it easy because many people are both tolerant of the abuse and/or do not appreciate the harm caused by spam. For example, it is highly unlikely that people who receive spam will complain to criminal or civil authorities.

Another problem with anti-spam legislation comes from civil libertarians who have challenged anti-spam laws on the grounds that they constitute an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce and free speech. Such challenges were brought against both the California and Washington legislation, though they did not succeed.

Similarly, many argue that there are legitimate commercial uses for spam and that the potential harm caused by a draconian regulatory and enforcement regime would outweigh the harm caused by spam.

What can be done? In some cases, consumer crusaders are coming to the rescue in the form of individuals and groups who have also devoted considerable time in educating the public or fighting spam. One such individual is Professor Davidsorkin of John Marshall Law School in Chicago who has a Web site devoted to a discussion of anti-spam laws and cases: www.spamlaws.com.

In other cases, the industry itself has taken steps to combat spam. Examples include the Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA) and the Internet Industry Association (IIA) Code of Practice. Regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the US and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)in Australia also have a role to play in educating the public, conducting Internet sweeps, initiating representative actions, approving industry codes and ensuring that consumer views are considered.

At an industry level, the best hope is to encourage businesses in the responsible use of e-mail. On a personal computer and information systems level, one can use filtering devices but these often tend to be of limited use and run the danger of keeping out legitimate e-mail messages.

In some cases, the sending of unsolicited e-mail (for example, the use of a false originating address or a false or misleading subject line in an e-mail message) may constitute action that is misleading and deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive and thereby be in breach of the Trade Practices Act and its counterparts in the Fair Trading Acts of the States and Territories.

Common law actions may also be applicable. For example, in Intel corp v Hamidi (Cal, No S103781, review granted 27/3/02), the California Supreme Court granted review of a lower court decision that upheld a claim of trespass to chattels claiming as damages the time its employees had to spend reading and blocking spam e-mail messages sent from an outside party. In some cases, those who bombard you with spam may be in breach of increasingly broad cybercrime laws.

On an individual level, education and sound responsible e-mail use is probably the best protection. Users should not open spam e-mails. They should never click on boxes requesting further information and certainly should never accept what is on offer via spam e-mail.

Assuming you can find the offender, it is also possible to use procedures such as small claims courts and tribunals as well as grouped proceedings to take action against unwanted spam. Another strategy is to use a separate general account such as Hotmail or Yahoo! for online purchases. If that account gets attacked with spam, you can always abandon it and set up another one without exposing your main mailbox. If you register your own domain name you can use different e-mail addresses for different accounts. You can also visit www.whowherelycos.com and ask your e-mail address to be removed.

For the moment, more often than not, spammers get away with it. However, as consumer awareness grows, computer forensic techniques improve, our laws become more uniform and international cooperation amongst countries increases, the days of the spammer may eventually be limited. For now, I must return to my computer and clean out my junk mail.

Fighting Spam

Junkbusters, The Network Abuse Clearing House
Abuse.net: Home Page

The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (CAUCE) and Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk E-mail Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email - Advertising done wrong

Dr Eugene Clark is Professor of Law, University of Canberra and co-author of E-Business: Law and Management for the 21st Century. [email protected]

Please send all comments to [email protected] or give us your opinion at the Modern Practice discussion board.

Copyright ツゥ 1994-2003 FindLaw
what's the preferable size for photos in the gallery? thanks
edit: thanks in advance!
Budd, if I remember correctly the maximum size is 250kB, but I think I am going to reduce it due to the number of daily uploads. Preferable? The smaller, the better.

thanks, for the quick feedback!
i can get them under 10k -- can we delete those that we already put up? thanks again for the feedback!
Last edited:
Top Bottom