Un-Due Process - Part 2

---

DUMB HOSTOK, now let's turn to the real bad guy in all of this.
The ... shuts down a website on the grounds of nothing more thanthe say-so of an ...
spam ... In my case, ...
DUMB HOSTOK, now let's turn to the real bad guy in all of this. The webhostwho shuts down a website on the grounds of nothing more thanthe say-so of an unverified spam complaint.
In my case, it'sDumbHost but I know there are many other webhosts and ISPsout there who are just as irresponsible.Here's the email I received from DumbHost informing me my sitehad been shut down:"To whom it may concern,"We recieved [sic] the following spam complaint regardingahbbo.com. Your domain will be temporarily disabled for 3 days.You can have your domain re-enabled at the end of this 3 dayperiod by requesting so at [email protected].
If wecontinue to recieve [sic] complaints, action may be taken todisable 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". Notbecause I had SPAMMED, mind you, but because DumbHosthad received a spam COMPLAINT.
The notification that mysite had been disabled was the FIRST communication fromDumbHost on the matter.An appropriate response would have been: "We've received acomplaint of spamming against you. We take all complaintsof spamming very seriously.
Please let us have your responseto this complaint so we may take appropriate action". But Iguess that would have been too much like due process forDumbHost to want to bother with.Here's what followed: From me to DumbHost:"If you even bothered to read the "offending email" you willsee that it came from so-and-so.com, NOT ahbbo.com.The publisher of the email in question reprinted one of my articlesin his newsletter.
That article contained a resource box whichcontained a link to my domain."If my site is shut down for ANY length of time as a result of thiscomplaint, 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 anoffense of our terms of service no matter where it originates aslong as the email is sent or authorized by you. The emailadvertises your website, that is why your domain has beendisabled for 3 days.Regards,Abuse Response Team"Me again:"No! I've never heard of these people before.
It is commonpractice for newsletter publishers to publish articles written byother people. The author's resource box is always includedat the end of the article.
If this person's newsletter went tosomeone who wasn't subscribed, then it's the newsletterpublisher who should be reported for spamming, not theinnocent author who is unfortunate enough to have their workreprinted."Did anyone even read the email concerned before shuttingmy site down? It's obvious what happened. If my site is notreinstated today, I will be issuing legal proceedings tomorrow."By the way, don't you think your question should have beenasked BEFORE shutting me down, not after?"Them again:"Okay, I was asked to take a look at your account, I will forwardthis information to abuse and they should get back to youshortly..."Best regards,Jordan M.Level II Customer Care"(They apparently don't use full names at Level II CustomerCare.
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-enabledyour domain. Be advised that any mass emails such as this willbe considered a violation of our terms of service.
You may want totake steps to ensure that services such as this are not sendingout this kind of advertisement for your site.Regards,Abuse Response Team"Me:"They did not send an advertisement for my site. My articlesare publicly available for reprint, as are thousands of otherauthors'.
It is usual practice for authors to give permissionfor reprinting provided the newsletter publisher publishes theauthor's resource box at the end of the article. It's a way ofgenerating traffic to the author's website."The author has no control over who uses the article in thisway.
Is a paying advertiser in an ezine shut down if thepublisher of the ezine sends a spam email (assuming thatit was spam in the first place)? ... That policy makes nosense whatsoever."Them:Nothing.
Zip. Nada.
No apology, no nothing.Nice going DumbHost. You must be proud.PLAN OF ACTIONMy experience was pretty trivial in the scheme of things.
Iwas able to get my site restored in just a couple of hours.Consider the damage that could be done to your business ifthat didn't happen though. What would be the impact onYOUR 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 SOLUTIONI for one am not generally in favor of government regulationwhen it comes to the Internet.
This is one area, however,in which I must say some form of governmental control shouldbe taken. Where else but online can you have a situationwhere it's commonplace for someone to take punitive actionagainst an innocent bystander BEFORE giving them a fairhearing? Where else but online can ignorant and/or maliciousindividuals be allowed to cause such injury to someone else'slivelihood without being called to account? Try that in thereal 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 theissue of spam and recognized that, although spam is anundeniable problem, so too are anti-spam zealots and plainmalicious types who think it's sport to trash some innocentperson's business and reputation.
They should be held toaccount for the damage they cause.In addition, in recognition of this unfortunate fact of onlinelife, a fact, I might add, of which webhosts are only too wellaware, webhosts should also be held accountable for shuttingdown livelihoods based only on the prosecution's case in chief.The defense is entitled to be heard and any conviction thatresults from a one-sided hearing is nothing short of an abjectdenial of due process. The legal profession can't get awaywith that.
Why the hell should webhosts?------* Fictionalized names. Article Tags: Spam Complaint, Shut Down Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com .