Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 10 Issue 53
Computer underground Digest Wed Oct 28, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 53
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #10.53 (Wed, Oct 28, 1998)
File 1--Fwd: Two ISPs Seized Over Usenet Content
File 2--Dreamscape Responds to AG seizure of ISP equipment
File 3--Press Release: Sam Ramer, Carol Pub Co., Resist Assimilation
File 4--The Swedigh Personal Register (Personal Information) Law
File 5--Spammer sued
File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:40:26 -0500
From: Robert A. Costner <pooh@efga.org
Subject: File 1--Fwd: Two ISPs Seized Over Usenet Content
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
A message from Cypherpunks about two NY ISPs seized for content. My
understanding was that the remaining provisions of the CDA exempted these
ISPs from liability.
-- Robert
From-- Eric Cordian <emc@wire.insync.net
Subject-- Two ISPs Seized Over Usenet Content
To-- cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Date-- Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10--36--51 -0600 (CST)
New York State Attorney General Dennis Vacco, who is running for
re-election, is crowing and posturing this morning over having seized
two ISPs, Dreamscape in Syracuse, and Buffnet in West Seneca, over the
content of the newsgroup alt.binaries.pictures.pre-teen, thus making a
small dent in the distribution of "filth" to ignorant citizen-units.
A running gag in abpep-t for the last several years has been for
newsgroup posters to identify themselves as various faculty belonging
to a mythical "Pedo University" when responding to trolls. Vacco
believes this imaginary organization to be a "International Child
Pornography Ring" which he has broken up.
13 individuals in various countries were also arrested on various
child pornography possession, trading, and promotion charges, related
to activity in the newsgroup, and 34 are still under "investigation",
according to this morning's AP wire.
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen continues merrily onwards, and
is presently discussing the arrests and seizures, minus a few of its
regular participants.
While the loss of two small ISPs and a dozen or so patrons is unlikely
to bring the uncensorable worldwide Usenet to its knees, this appears
to be a small first step towards eroding the legal notion that common
carriers are immune from liability over Usenet content.
exerpts...
NEW YORK (AP) -- Authorities say they have broken up an
international child pornography ring dubbed ``Pedo
University'' in which suspects swapped sexually explicit
information, pictures and video online.
...
Thirteen people were in custody and more arrests were
expected.
As many as 34 people were still under investigation. New
York state police seized two Internet providers, Dreamscape
ISP in Syracuse and Buffnet.net ISP in West Seneca.
...
Both allegedly carried Pedo University news groups, a type
of electronic bulletin board similar to a chat room.
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:27:54 -0500
From: Robert A. Costner <pooh@efga.org>
Subject: File 2--Dreamscape Responds to AG seizure of ISP equipment
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Dreamscape ISP, illegally raided in connection with child porn on usenet
newsgroups, can be found at
http://www.dreamscape.com/
---- forwarded message ------
From--Eric Cordian <emc@wire.insync.net>
Subject--Dreamscape Responds
To--cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Date--Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:50:14 -0600 (CST)
Dreamscape has posted a reponse to the antics of New York Attorney
General Dennis Vacco on its website. It will be interesting to see if
any of the evidence from this illegal seizure is allowed in court.
-----
STATEMENT OF DREAMSCAPE WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SEIZURE OF
INTERNET EQUIPMENT
On October 27th, the New York State Police, acting under the orders of
Attorney General Dennis Vacco, seized computer equipment used by
Dreamscape to provide its Internet subscribers with access to
thousands of newsgroups which are available through the Internet. The
seizure was purportedly for the purpose of gathering evidence of
illegal conduit by persons originating child pornography. Dreamscape
is not accused of any wrongdoing.
Dreamscape remains fully operational and continues to provide service
to its customers.
While Dreamscape supports the Attorney General's goal of preventing
harm to minors through the spread of child pornography, Dreamscape is
disappointed that the Attorney General has utilized unnecessary and
unlawful tactics which significantly interfere with the rights of all
Americans to utilize the Internet.
Dreamscape does not create the articles, pictures, or other
information available to persons using the Internet. Instead,
Dreamscape acts solely as a conduit allowing individual senders and
receivers to communicate with each other without review, supervision,
censorship, or interference by Dreamscape. In this manner, Dreamscape
acts in the same manner as a telephone company which merely completes
calls between senders and receivers, without monitoring those
communications in any way.
