Spam is often regarded as a mere peccadillo, despite the fact that it violates civil rights. And as there are so many different opinions about whether the German legal system is adequate to deal with computer crimes, I decided to test the effectiveness of the German authorities against a pretty arrogant spammer.

July 31st, 2004: I received a long mail advertising used metal working machines. This spam mail even contained a real name and address, something quite unusual for spam. I therefore told the spammer that he was violating my civil rights, and asked him to disclose what information he had saved about me, this being granted by law in such cases. His stroppy answer was simply "I hope I can sleep tonight". This arrogant answer was more or less the trigger for my decision to use my rights and document this case.

August 1st, 2004: I sent him a legal dissuasion based on a widely spread German text, the souce of which depends on whom you believe (eg Andreas Koppenhöfer, Ulli Horlacher, Thomas Görlich and the CCC Ulm are often mentioned). You can read it here (in German).
In addition to my request for information, I added a request for a small handling fee. Not that I expect to see this money, but it was fun and showed Mr. Hoff that I'm serious.

Later that day: Mr. Hoff joked with me, asking me to arrange the court appointment with him in such a way that he could get tickets for Starlight Express (a musical in my hometown). I just answered him that the appointment has to be made by the court, but anyway Starlight Express was going through bad times and tickets would always be available on short notice. I also gave him a little hint to use a search engine to look up my name and product, so that he could see that I'm seriously into privacy protection.

August 2nd, 2004: Now he got offensive, this Mr. Hoff. He asked me to refer to my father first before escalating. At that point, it seemed quite clear to me that Mr. Hoff would not react to the warning. But the funny part of his mail was that he asked me to not mail him any more. As if I had wanted him to mail me spam?

August 8th, 2004: The last answer was quite clear, so I've started to write this text intending to make it available both in German and English directly after the end of the time limit, which ended on August 16th.

August 16th, 2004: As there has been no letter from Mr. Hoff in the daily mail, nor in our post office box, I bring a charge against Mr. Hoff (under BDSG - the German privacy law - and UWG, the German competition law) with the prosecution authorities in Bochum.

Later that day: Mr. Hoff confirms in a formal email that he has contacted his attorney.

August 21st, 2004: Mr. Hoff's lawyer sends the requested information by fax on the 19th, which is disappointing in two respects. First, he has sent it to an uninvolved third party, despite my having twice pointed out clearly that this affects Safer Networking Limited and me, and not the Ing.-Büro Dr. Kolla. But even if we don't care whether anattorney sends such information to my aunt, uncle, father or bowling friends, the lawyer also wrote that Mr. Hoff had obtained my address from one of many search engines he used (and, thus, the source couldn't be tracked any more). In July this year (2004), the German law against improper competition (UWG, Gesetz gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb) was updated to allow email advertisements only after explicit assent by the receiver. Previously, the sender could assume that the receiver would want to receive the advertisement. Mr Hoff's attorney therefore admitted indirectly that Mr. Hoff is using illegal methods to send his spam mails.
Now let's see when the Public Prosecutor's office will react.

August 26th, 2004: the Heise-Newsletter has a news entry reporting how the U.S. authorities arrested some spammers. I must admit that they were spammers of another calibre altogether, but this story shows clearly that in the USA spam is a crime.

August 30th, 2004: TThe Public Prosecutor's office in Bochum has confirmed receipt of the report I made, and has forwarded the proceedings to the Public Prosecutor's office in Kreefeld for reasons of jurisdiction. The Jurisdiction regarding spam seems not to be clearly settled amongst the authorities anyway. I have read comments about convictions where the jurisdiction lay where the receiving mail server is located (in this case it would be Bochum). But I have to admit I have read about it variously being done based on either the receiving or the sending location, so I'll wait for a file reference from the Krefeld office now.
(P.S.: legal English is quite complicated, please excuse any bad wording)

September 12th, 2004: Mr. Hoff's attorney, Mr. Schmidt from Lenze Rechtsanwälte, still doesn't seem to need to explain why he sent his letter to an uninvolved party, and maintains a silence on what has been put to him.

October 12th, 2004: The public prosecutors in Kreefeld seem to be quite uninterested - they haven't even sent any reference number yet. Meanwhile, a victim of another spammer has filed for injunctive relief with the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (high federal state court of Düsseldorf) and has won as of September 22nd (Az. I-15 U 41/04). More information about this decision is available at heise.de and aufrecht.de (sorry, both sources are in German).

More news: Mr. Hoff is continuing his spam - I got contacted by another of his victims who received his advertisement three times, until September 20th when he complained as well. He still mentions "the Internet" as the source for spam, thus admitting he still uses illegal methods to advertise.