Clicky
Last visit was: Sat Jul 05, 2014 6:21 am
It is currently Sat Jul 05, 2014 6:21 am

Alleged spammer faces $700,000 in fines


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:38 pm   
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:18 am
Posts: 5022
That would be Brendan Battles. Again.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10751790

Quote:
The claims follow IMG's [Image Marketing Group, of which Battles is the director] marketing of a database of an estimated 50,000 email addresses through an unsolicited electronic message.

A businessman bought the database and used it to market his goods and services with commercial emails. He received 400 email complaints in reply, and the Department's anti-spam compliance unit also received a flurry of complaints.

The businessman alleges that when he bought the database, IMG assured him it complied with the necessary legislation and the email holders had given their permission to be contacted, said senior investigator Toni Demetriou.

The man is an utter scumbag. I hope they hold him to the fines.

SiL


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:25 pm   
You are kiillllling-a my bizinisss!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:01 am
Posts: 9227
New Zealand's anti-spam legislation is rugged.

senior investigator Toni Demetriou wrote:
"There is a misconception and a misrepresentation made that, under the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act, an individual or organisation can send business-to-business commercial electronic messages. This is not so," he said.

"You need to have appropriate consent before sending any commercial electronic messages, and, if deemed consent is being relied upon, then the messages that are sent must be relevant to the business, role, functions or duties of the recipient in a business or official capacity."


All that is needed to make it more rugged, is to raise the maximum penalties to ensure they exceed spammer profits.
"The latest charges seek financial penalties of $200,000 against Mr Battles and $500,000 against his company, the maximum penalty under the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007."


Top
 Profile WWW  
 PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:47 pm   
You are kiillllling-a my bizinisss!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:01 am
Posts: 5915
It's a bit disingenuous for the businessman who bought the database to claim he thought it was permission-based, when it was marketed to him through spam. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:06 am   
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:18 am
Posts: 5022
True.

By the way, once the guy's been fined, I don't think we need the word "alleged" in the headline. He was fined. That's a judgement. It's not a supposition.

SiL


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:48 pm   
You are kiillllling-a my bizinisss!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:01 am
Posts: 9227
In NZ, like the USA, he is innocent until proven guilty, which is why the conventional reporting terminology of "alleged" is used.

Perhaps you misread the backgrounder as applying to him -
"Brothers Lance and Shane Atkinson were ordered to pay $100,000 each and Roland Smits $50,000 by the Christchurch High Court.

Lance Atkinson was ordered to pay $18.4m by a US Federal Judge following separate action by the Federal Trade Commission."


Top
 Profile WWW  
 PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:41 pm   
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:18 am
Posts: 5022
I didn't misread.

If a court indicts you and the end result is a judgement of a fine, in this case in the plaintiffs favor, that is a judgement, is it not?

It's a tangential conversation anyway. :) It isn't important but it bugs me that even after all the indictmens and fines and restraining orders against all of these players, the press is still "alleging" that they are spammers.

That was all.

SiL


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:43 pm   
You are kiillllling-a my bizinisss!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:01 am
Posts: 9227
In NZ, the media may not prejudice the trial by making pronouncements about the guilt of the arrested person. The risk is that the defence lawyer will argue that the client can not be prosecuted due to the media reports of his or her guilt before it has been proven.
That is why the press article linked above is very specific in how it reports the case, always using the term "alleged" to avoid providing a loop-hole that assists the defence. A second incentive for the media is that they could br prosecuted on a charge of "contempt of court", although this is more often applied to breaking a name suppression order.

"Indictment" is not a universally applied legal term, and has no relevance in this case, and in New Zealand That is why you do not find it used in that press item.


Top
 Profile WWW  
 PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:26 pm   
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:18 am
Posts: 5022
Okay yeah that makes sense. :)

Thanks Red.

SiL


Top
 Profile  
 PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:47 pm   
You are kiillllling-a my bizinisss!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:01 am
Posts: 9227
Back in September, the amount of the fine was increased:
Email spammer faces fines of up to $2.1m

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5626517/Email-spammer-faces-fines-of-up-to-2-1m
An alleged serial email spammer faces up to $2.1 million in fines after the Department of Internal Affairs added a third statement of claim in the High Court yesterday against Auckland company Image Marketing Group and its principal, Brendan Paul Battles.


Top
 Profile WWW  
 [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Wayback machine and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Style originally created by Volize © 2003 • Redesigned SkyLine by MartectX © 2008