Slashdot Mirror
More on Intel v. Hamidi
The case of Intel v. Hamidi has been going on for a few years now, and it's now reached the California Supreme Court. Hamidi is an ex-Intel employee with a grievance against the company who sent several mass-emails to most of Intel's staff. Intel attempted to block him from sending email via technical measures, and when that failed filed suit against him claiming that he was causing some harm to their property (company mail servers and computers) - there's an ancient legal concept called "trespass to chattels" which Intel is attempting to use in their case. Now, in real-dollar terms, Intel has suffered very little - a few megabytes of email more or less is a miniscule cost in terms of computer wear and tear, indeed, too small to measure (Intel is not alleging that Hamidi sent any sort of mail-bomb or that his emails caused damage). So the case comes down to an unsettled legal point: if someone has made some use of your electronic equipment, which you may not have desired but which has not damaged your property nor deprived you of its use, do you have a legal cause of action against them?
On the one hand, you apparently are against people using legal means to block e-mail, as in this case, but on the other, when it comes to spam, you're for it. Can't have it both way, I'm afraid.
Silly signature limit . . .
Wouldn't this set a precedent for an avalanche of class action lawsuits against spammers? I certainly consider the countless emails I get daily as unauthorized use of my electronic equipment.
If they manage this, fighting spam may get easier :)
and time is money (more precisely, money = time*salary). What would that figure look like? (number of mails sent * number of employees on the list * average number of sec to handle the mail * salary in $ per sec)
While I find Intel's actions unconscionable, the outcome of this suit could have positive implications against spammers. I'm totally down with those ends...
Stop eating my hands.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He had no business sending emails to anyone in the company. He couldn't have had any work-related business to take care of that would require spamming the entire company.
Digital tresspass is a very real problem. One benefit of any laws passed to combat the problem is that spam would be made completely illegal and spammers would be prosecutable under the law.
Your free speech ends where my ears begin.
I have been pwned because my
If in Intel wins, it will set a precedent that should make it very easy to sue spammers. On the other hand, this is an example of a large company throwing a tantrum, and they shouldn't be rewarded.
If they win, I'd be willing to bet it will eventually come back to bite them in the ass.
If someone breaks into my computer from off-site and uses it for some purpose, whether it harms the computer or not, they should have to pay me money. Furthermore, this is illegal: breaking and entering. I don't want anyone using my computer without my persmission -- irrelevant of the reason, and irrelevant of the effect it has on my computer.
However, Intel's case is decidedly different. For one thing, the e-mails are their *employees* e-mail addresses. Its up to the employees to decide whether or not they want to receive them, not Intel. Furthermore, if Intel's really serious about this, they'd set their servers not to accept any e-mails from the e-mail address of their former employee.
Irrelevant of such, it comes down to a question of who's decision is it? Intel or their employees'? Intel does own the server and computers; however, their employees have certain rights despite such. If it is Intel's right to decide whether or not they want to accept the e-mail, they should be able to call for restraints against their former employee, the same way we could demand a spammer stop sending us e-mail, and have legal force. If we want to be able to legally prevent someone from sending us SPAM (or any other unsolicited or unwanted e-mail) so should Intel.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
As the submitter stated, there was little if any monitary loss by Intel. If Intel would like to sue for money, then they should be required to list each individual item and the amount of each ($.10 electricity, $1.00 hard drive space, $2.00 bandwidth, etc) and make them reasonable. In contrast to Sun suing Mitnick for millions when he had source code that was available for $100.
More than likely, the company will not go to the trouble of itemizing their losses since paying someone to itemize them will cost more than the losses themselves. However, in cases such as mail bombs (sending a 50 meg attachment to everyone in the company) it would certainly be worth their while. It would keep actual harmful acts (mail bombs) to a minimum allowing the company to sue if the "attack" is bad enough.
In other cases, such as this one, the company should at least be granted something similar to a restraining order where the party or individual cannot mass e-mail the company, or depending on the situation e-mail the company at all. The way I see it, it's similar to spamming: The company (or individual) doesn't want your e-mail. Stop sending it or be taken on a ride through the legal system.
