[SpamCop-List] Re: CanSpam Act: any sanctions against ISPs hosting spamertized sites?

[Tom]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:28:36 -0500, "Marc" <AlRalsky at spamcity.com>
wrote:

>> As is required under most of US law:  when you make an accusation, the
>> burden of proof is on the accussor.  Just remember that the requirement
>> for proof cuts both ways:  spammers have money, and could bury many of us
>> (spam-fighters, ISPs, network operators) with lawsuits if they didn't have
>> the pesky problem of proof.  That's why some spammers resort to joe-jobs,
>> so that they pillory people they don't like in the Court of Public
>> Opinion, instead of a Court of Law.
>
>No, individuals do not bring cases under the CanSpam legislation. This is
>the province of the FTC and State Attorneys General. As individuals we can
>bring complaints to the FTC or the States Attorneys General, but the burden
>of proof (and legal fees incurred) are the responsibility of these agencies.

Who will, most likely, lean on you and me to provide them with the
proof they need. I suspect that many of us who are reporting spam to
the ftc mail addy may be called upon to offer up the original spam...
I believe some in this forum have indicated that the FTC has contacted
them in the past for copies of reported spam (back in the days when
the amount of spam was considerably less than it is now)...