Dreamscape has, in the past, repeatedly cooperated with law
enforcement agencies in tracing the identity of persons who originate
pornographic materials. To the extent the Attorney General seeks to
protect children by stopping the exchange of pornographic materials,
that can and should be done by prosecuting the originators and
recipients of said material to the fullest extent of the law. The
remedy is not, however, to shut down and paralyze the Internet.
Dreamscape, and other Internet providers, cannot control the content
of material transmitted over the Internet. Dreamscape's subscribers
have access to over 30,000 newsgroups, to which they can transmit
messages and receive messages. It is not possible for Dreamscape or
any other Internet provider to screen, review, and censor the hundreds
of thousands of messages created, transmitted and received each day.
Federal law recognizes that an Internet provider is not liable for the
content of any messages, which the Internet provider simply transmits
through cyberspace. At least one Federal Court in New York State has
determined that any effort by state officials to restrict the
operation of the Internet is an unconstitutional violation of federal
rights and unlawful interference with interstate commerce.
Dreamscape remains ready and anxious to work with law enforcement
officials in identifying violators of State and Federal laws against
child pornography. However, Dreamscape also intends to actively oppose
overzealous and unlawful efforts which have the effect of destroying
the ability of its thousands of customers to legitimately utilize the
Internet.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 02:28:38 +0100
From: Luca Sambucci <locutus@SAMBUCCI.COM>
Subject: File 3--Press Release: Sam Ramer, Carol Pub Co., Resist Assimilation
Online Freedom Federation
http://www.off-hq.org
October 27, 1998
For immediate release
Sam Ramer, Carol Publishing Company, Resist Assimilation
Author Sam Ramer and his publishing company have appealed the
federal court decision halting sales of his book The Joy of Trek.
In a joint brief filed with the federal appellate court in New
York City, Ramer and Carol Publishing Group advanced a number of
compelling legal arguments to establish that the district judge
abused his discretion and applied the wrong legal standard in
granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Paramount.
Earlier this summer, U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti
granted Paramount's request to ban the sale and distribution of
the book pending the outcome of a full-blown copyright
infringement trial in which the studio will seek over $22 million
in damages. Ramer, a self-proclaimed loyal "Trekster" since the
age of 6, dedicated The Joy of Trek to his wife and intended it
as a humorous guide to help non-fans like her understand the
fierce devotion we fans hold for Star Trek in all its
incarnations.
The lower court found that the book, by "relating synopses of
individual episodes and encapsulations of the various characters
and alien species[,] . . . copies the heart' of the Star Trek
properties." Judge Conti decreed that the "fictitious history
[of Star Trek] is a story, created and owned by Paramount." In
addition, he rejected the defense claim that the book was
protected by the doctrine of "fair use," as well as the argument
that Paramount has abandoned its right to pursue damages after
failing to bring legal action with regard to the hundreds of
other unauthorized books on Star Trek.
Obviously, if left unchallenged the ruling could deal a deadly
blow to fanfic and other forms of fandom by removing legal
hurdles and emboldening Paramount to renew its campaign against
websites and other fan media.
Despite the obstacles presented by the lower court's injunction,
Ramer and his publisher have demonstrated extraordinary ingenuity
and perserverance. Indeed, in a bold tactical maneuver worthy of
a starfleet captain, Carol Publishing has countersued Paramount,
whose lawyers notified bookstores that they would be in contempt
of court for continuing to sell the book, even though the terms
of the injunction permit sales of existing inventory. Carol
Publishing seeks unspecified damages for harm to its business
reputation and interference with its business relationships
caused by Paramount's actions.
Whether Carol Publishing has balanced the odds by capitalizing on
Paramount's apparent legal blunder remains to be seen. Meanwhile,
OFF continues to pledge its support to Sam Ramer, and encourages
its members to make themselves heard. Ultimately, nothing less
than fandom itself is at stake.
---
The Online Freedom Federation <http://www.off-hq.org> is a non-profit
organization dedicated to the preservation of freedom of speech on the
Internet. Its executive council can be reached at <executives@off-hq.org>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:53:49 -0600
From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest)
Subject: File 4--The Swedigh Personal Register (Personal Information) Law
source http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/society/personal-register-law.html
THE SWEDISH
A new Swedish law about handling of personal information in
computers took effect on 24 October 1998. The law makes much of
the publication of information about individual persons on the
Internet illegal, such as criticism of named persons,
publication of lists of references in scientific papers or the
sending of e-mail messages outside of Europe.
