Feeds

back to article Scotsman wins £1,300 settlement against spammer

An Edinburgh man has obtained damages of more than £1,300 from British-based spammer. Gordon Dick was granted the order against Transcom Internet Services Ltd of Henley-on-Thames at a January hearing in Edinburgh's Sheriff Court. Although he hasn't received any money yet, even after sending a debt collector around to Transcom's …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Hmmmm.....

As this company seemed to be pretty easy to locate, shouldn't the "give firms a chance to put things right" method have been used and for him to ask to have his email removed?

I realise that this is not a valid option when your spam for viagra or other such products comes from throw away domains in South America or Eastern Europe (for example ;))!!

I presume from the article that this was a "one hit wonder" mailshot and I wonder just how the company managed to get hold of his "protected" email address..... Has Mr Dick never used that email to mail another company (such as the one involved)?.... Never posted it on any forums?..... Never put it up on his website?...... Never had the address included in a nominet email that could have resided in a .pst file at the company involved?

A quick glance at the "Internet Archive" shows that his website had his email address on the front page right up until their last snapshot on the 4th Feb 2006. Even Google's cached page from 21 Feb 2007 08:37:56 GMT still has his Email address on the front page..... You can kiss goodbye the privacy line if you do that!

Strange how it suddenly disappeared after he is quoted in public stating his email is protected!!!

0
0

In response to "Hmmmm..."

In answer to the "Hmmm..." poster -

It doesn't matter if he put the email address on the website, or Transcom got his email address because he had emailed a list (from Nominet or anywhere else) that Transcom (or an associated company) happened to have been subscribed to. The law does not allow:

1. spam to be sent to any email address you happen to be able find; or

2. spam to be sent to someone just because you have have had some contact with them through work.

There is an exemption that allows businesses to send emails where that person has previously had contact with you as a customer and you meet various other requirements.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

In response to "in response to "Hmmmm...""

Ok, I agree with the points raised as above, but it would seem like this is more of an oversight on the companies behalf rather than a concerted attempt to flood our inboxes with Spam.

If you read two other articles on this story at:

http://www.out-law.com/page-7831

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6423113.stm

You'll start to see that this isn't as black and white as you might think. You will also note that the offending email contained a "please remove me" link on it. As it would seem like an oversight then surely the "give firms a chance to put things right" mentality should have been enough to remove his details and for his inbox to remain spam free (until the bots find his address anyway!)

I think one email from a legit UK company as easy to trace as the one now labeled as "spammers" should have been easy to remove onesself from.

Also if you check the whois info for Mr Dick's websites through nominet you will find that Mr Dick has an IPS tag all to himself even though he is listed as a non-trading individual..... Don't you find that strange? Why would an non-trading individual have that?

I don't think Mr Dick is quite all he seems........

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.