Jump to content

Fined for accessing DNS records of private network


Farelf
 Share

Recommended Posts

What's right and what's legal are two different concepts.

Ever been prosecuted for tracking spam? Running a traceroute? Doing a zone transfer? Asking a public internet server for public information that it is configured to provide upon demand?

No? Well, David Ritz has. And amazingly, he lost the case.

That report in full at North Dakota Judge Gets it Wrong from CircleID. Another report on the case Anti-spammer fined for accessing DNS records of private network from Heise Security.
Anti-spam activist David Ritz has been found guilty of trespass on a private DNS server and fined a total of $60,000 in a North Dakota civil court. The action was brought by Sierra Corporate Design, a Nevada internet service provider run by Jerry Reynolds, who has a history of porn spam activities.
So, if you ever wondered about the disclaimers given with the whois data and suchlike, be sure the myrmidons of spamdom wonder even harder. Be careful out there. Noticed in grc.spyware NG, credit posters Johannes Niebach and Retired.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to do much research, as the actual transcripts, background data, etc. are 'sealed' .... Even the copies of the 'summary judgement' offered up have been clearly identified as being flawed, due to issues with the OCR application used to bring the data from paper to screen.

That said, ouch! So many different aspects in so many areas involved. The summary suggests/states;

Defendent lied about several items, details, actions.

Defendant's defense (team?) did a poor job of providing facts, details, explanations, etc. about nemerous things, the "host -l" command just being the tip of the iceburg.

Having learned the hard way that "I am not a lawyer" by defending myself/my interests in a seemingly never-ending divorce proceding (basically me against a stream of over a dozen different lawyers over a number of years) .. all I can say is that I see the appearances of all kinds of screw-ups in the actions and defense offered for some of those actions.

There is also the issue in that this is/was a 'civil' case, as compared to a 'criminal' case. If one needs a definition of the difference of the two, reach back a few years to the O.J. Simpson murder trial(s). Found innocent in the 'criminal' proceedings, found to be (presumed) guilty in the 'civil' trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sierra Corporate Design, Inc., v. David Ritz judgement is online:

http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351

I found spamsuite an interesting site and a little invasive. The site ask twice to set cookies, I said no. As I was reading the article I noticed on the left side of the screen something like:

'Hi <my first name> <my MI> support our site'

I see I have work to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found spamsuite an interesting site ...
Yes. Thanks Merlyn :) .
... and a little invasive. The site ask twice to set cookies, ...
(apart from session cookies - dunno about them) So does this site ("First party"), following logon. Spamsuite sets/requests setting ads.whizardries.com cookies ("Third party") which are apparently/supposedly harmless in spyware terms.
... As I was reading the article I noticed on the left side of the screen something like:

'Hi <my first name> <my MI> support our site'

I see I have work to do.

I couldn't replicate that (Moz, Ffx, IE, various settings and degrees of paranoia, none all that high on review). Is it possible you have signed on there, some (forgotten) time past? (That was a) stupid question, but you know what I mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see I have work to do.

Will I found the answer. Yes, Farelf I guess I have logged into Amazon.com before. Following a link on the spamsuite page:

When you look at a Web page, the words and pictures you see actually may come from several sources. Your browser software assembles the pieces and displays them as a single page. On the Web site you were visiting, most of the content you saw was transmitted from server computers used by the site's operator. The image made up of the paybox and your name displayed within the paybox was different--we sent it to you directly from Amazon.com. This allowed us to recognize you by name just like we do when you visit the Amazon.com Web site. Because Amazon.com's servers transmitted the image containing a paybox and your name within the paybox directly to your browser software, the site owner never saw the paybox or your name and never received any information about you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sierra Corporate Design, Inc., v. David Ritz judgement is online:

http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351

This is the document that contains the self-admitted OCR scan errors. This is not a court-derived/generated document, this is a 'summarized' document actually written by the Siearra legal team, provided to the court. This document also notes that the actual transcripts are sealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found spamsuite an interesting site and a little invasive. The site ask twice to set cookies, I said no. As I was reading the article I noticed on the left side of the screen something like:

Hi. I'm the guy who runs Spamsuite.com.

I'm sorry that you find the site invasive. The stuff that you're referring to are:

1) Google Adsense ads

2) An Amazon tip jar

They are served from Google and Amazon via a copy of OpenAds (f/k/a PhpAdsNew) on my server.

They're there for a reason: the documents on the site are collected at some expense to me and I'd like to minimize how much my pocketbook gets hit.

So far, the site has approximately 400 documents from 19 cases. I have to pay the federal government $0.08 per page for each of those documents (with a couple of rare exceptions like this document which should have cost $1.20 but was faxed to me for nothing by the court clerk). Plus, searching cases at $0.08 per page of results. Plus, bandwidth and other associated server costs. None of it is free to me, even though I provide it to you without charge.

You are, of course, welcome to pay for your own documents by getting your own PACER account. But, be warned: an average month's worth of PACER is running me about $100. I've been at this a year now and made about $200 of that back now.

This is the document that contains the self-admitted OCR scan errors.

Just a note: down at the bottom of the page is a link to the document as a PDF. That PDF is a scan of the fax that I received from the court clerk in North Dakota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that you find the site invasive.

Mick, My second post on this thread acknowledges that the linkage to Amazon was the source of my name v some invasion by your site. That is about as close as I can come to not being bothered by seeing my name on a site I have not visited before.

We all do what we think we can in this endeavor. Thanks for your efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...