Summary of the Swedish
Personal Register Law
The object of the law is to protect against invasion of privacy
through handling of personal information. The law defines "handling of
personal information" as any handling of personal information,
automatic or manual, like collection, registering, organizing,
storing, treatment or change, retrieval, use or transmission,
publication, collating, blocking or deleting. This law, however, only
applies to handling of information which is wholly or partly automatic
(for example by using computers), or which is contained in a
structured collection of personal information available for search or
retrieval.
Personal information is defined as any kind of information, which
directly or indirectly refers to a living physical person.
The law specifies exceptions where the law is not valid: Wholly
private registers handled by a single person for his or her personal
needs, registers published in newspapers, books or broadcast programs,
registers used only by journalists, authors or artists.
REQUIREMENTS ON TREATMENT
OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
Personal information may only be handled for specified and justifiable
goals. Collected information may only be used for the purpose, for
which it was collected. Personal information must be correct and
up-to-date and must not be kept longer time than needed for the
purpose of the collection.
Personal information may only be handled with permission from the
person, whose information is handled, or for certain other justified
uses.
SENSITIVE INFORMATION
It is not permitted to handled personal information which reveals race
or ethnic origin, religious or political opinions, membership in trade
unions and information about health or sexual behaviour. There are a
few exceptions from this, a society may handle information who are its
members, even though the organization is connected to a particular
religious faith or political view, and medical organizations may
handle medical information about their patients, researchers may
handle information for research purposes and such information may also
be handled or published with permission from the person, whose
information is handled.
TRANSMISSION TO THIRD COUNTRIES
Personal information may not be transmitted outside of Europe without
permission from the person, whose information is handled, except with
explicit permission from this person, to fulfill legal obligations or
to protect vital interests.
CONTROL AND PUNISHMENT
The upholding of the law is controlled by a special government agency,
the Data Inspection Agency, and breaking the law may be punished
through damages to the registered person, fines and prison up to two
years.
Critique of the act
PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION
ON THE INTERNET WOULD BE ILLEGAL
If you interpret the act literally, it would mean that the following
acts would be illegal:
* Writing of an e-mail message to a recipient outside Europe without
the prior permission of the recipient.
* All Internet-based discussion forums (except those run by
newspapers, since newspapers are excempt from the law) in which
any information about a person is mentioned without the permission
of that person.
* Publication on the Internet of any scientific paper, which
contains lists of references, unless each person in the list of
reference has given permission in advance.
* Any criticism of a named person, where that person does not give
permission for the criticism. For example, criticism of
politicians would not be allowed, a trade union would not be
allowed to criticize named employers, etc.
This does not agree very well with the Swedish constitution, which
says that society should protect the rights of citizens to communicate
with each other, especially communication about political and
religious issues. However, the constitution contains a clause saying
that the rights to communicate can be restricted in order to protect
personal privacy, so the lawmakers claim that the law is not in
contradiction to the constitution.
WHY ARE SOME VOCATIONS EXEMPTED
The law has also been criticized for the exemption for authors,
journalists and artists: Freedom of speech should be a right for
everyone, not only for certain vocations.
THE LAW IS NOT NEEDED
Criticism of the law has also said that the law is not needed, since
there are other laws, like laws about racial agitation, defamation of
character, etc. which are better ways than this law to regulate
unwanted communication.
WILL THE LAW REALLY BE UPHELD
The previous Data Act, which the new law replaces, also made most of
the Internet illegal. However, this law has only been upheld by the
government very irregularly. In one case, an online forum was
forbidden to discuss political and religious issues, in another case,
an author was forbidden to write his book using a computer. In the
second case, however, this decision was revoked on appeal to the
government. The new act, however, does not allow appeals to the
government, only to courts of law, which can be expected to follow the
words of the law. Local governments have been forbidden from
publishing notes from their meetings on the Internet. In most cases,
however, personal information has been published on the Internet
without repressional acts from the government.
Probably, the new law will also not be upheld, but the risk that
the government can apply the law, when something is published, which
they do not like, has been said to be an argument against the new law.
