Apparently, that provoked the abusive author to expand the circulation of his notes to a wider audience of business acquaintances of my colleague. My colleague then asked the hosting ISP to invoke their Acceptable Use Policy and he received the following reply:
Incidents of hate mail/literature must be reported to police in the form of an official complaint. You may contact [XXX] Corporate Security (XXX-XX1-4422) with a police incident number for further assistance.
[XXX] Abuse Department
abuse@[XXX].net[XXX] added to provide anonymity (for now) to the ISP
Thank you for your note. Please clarify for the record:
Is it the position of [XXX] that they will only act to curb the abusive behaviour of a client when it can be proven that the behaviour is in violation of sections of the Criminal Code?
From: xxx Abuse [mailto:abuse@xxx.net]
Sent: June 23, 2006 2:55 PM
To: [xxx]
Subject: Re: [xxx]To [xxx],
On the advice of [xxx] Legal the following has been sent to [xxx]:
Greetings,
It has come to our attention that your internet account has been used in activity that violates Section 5 subsection vii of the xxx service agreement (which may be viewed at http://www.xxx.ca/dslterms).
This violation is specifically in the relation to the sending of unsolicited messages or communications where the recipient has indicated their desire to not receive such messages or communications.
We have received complaints about an email you sent Wednesday, June 14 entitled “mass email news copy”.
We are comfortable that the email complained of was sent from your account, which implies either:
- Your computer has been used directly in the sending of the message.
- You are running a mail server which allows ‘relaying’ through it (further info available at www.ordb.org)
- Your computer has been compromised by a remote party.
If you have no knowledge of the message complained of please make an effort to secure your computer.
If you are aware of the message, please ensure that in the future you do not send messages to people who have asked not to receive them. If this activity continues further action will be required.
Thank you,
—
xxx Internet Services
Abuse Department
abuse@xxx.net
The system worked in this case because the ISP was (after some coaxing) willing to invoke its terms of service to stop the abusive behaviour. How can this be extended to cover the carriage of illegal content?
It is a difficult issue that needs reasoned debate and discussion of alternatives. Your comments are welcomed.