Still more on Email BOMB
Dr. Jeffrey Race
pmmail@dmiyu.org
Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:07:23 +0700
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 07:44:28 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> 1-The contracts with the ISPs all forbid use of the facilities
>> for spamming and require the ISPs to prevent it.
> Hence it is your reponsibility to report it to the proper ISP SO
THEY CAN
>PREVENT IT.
We can report it only to the owner of the facilities over which it
travels, who is legally responsible and whose name appears in the
registrar's record. The ISP's name appears only in a private
contract between it and UU.NET. UU.NET is responsible for the
behavior
of those who use its hardware. That is the law.
>> There are measures to do this, it was all gone through in the
cellular
>> industry to stop fraud. The measures are known; they are just not
adopted.
> This is not the cellular industry.
The same legal principles apply everywhere in our country. The
principle
the cellular industry adopted was traceability of the identity of its
account holders and accountability for their actions. That stopped
most of the fraud.
Many ISPs religiously follow this procedure (which is called "know
your
customer" and is the basis of responsible business in every time and
place)
and they have no problems with spammers.
>
>> 2-Legally it is UU.NET's ____RESPONSIBILITY___ even if it is not
their
>> problem.
>
> What can they do? At best they can drop the person IF THEY ARE
CONNECTED.
What they can do is simple and what a lot of other backbone providers
do:
if you are a contracting ISP and you don't enforce proper security
measures,
you are cut off from connectivity. This forces the ISP to know its
customers,
and to cut off spammers, to be effective by imposing a cleanup fee
(typically
$500). As soon as the ISP does this a few times, the spammers no
longer
sign up for the accounts. That is what it takes, that is all it
takes, and
that is what UU.NET refuses to do. I have discussed it with them many
times.
>
>> (It is my problem!) If their property is used to injure others, and
they
>> know it and can prevent it, then they are legally responsible.
>
> They cannot prevent it. You tell me how they can because if you
come up
>with a method which is proper and responsible,
The above method is proper and responsible and lots of firms use it.
>doesn't trample over user's >right to privacy
There is no right to privacy as a shield to commit fraud
>and doesn't undermine the ISP's rights as a carrier
No ISP, indeed no one in America, has a right to commit fraud or to be
a witting accessory to fraud.
>I'd be
>more than willing to walk the 20' between me and the abuse department
to tell
>them the revelation that one lone user has had that the entire ISP
industry
>hasn't in over 5 years!
It is not a revelation. It is sound business practice. Lots of ISPs
do it.
The problem at UU.NET is their obduracy in pursuing an unethical
business
model. The model now generates big profits for UU.NET by imposing big
costs on me and fellow victims. To fix the problem UU.NET will have
to
put some muscle on its ISPs, kick off the recalcitrant ones, and file
some lawsuits. They don't do so because it will cut their revenue.
So my losses become their profits. That is the essence of the
unethical business model.
I am not making this up. Remember I have furnished UU.NET's legal
staff
complete case files to prosecute under the Virginia law. They
rejected
even the concept. I have the names of those involved and there will
be a settling of accounts in the fullness of time.
Some may want to look at
<http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/12/05/001205hnspam.xml>
in which a UU.NET spokesman admits last month his firm received a
quarter
million complaints. Any business which gets a quarter million
complaints
in a month is obviously operating on a defective business model.
The article also confirms that UU.NET gets the largest percentage of
complaints. This more than hints that the problem is not lack of a
solution but lack of using the solutions which exist. Others succeed.
UU.NET doesn't do what is effective so gets so many complaints. (When
I talked to their technical staff last year they said the rate was
80,000 complaints monthly so their burden on society appears to be
worsening.)
>
>> If you leave the key in your car and someone takes it for a joy
ride and
>> kills someone, you are legally responsible for that death because
it is your
>> property and you were negligent in its care.
>
> First off, I seriously doubt that.
Well it is true. Ask a lawyer.
>Secondly, spam doesn't cause deaths.
The legal principle is the same.
>And finally, this isn't the case in the ISP industry. In fact there
is a
>precedent against it. In the (IIRC) Texas suit from an ISP against a
spammer
If it happened, the ISP won damages because it was the plaintiff. Had
I
filed suit I would have done so against both the spammer and the ISP
and
ideally won damages from both, the spammer as the principal and the
ISP
for contributory negligence in allowing a stranger to use its property
to injure others. (They could successfully defend were they to show
that they
had an effective policy in place and a first-time offender slipped
through.)
> Now, not to dick wave, but I work for a major ISP and literally
sit
>between the a portion of our abuse department and a portion of our
carrier
>services department. On top of that I've worked in both of those
capacities
>at my previous job, also at an ISP.
The above employment history may disqualify you as an objective
observer
since your compensation comes from a firm which (if it is UU.NET or
its
ilk) makes money by victimizing others.
The only relevant issue anyway is the soundness of your reasoning, not
the identity of your employer.
> So, what is your understanding of the ISP industry aside from the
>misguided views of an irate and ignorant customer?
I have been diligently researching this subject for two years (since I
coded my first website and discovered I can't put up a <mailto>
because
I will be flooded with spam), I have talked to many law enforcement
authorities, I have talked to many spammers, and I have a lot of
technical knowledge of this field. I am working with the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement to launch a model prosecution in that
state and expect to be a witness in the case.
>- --
> Steve C. Lamb
Kind regards to all,
Dr. Jeffrey Race
Cambridge Electronics
Laboratories
Today in Bangkok Thailand
Fax +66 2 688-4540 (backup +66 2 271-4956)
Tel +66 1 239-8197 (mobile 24 hours)
Tel +66 2 291-2235 (res)
Tel +66 2 279-6162 (ofc)
<jrace@attglobal.net>
=DA=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=
=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=
=C4=C4=C4=C4=BF
=B3 Download TELECOM DESIGN TRICKS! =B3
=B3 <www.camblab.com/lit/trix_v_2.pdf> =B3
=B3 =B3
=B3 Download information on our latest product: =B3
=B3 QUIKLINK PRIVATE WIRE AUTOMATIC RINGDOWN UNIT =B3
=B3 <www.camblab.com/consumer/ql_1_2.pdf> =B3
=B3It's new! It's very small! It's very inexpensive!=B3
=C0=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=
=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=C4=
=C4=C4=C4=C4=D9