Comments on: Legal action against EV1? http://spamhuntress.com/2005/05/30/legal-action-against-ev1/ Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:45:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: notalawyer http://spamhuntress.com/2005/05/30/legal-action-against-ev1/#comment-763 Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:00:19 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2005/05/30/legal-action-against-ev1/#comment-763 I would suggest affirmatively informing ev1.net that they and their customers are not authorized to deface your sites, and then wait for the next incident. It should (!) be difficult to establish "effective consent" if you can document steps taken to establish no consent. I would suggest affirmatively informing ev1.net that they and their customers are not authorized to deface your sites, and then wait for the next incident.

It should (!) be difficult to establish “effective consent” if you can document steps taken to establish no consent.

]]> by: Joe http://spamhuntress.com/2005/05/30/legal-action-against-ev1/#comment-760 Tue, 31 May 2005 18:55:54 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2005/05/30/legal-action-against-ev1/#comment-760 The wording is vague, but it is certainly aimed at hacking. Since comments, guestbooks, and wikis are open to posts by anyone its hard to say legally that a spammer doesn't have consent of the owner to post. Its obvious to anyone they aren't wanted, but even with a "do not spam" notice I doubt it would go anywhere in court. Theft or denial of service laws (I have not looked at them) may be effective against the ones that post tons of spam over and over again. They are wasting resources and making the site less useable, and often in wiki's totally replacing the original content. More on my views of using laws against link spam: http://wiki.chongqed.org//WikiSpam#laws The wording is vague, but it is certainly aimed at hacking. Since comments, guestbooks, and wikis are open to posts by anyone its hard to say legally that a spammer doesn’t have consent of the owner to post. Its obvious to anyone they aren’t wanted, but even with a “do not spam” notice I doubt it would go anywhere in court.

Theft or denial of service laws (I have not looked at them) may be effective against the ones that post tons of spam over and over again. They are wasting resources and making the site less useable, and often in wiki’s totally replacing the original content.

More on my views of using laws against link spam: http://wiki.chongqed.org//WikiSpam#laws

]]> by: Administrator http://spamhuntress.com/2005/05/30/legal-action-against-ev1/#comment-754 Tue, 31 May 2005 13:46:11 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2005/05/30/legal-action-against-ev1/#comment-754 But does that extend to the defacing of guestbooks? As far as I know, the spammer is a customer of EV1, not a hacker that's hacked a box. But does that extend to the defacing of guestbooks? As far as I know, the spammer is a customer of EV1, not a hacker that’s hacked a box.

]]> by: notalawyer http://spamhuntress.com/2005/05/30/legal-action-against-ev1/#comment-753 Tue, 31 May 2005 10:39:41 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2005/05/30/legal-action-against-ev1/#comment-753 TEXAS PENAL CODE CHAPTER 33. COMPUTER CRIMES http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000033.00.htm § 33.02. BREACH OF COMPUTER SECURITY. (a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner. TEXAS PENAL CODE
CHAPTER 33. COMPUTER CRIMES

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.007.00.000033.00.htm

§ 33.02. BREACH OF COMPUTER SECURITY. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer,
computer network, or computer system without the effective consent
of the owner.

]]>