The agency responsible for upholding the law, the Data Inspection
Agency, says that it will strictly interpret the letter of the law,
but that they may, because of limited time, not have time to act
against uncontroversial information, like naming the nobel prize
winners on the Internet.
IS SWEDEN FORCED BY
THE EUROPEAN UNION
TO ENACT THIS LAW?
The law was passed by the Swedish parliament with only the small
liberal party and a few stragglers from other parties voting against
it. When asked why they passed a law which restricts freedom of speech
in this way, they say that they had to pass this law, in order to
fulfill a directive from the European Union.
However, opponents of the law says that this directive was not
meant to be applied to publication of personal information, it was
only meant to be applied to structured collections of personal
information. Also structured collections would however cause problems,
for example a list of references in a scientific paper is obviously a
structured collection and would thus be illegal, unless each of the
authors of the papers in the reference list gave their permission, and
to obtain such permission would often be very difficult.
WILL THE GOVERNMENT AMEND THE LAW
Because of the criticism, the government has asked the Data Inspection
Agency to investigate, whether publication of local government
protocols and some other publication might be exempted from the law.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:50:13 -0700
From: Don Smith <art@oz.net>
Subject: File 5--Spammer sued
In WA State, the AG's office filed it's first suit against a spammer.
in court.
====================================
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON HECKEL, doing business as
NATURAL INSTINCTS,
Defendant.
NO.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
AND ADDITIONAL RELIEF UNDER
THE UNFAIR BUSINESS
PRACTICES--CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT AND THE
UNSOLICITED ELECTRONIC
MAIL ACT
COMES NOW, plaintiff, State of Washington, by and through its
attorneys Christine O.
Gregoire, Attorney General; Sally Reed Gustafson, Senior Assistant
Attorney General; and Paula
Selis, Senior Counsel, and brings this action against defendant named
herein. The state alleges the
following on information and belief:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.1. This Complaint is filed and
these proceedings are instituted under the provisions of
RCW 19.86, the Unfair Business Practices--Consumer Protection Act, and
RCW 19.190, the
Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act.
1.2. Jurisdiction of the Attorney General to commence this action
is conferred by RCW
19.86.080 and RCW 19.190.030(2).
1.3. The violations alleged herein have been and are being
committed in whole or in
part in King County, in the State of Washington by defendant named
herein.
///
///
II. DEFENDANT
2.1. Defendant Jason Heckel is the
sole proprietor of Natural Instincts. Natural
Instinct's principal place of business is located at 4676 Commercial
Street Southeast, Suite 201,
Salem, Oregon 97302.
2.2. Defendant Jason Heckel, doing business as Natural Instincts,
conducts business in
Washington through unsolicited commercial electronic mail transmitted
over the Internet to
Washington residents.
III. NATURE OF TRADE OR COMMERCE
3.1. Since at least February 1996,
defendant has sent unsolicited commercial electronic
mail via the Internet. In 1997, defendant developed an online 46-page
booklet entitled "How to
Profit From the Internet." Defendant sells his booklet and associated
pamphlets by using
unsolicited electronic mail to solicit customers to purchase his
products.
3.2. Defendant sends electronic mail messages to individuals
worldwide. Many of
those individuals are located in Washington. A copy of a typical
unsolicited electronic mail
message received by a Washington consumer is appended as Exhibit A.
The message states, in
part, the following:
"SHOW ME THE MONEY!" NOT A PROBLEM!
I am about to share with you a unique opportunity to start a
very successful
business or take an existing one to new heights. By taking
advantage of the
following breakthrough knowledge in marketing trends, you
will soon discover the
art of
"How to really make money on the Information Super Highway!"
3.3. The electronic mail message goes on to cite a number of
testimonials from those
who have already purchased defendant's product, and offers additional
"free" incentives if the
recipient makes a purchase. These incentives include "free" software,
a "free" calling card, "free"
"bonus" reports, and "free" "How to Reports." Defendant also offers
as an incentive a "private
list" of "50,000 e-mail addresses." The cost of defendant's product
package is $39.95.
3.4. In order to send unsolicited electronic mail messages to
thousands of individuals in
an efficient manner, defendant utilizes a software program called
"Extractor Pro." Extractor Pro
extracts or "mines" electronic mail addresses from various Internet
sources and automatically
sends out messages to those addresses upon defendant's entering the
appropriate command.
