iNet Web Blog

It’s been plastered all over the Net, so no doubt you have probably heard about the Illinois (USA) court decision ordering Spamhaus, a UK company, to pay damages to the value of $11.7 million to the supposed (cough cough) non spamming e360 Insight email marketing company in the US.

I can’t begin to count how many things I can see wrong with this, including the bad precedent it sets on US courts being able to control Internet content!

Yet Microsoft can quite legally throw warnings up on their browser stating that legitimate websites could be phishers, and the website owner has to “ask” MS to remove them.

Spamhaus has been providing a worthwhile service in fighting spam. The fact that an “email marketing” company is on their list as spammers, in my opinion, should be their right just as much as it’s Microsofts right to throw dirty big warnings at you on their browser for “supposed” phishers. I’ve got these IE7 warnings on a few of my sites I have been told, and I have to wait until I feel like polluting my system with IE7 to request that Microsoft remove them. I am wondering if in the meantime I can take out a court order against Microsoft requesting damages also???

But apart from the abhorable double standards here…. let’s look at the implications that this kind of decision can evoke.

A US court making an order against a UK based Internet company?? And the audacity of trying to get ICANN to de-register Spanhaus?

We all know that the US would love to lay claim to be the law of the Internet, but my dears…. this isn’t the case yet! I’m with Spamhaus. I wouldn’t have wasted my time dealing with this matter, because IMO what an Illinois court has to say lays no claim to me. If it was an International crime like paedophelia, then yes. But unless I have been asleep recently & missed a lot of action… the last time I looked being on a list is not an International crime.

So… what are your thoughts on this? How many mistakes can you spot in this whole process? Discuss them here >>>