PhoenixAZ
Joshua
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Phoenix, AZ
1 edit | How about education
It seems that the courts these days need to be more educated in order to solve any internet related "crime"- How about make that a law that you need to have skills in IT and more in order to judge any internet related "crime"?
I probably sound like a dumb*** with that post, but what I am trying to say is only allow educated judges- educated in the computer fields to judge computer crimes? Make it a law!
We will see how the judge feels if they decide to allow Spamhaus to fall under when he gets his inbox full of v1@gr@ (Yes spam actually uses symbols to override spam filters and such) discounts...same for the idiot who has made SPAM legal.
--
»www.myspace.com/iamreallycoolandyouarenot |
|
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
| The problem is that the court never even had the opportunity to decide the case on its merits (because Spamhaus never showed up to defend itself). Tech savvy or not, the judge never was able to look at all of the issues. Spamhaus could have set the record straight while establishing good precedent at the same time if it would have appeared. Instead the missing defendant forced the court to enter a default judgment for the plaintiff. However, I do wonder why the judge (if she didn't already) at least decide the merits of personal jurisdiction.
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com |
|
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·MTS
| Let get one thing straight to all of you that state that Spamhaus should have defended themselves out of country:
If that case happened out of the United States, E.G. in Britain, would everyone be so adamant in having a US company having to go there to defend itself? Or would the majority here (US) would have said BFD forget this?
This is yet another case of some backwater judge thinking that his purview is the whole planet.
Bah. |
|
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
| Just so we're straight, if the circumstances were the same but countries 'switched,' I would still conclude that Spamhaus (or the hypothetical US company) should defend itself in this case. There's enough at stake here to make an appearance and put forth a legal argument.
Not showing up may be grounded in principal, but litigating the case would have been pragmatic and arguably principled as well.
View my post above to see why Spamhaus should have litigated this matter.
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com |
|
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01 | So, if I'm running a company, I should pay for a lawyer to attend a TRIVIAL (no jurisdiction) court case? So, should I also pay for it if 30 other people decide to bring up cases against me? Flood me with legal fees, etc.... |
|
rrz103
RichardZ
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Canton, MI
| I understand what you're saying and I agree it's frustrating and unfair. My point is that this is the business climate we live in and Spamhaus had the opportunity to set the record straight and potentially prevent future litigation against them and other like-minded anti-spam services.
--
Rich Z - »www.richardz.com |
|