Using the Extractor Pro software, defendant sends between 100,000 and
1,000,000 unsolicited
commercial electronic mail messages per week.
3.5. On average, defendant sells thirty to fifty of his product
packages per month.
Consumers purchase by filling out an order form which may be
downloaded from the electronic
mail message solicitation, and mail the form, along with payment, to
defendant's address.
3.6. Defendant knows or has reason to know that he sends
unsolicited commercial
electronic mail to Washington residents.
3.7. Defendant is in competition with others in the State of
Washington engaged in
similar business.
IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
4.1. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs
3.1 through 3.7 and incorporates them herein as if set
forth in full.
4.2. Computer users are alerted to the existence of electronic
mail messages intended
for their receipt by a display on their computer monitors. The
display will list the message by its
purported sender and a brief subject line which generally describes
the body of the message. In
order to read or "download" the entire message, the user usually must
click a cursor on the text of
the subject line, at which point the text of the message is displayed.
4.3. The purpose of the subject line in an electronic mail
message is to describe the
message's text. This enables a computer user to have discretion over
whether and when to read
the entire text of the message. Emergency or personal messages may
take precedence over
commercial messages. Similarly, work-related messages may take
precedence over commercial
messages.
4.4. Defendant's unsolicited electronic mail messages display
various subject lines.
Rather than accurately describing the content of the text, these
subject lines mislead recipients as
to the true nature of the message itself. For example, defendant
displays "Did I get the right e-
mail address?" and "For your review--HANDS OFF!" as subject lines in
his unsolicited electronic
mail messages. Neither of these subject lines accurately describes
the content of the messages.
Rather, they constitute an attempt to entice the recipient into
downloading and reading the entire
text of the message. "Did I get the right e-mail address?" misleads
the recipient into thinking that
someone he or she knows is trying to make contact. "For your
review--HANDS OFF!" creates
the misimpression that the text of the message contains classified
information, specifically
intended for the recipient.
4.5. The use of false or misleading information in the subject
line of a commercial
electronic mail message violates RCW 19.190.030(1)(b). Pursuant to
RCW 19.190.030(2),
defendant's violation of RCW 19.190.030(1)(b) constitutes a per se
violation of the Consumer
Protection Act, RCW 19.86.
4.6. The conduct described above constitutes unfair or deceptive
acts or practices in
trade or commerce and unfair methods of competition in violation of
RCW 19.86.020.
V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
5.1. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs
3.1 through 4.6 and incorporates them herein as if set
forth in full.
5.2. Electronic mail messages sent via the Internet contain a header,
which tells the
recipient the source of the original message, as well as any points of
transmission on the
message's path to the eventual recipient. A typical header will show
the path of computers which
sent the electronic mail message to the ultimate recipient. The
specific computers are identified
by a series of computer and domain names, and Internet protocol
address numbers. Often there
are several computers involved in transmitting the message to its
final destination. By examining
the names and numbers which identify each computer along the
transmission path, it is possible to
determine who originally sent the message, and which Internet service
providers transmitted it to
its ultimate recipient.
5.3. It is also possible for a sender to disguise or obscure the
true routing of an
electronic mail message by manipulating the transmission path
information in the message's
header. Defendant engages in this practice. He manipulates the
information in his messages'
headers to reflect that his solicitations originate at computers which
are different from his. For
example, some of defendant's header information indicates that the
originating computer is
located at the domain name "13.com." See Exhibit A. In fact,
"13.com" is a domain name
assigned to someone other than defendant. Defendant's messages do not
originate from the
"13.com" domain. Accordingly, defendant misrepresents the
transmission path of his electronic
mail messages by obscuring their true point of origin.
5.4. It is a violation of RCW 19.190.030(1)(a) to misrepresent
the transmission path of
a commercial electronic mail message. Pursuant to RCW 19.190.030(2),
a violation of RCW
19.190.030(1)(a) constitutes a per se violation of the Consumer
Protection Act, RCW 19.86.
5.5. The above-described conduct constitutes unfair and deceptive
acts or practices in
trade or commerce, and unfair methods of competition in violation of
RCW 19.86.020.
VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
6.1. Plaintiff realleges Paragraph
3.1 through 5.5 above, and incorporates them herein
as if set forth in full.
