Well done. This is pretty good stuff. Don On Dec 21, 2003, at 11:11 PM, technomage wrote: > ok, > I sat down and figured out how much I should charge to have to deal=20 > with spam. > > below is a sample letter I am sending to the 6 biggest offenders.=20 > (I'll use > SBC communications as they are the biggest). > > what I would like is some help from an attorney thats conversant with=20= > the law > as it relates to computers and the internet here in the US. > > Also, I have virtually no money to pay a retainer, but am willing to=20= > share in > any proceeds that are collected (if any). > > The reason for this: I spend upwards of 2 hours per day culling all my=20= > spam, > reporting it to spamcop, confirming the reports and repeating the=20 > process. > last month alone I processed over 1296 spams this way (thats 60 hours=20= > last > month I spent on this). > > if anyone has any suggestions, please let me know (if anyone here=20 > works for a > company that has a "net lawyer" available and is willing to help out,=20= > also > let me know!). > > > Mage > > here is that letter... > > > ********** sbc liability letter.txt *************** > 22 December 2003 > > to: SBC Communications Inc. > 175 E. Houston > P.O. box 2933 > San Antonio, TX > > From: , Network Administrator >
> Phoenix, Arizona 85033 > > Sir, > > This is to inform you that your corporation is now liable > for the sum of $14,140.28* for my time required to deal with the=20 > UCE/SPAM > (herein known as "spam") originating from your network and subscriber=20= > base > and improperly allowed transmittal by you. > > The originating networks involved are: > 1. pacbell.net > 2. swbell.net > 3. ameritech.net > > all of which are owned by your firm (as referenced in: > http://http://www.sbc.com/sbc_privacy_policy/0,,9,00.html ) > or carry the SBC logo. > > Explanation: > In November of 2003, I received (and reported) 1,296 pieces > of spam at a cost to me of $3.34 per minute in lost productivity. > Your firm respresents 2.16049% (or 28 actual pieces) of the > received total spam. > > The calculation of the $3.34 per minute is a fairly simple one. > it is based on the "labored rate per hour" of $200 divided by > 60 (number of minutes). The figure arrived at above uses this formula: > > cost per minute multiplied by actual time (in this case, it takes 1 > minute and 30 seconds to process each spam from reception in my inbox > through reporting to delivery confirmation) and then multiplied again > by the number of spams originating from your customer base. Also=20 > included > is the remedy from 47 USC 227 (a)(2)(b) which stipulates that I can=20 > charge > up to $500 per each spam (as my telephone and cable internet are=20 > integrated > services, this does apply) Thus: > > 3.34 * 1.5 (1 minute 30 seconds) * + > ($500 * actual spams) =3D $total amount owed > hence: > 3.34 * 1.5 * 16 + (500 * 16) =3D $8,080.16 for pacbell orginated = e-mails > 3.34 * 1.5 * 6 + (500 * 6) =3D 3,030.06 for swbell.net originated = e-mails > 3.34 * 1.5 * 6 + (500 * 6) =3D 3,030.06 for ameritech.net originated=20= > e-mails > > Now, this may seem like a lot, but if you account for the costs your > firm has already incurred as a result of all the spam being sent, such=20= > as; > > 1. bandwidth overutilization charges from your upstream provider > > 2. service downtime due to overloaded mail servers > > 3. customer support cost to handle all the calls that are the > result of spam activities > > 4. lost productivity as a result of spam activities. > > This can result in millions in lost revenue over the course of a year. > > POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: > > 1. secure your network by only allowing mail to be sent through your > e-mail servers instead of directly from customer boxes to anywhere > on the net (this will eliminate 90% of the spam problem) > > 2. exercise your AUP and TOS vigilantly > > 3. respond to complaints immediately and in a specific manner. > > I hope this will help you to understand that spam is not a victimless=20= > or > costless action. It is by definition a Denial of Service attack = against > the recipients (such as I) and as such, may fall under the terms of; > The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, > Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996, > Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, > sections 225 and 896 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, > 18 U.S.C. =A7 1029 - Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with = Access > Devices, > 18 U.S.C. =A7 1030 - Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with=20 > Computers, > 18 U.S.C. =A7 1362. Communication Lines, Stations, or Systems, > and others. Also, the "attractive nuisance" of these "open proxies" > may be dealt with also by the above (and other related statutes). > > > Lastly, the volume of spam has not diminished since I started=20 > reporting. > This has all the appearance of a failure on your part to enforce those > policies (as published on your website). In essence, this has the=20 > appearance > that your firm is in collusion with the "spam vendors" or may appear=20= > to be > an accessory during the fact. > > Thus, I request that you exercise immediately all due effort to=20 > minimize or > eliminate this problem. This does not, however, release you from your=20= > current > liability to me (as stated above). However, a concerted effort to stop=20= > future > spam may substantially reduce future liabilities. > > Please forward the above stated amount immediately via corporate check > or certified check/money order. Failure to repond will result in legal > action to recover this liability. > > > =09 > Cordially, > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >