-
Website
http://venturebeat.com/ -
Original page
http://venturebeat.com/2008/11/24/facebook-awarded-873-million-in-suit-against-spammer/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-c...
Facebook themeselves don't seem to comply with what they were complaining about.
CAN SPAM affects legitimate businesses, and not just "spammers" - in fact a huge proportion of "spam" is legally CAN SPAM compliant.
The original filing had 5 complaints - the first one was in relation to CAN SPAM - whether CAN SPAM applies to messaging on social networks and messaging systems is a big deal, especially if the social networks provide no provision to comply.
e.g. Try including a full mailing address in a tweet.. plus your message
Here is another example, Disqus
Disqus are a great service and when I get back to blogging again I need to do a writeup on all the progress they have made.
However if this is a ruling that can affect case law in the future, then when you replied to my comment I received an email from a commercial blog, thus it might be interpretted as a commercial email.
The is no physical mailing address in the email
The preferences seem to be only global, so if I want to stop receiving email notifications from this post, or Venturebeat as a whole, I can't
I have to log in to change my preferences
Also of note for Facebook specifically, it might be might harder to defend against a class action based upon CAN SPAM the next time enough users get upset about zombie notifications.
How about blogs on Blogger and their relatively new comment notifications - often hit with spam even from the few Google blogs that have open comments.
This is why I would be horrified if this is looked on as a "real" citable judgement, as it opens up a can of worms.
It is my understanding that this was a default judgement, which seems to be just a way for the courts to tie up assets, with the total set high enough to tie up everything possible.
I would be horrified if this was a "real" judgement, as CAN-SPAM in relationship to social network communication is very much untested water.
Just a few examples...
1. Facebook just forced me to log into my account to change mail preferences
2. What is the real material difference between phishing, and asking people for their Gmail password to scrape their contacts to send out viral invites?
3. Emails from Facebook have no address details at all
4. If Facebook claim that the defendants didn't provide a one click opt-out mechanism, yet they were using Facebook, then does that mean there is a prooblem with the Facebook interface? Is a wall post a "message" where every user has to have a chance to opt out from viewing wall posts of that user (the poster)?
Extrapolate it out further, and how does this have an effect on blog comment spam that ends up in the email box of subscribers. Who is then liable?
http://www.privacy.es.tc
can any one tell me how this actually works???
http://www.livbit.com
If we make even a small typo, our readers will give us a hard time about it. Spammers, well, yeah....
Another reason is that many of them are not from the US and English is not their first language. But I think the fact that they are idiots is the main reason. I am reading a book (Daemon) where nearly a thousand spammers all over the world were killed on the same day. It made me smile.
Albert
http://www.mooladays.com
http://www.johnboesky.com
http://www.uggboots365.co.uk
Nice! I like! My ugg boots arrived today, I'm very pleased with them. So silky smooth and soft I can't believe it. I researched the whole ugg thing last year but decided not to order because I really couldn't afford a pair. This year I read about Whooga's in a fashion forum and decided to give them a try. I ordered a size too small initially and had to return them for a 6 which was a bit annoying but eventually worth the wait, I'm a 5.5 in most shoes but ugg boots on sale sometimes vary between 5.5 and 6. I probably should have measured my foot, anyway I'm very pleased..