Un-Due Process - Part 2

DUMB HOST

OK, now let's turn to the real bad guy in all of this. The webhost
who shuts down a website on the grounds of nothing more than
the say-so of an unverified spam complaint. In my case, it's
DumbHost but I know there are many other webhosts and ISPs
out there who are just as irresponsible.

Here's the email I received from DumbHost informing me my site
had been shut down:

"To whom it may concern,

"We recieved [sic] the following spam complaint regarding
ahbbo.com. Your domain will be temporarily disabled for 3 days.
You can have your domain re-enabled at the end of this 3 day
period by requesting so at enable@unsupportteam.net. If we
continue to recieve [sic] complaints, action may be taken to
disable your domain.

"Regards,
Abuse Response Team"

Regards!

The email that followed was the one from WeStopSpam.net.

Note that my site was shut down because "[w]e recieved [sic]
the following spam complaint regarding ahbbo.com". Not
because I had SPAMMED, mind you, but because DumbHost
had received a spam COMPLAINT. The notification that my
site had been disabled was the FIRST communication from
DumbHost on the matter.

An appropriate response would have been: "We've received a
complaint of spamming against you. We take all complaints
of spamming very seriously. Please let us have your response
to this complaint so we may take appropriate action". But I
guess that would have been too much like due process for
DumbHost to want to bother with.

Here's what followed:

From me to DumbHost:

"If you even bothered to read the "offending email" you will
see that it came from so-and-so.com, NOT ahbbo.com.
The publisher of the email in question reprinted one of my articles
in his newsletter. That article contained a resource box which
contained a link to my domain.

"If my site is shut down for ANY length of time as a result of this
complaint, expect a lawsuit without further notice."

Their reply (from "Level II Customer Care Representative" -
ha!):

"Was this bulk mail authorized by you? This is considered an
offense of our terms of service no matter where it originates as
long as the email is sent or authorized by you. The email
advertises your website, that is why your domain has been
disabled for 3 days.

Regards,
Abuse Response Team"

Me again:

"No! I've never heard of these people before. It is common
practice for newsletter publishers to publish articles written by
other people. The author's resource box is always included
at the end of the article. If this person's newsletter went to
someone who wasn't subscribed, then it's the newsletter
publisher who should be reported for spamming, not the
innocent author who is unfortunate enough to have their work
reprinted.

"Did anyone even read the email concerned before shutting
my site down? It's obvious what happened. If my site is not
reinstated today, I will be issuing legal proceedings tomorrow.
"By the way, don't you think your question should have been
asked BEFORE shutting me down, not after?"

Them again:

"Okay, I was asked to take a look at your account, I will forward
this information to abuse and they should get back to you
shortly...

"Best regards,

Jordan M.
Level II Customer Care"

(They apparently don't use full names at Level II Customer
Care. Can't imagine why.)

Finally, this one from the "Abuse Response Team" at DumbHost:

"In light of this new information, I have gone ahead and re-enabled
your domain. Be advised that any mass emails such as this will
be considered a violation of our terms of service. You may want to
take steps to ensure that services such as this are not sending
out this kind of advertisement for your site.

Regards,
Abuse Response Team"

Me:

"They did not send an advertisement for my site. My articles
are publicly available for reprint, as are thousands of other
authors'. It is usual practice for authors to give permission
for reprinting provided the newsletter publisher publishes the
author's resource box at the end of the article. It's a way of
generating traffic to the author's website.

"The author has no control over who uses the article in this
way. Is a paying advertiser in an ezine shut down if the
publisher of the ezine sends a spam email (assuming that
it was spam in the first place)? ... That policy makes no
sense whatsoever."

Them:

Nothing. Zip. Nada. No apology, no nothing.

Nice going DumbHost. You must be proud.

PLAN OF ACTION

My experience was pretty trivial in the scheme of things. I
was able to get my site restored in just a couple of hours.
Consider the damage that could be done to your business if
that didn't happen though. What would be the impact on
YOUR bottom line if your site was shut down for 3 days?
Or a week? Or for good?

So, what's the innocent party to do in a situation like this?

Here's one plan of action:

1. SUE irresponsible complainer for defamation.
2. SUE irresponsible spam police for defamation.
3. FIRE webhost.
4. SUE fired webhost for lost profits.

THE SOLUTION

I for one am not generally in favor of government regulation
when it comes to the Internet. This is one area, however,
in which I must say some form of governmental control should
be taken. Where else but online can you have a situation
where it's commonplace for someone to take punitive action
against an innocent bystander BEFORE giving them a fair
hearing? Where else but online can ignorant and/or malicious
individuals be allowed to cause such injury to someone else's
livelihood without being called to account? Try that in the
real world and you'll be answering a charge of vandalism,
defamation and trespass to goods just to start.

It's high time someone took a balanced approach to the
issue of spam and recognized that, although spam is an
undeniable problem, so too are anti-spam zealots and plain
malicious types who think it's sport to trash some innocent
person's business and reputation. They should be held to
account for the damage they cause.

In addition, in recognition of this unfortunate fact of online
life, a fact, I might add, of which webhosts are only too well
aware, webhosts should also be held accountable for shutting
down livelihoods based only on the prosecution's case in chief.
The defense is entitled to be heard and any conviction that
results from a one-sided hearing is nothing short of an abject
denial of due process. The legal profession can't get away
with that. Why the hell should webhosts?

------

* Fictionalized names.