6.2. Washington residents who receive unsolicited electronic mail
messages from
defendant often attempt to respond by clicking on their computer's
"reply" icon in order to send
defendant a message protesting the receipt of the original electronic
mail message. Those who
attempt to contact defendant are often unsuccessful in doing so. The
message they attempt to
send back using the "reply" icon comes back designated
"undeliverable." Often the reply message
is undeliverable because defendant uses a return electronic mail
return address that is invalid by
the time the recipient attempts to respond. The return address is
rendered invalid either because
(1) the Internet service provider who provides defendant's electronic
mail account immediately
cancels it upon discovering it is being used to send unsolicited bulk
electronic mail without the
service provider's approval or (2) the vast number of irate replies in
response to defendant's
messages overload the capacity of the return electronic mail address
to receive more messages
and result in the account's eventual shutdown.
6.3. Despite the fact that defendant's electronic mail accounts
are either immediately
canceled by his Internet service provider or quickly lose their
capacity to receive replies,
defendant continues to send out unsolicited electronic mail. Once an
electronic mail account is
canceled, defendant simply opens another account and sends out another
bulk mailing.
Additionally, defendant maintains several electronic mail accounts
simultaneously, so that he will
have a continuing means to send out his messages.
6.4. Defendant bombards hundreds of thousands of electronic mail
addresses weekly
without affording his recipients the ability to respond to his
solicitations. Washington's law
requires that a sender of unsolicited commercial electronic mail
truthfully identify the originating
electronic mail address of the transmission. RCW 19.190.020(1)(a).
This requirement affords the
recipient the ability to reply to the sender directly whether it be to
verify the validity of the source
of the message, or to protest the receipt of the unsolicited message
and request no further
correspondence from the sender.
6.5. Defendant fails to provide a valid return electronic mail
address to recipients.
Though the return electronic mail address accurately reflects the
source of the original message at
the moment the message is sent, its almost instantaneous invalidity
renders it useless to recipients.
By posting a seemingly valid return electronic mail address which, in
fact, is impossible to respond
to, defendant misrepresents the status of his electronic mail account.
6.6. The conduct described above constitutes unfair or deceptive
acts or practices in
trade or commerce and unfair methods of competition in violation of
RCW 19.86.020.
VII. PRAYER FOR
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, STATE OF
WASHINGTON, prays for relief as follows:
7.1. That the Court adjudge and decree that defendant has engaged
in the conduct complained
of herein.
7.2. That the Court adjudge and decree that the conduct
complained of in Paragraphs 4.4 and
5.3 constitutes violations of the Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act,
Chapter 19.190 RCW, and pursuant to
RCW 19.190.030(2) constitutes per se violations of the Consumer
Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW.
7.3. That the Court adjudge and decree that the conduct
complained of in Paragraphs 4.4, 5.3
and 6.5 constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair
methods of competition in violation of
the Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW.
7.4. That the Court issue a permanent injunction enjoining and
restraining defendant and his
representatives, successors, assigns, officers, agents, servants,
employees, and all other persons acting or
claiming to act for, on behalf of, or in active concert or
participation with defendant from continuing or
engaging in the unlawful conduct complained of herein.
7.5. That the Court assess civil penalties, pursuant to RCW
19.86.140, of up to two thousand
dollars ($2,000) per violation against defendant for each and every
violation of RCW 19.86.020 caused
by the conduct complained of herein.
7.6. That the Court make such orders pursuant to RCW 19.86.080 as
it deems appropriate to
provide for restitution to consumers of money or property acquired by
defendant as a result of the conduct
complained of herein.
7.7. That the Court make such orders pursuant to RCW 19.86.080 to
provide that plaintiff,
State of Washington, have and recover from defendant the costs of this
action, including reasonable
attorney's fees.
7.8. That the Court order such other relief as it may deem just
and proper to fully and
effectively dissipate the effects of the conduct complained of herein,
or which may otherwise seem proper
to the Court.
DATED this _____ day of ______________, 1998.
CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE
Attorney General
SALLY R. GUSTAFSON
Senior Assistant Attorney General
_____________________________
PAULA SELIS, WSBA #12823
Senior Counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiff
State of Washington
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1998 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 6--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
CuD is readily accessible from the Net:
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #10.53
************************************