What do you folks think? Is it too lopsided in favor of Intel, or balanced enough so Intel is allowed to spend thousands on lawyers if the situation is serious enough?
[Disclaimer: Although I'm posting a message written by Michael Sims, this has nothing to do with What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org). I thought this was an very insightful message on the topic, and I'm big enough to say so]
From: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com>
Subject: Re: Intel v. Hamidi
Date: 30 Apr 1999 16:32:24 -0000
Mike Godwin wrote:
> Isn't it trivial for Intel to block Hamidi?
No. It isn't, and that's the crux of the matter. China has been trying for several years now to suppress email messages from dissidents in the U.S. China has absolute technical control over the routers into the country and a willingness to use it. China is willing to incarcerate anyone they can get their hands on who aids this process. China has failed to stop the flow of email messages, or even temper it. Intel is obviously more realistic about its odds of stopping Hamidi with technical means than Godwin is.
Godwin would prefer (in his usual abrasive fashion) to simply insist that technical solutions are the be-all and end-all, and no dissent will be tolerated. Trespassing should not be a crime - after all, anyone can build a 30-foot wall with razor wire around their property, which is certainly more effective than the legal system in preventing trespass.
If anyone wants an interesting thought to chew upon, try this one. More and more military members have email access through the military, which is often their only electronic contact, and definitely their only free contact with the outside world. What if the U.S. military desired to prevent some persons from sending mail to military members at their military addresses, either because it was frivolous, or spam, or deemed a threat to morale ("Ban the Bomb!"), or what-have-you... Keep in mind that the military has a firm commitment to delivering snail-mail to its members, anytime, anywhere, which is generally to a military unit address as well.
Any thoughts? I can definitely see future electronic activists emailing 5,000 people on the carrier U.S.S. America, telling them to stop bombing whoever it may be that we're bombing that particular day. Obviously this might annoy the military. What recourse do they have, if any? Technical solutions are obvious but not particularly effective, especially since the mailer gets infinite no-cost tries to get through. What could they do, legally?
-- Michael Sims
I'm quite surprised that the Slashdot community isn't more excited about this... seems to me that, if Intel wins, this really opens the door for ISPs to sue spamming outfits.
I know a lot of spammers are hard to track down, but others aren't - especially the ones that give phone/fax/physical addresses in the spam.
I can't see why this is an issue, at all. The email was not directed at the employees of the company for a business purpose; The purpose of the email system is for business use. I think Intel has every right to block email and/or refuse any user the right to send mail to that system, as every bit that goes through does incur a monetary cost to them (bandwidth, disk storage, etc) no matter how small that cost may seem. If someone was to walk thru my yard, and pull up one blade of grass, no big deal, right? But legally, I have the right to have them stopped, and if they persist, take action against them. As soon as I lose the legal protection to have this stopped, I suddenly have the very real risk of having THOUSANDS of people run thru my yard, each taking one blade of grass. Now, I have to pay $1,000s to get the yard fixed. Same scenario, just with email. Sending email to the system once could be (to a certain degree) justified, even though he knew in advance (per testimony) the reception by Intel would not be in his favor, but repeating his actions once notified of their intent to prevent his access to sending emails through the COMPANY mail system was not. Note: there is no legal prohibition to him setting up domains, giving away email at his expense to any Intel employee, or sending email to their personal accounts on any non-Intel system, but Intel has every right to protect, in any small way, their internal COMPANY system. I back them 100% in this; those who don't agree, consider what would happen if you were on the other end of the stick.
chattel (chtl)
n.
1.Law. An article of movable personal roperty.
2.A slave.
I have to side with intel in this, and here is why. If it's found that "no real damage" = no case, then trojan horses, if used only to snoop around a system, passive packet sniffing and capturing, and other such activities that compromise privacy of our systems, but do no actual damage TO those systems will be legal, although we'd like to think people can use whatever resources they want, I run a secure linux box for a reason, and for the others that do the same, think about why you do.
a bit more about me http://www.advogato.org/person/trelane/ or my private page http://trelane.net
Adware, I deffinately see adware as 'misuse of electronic equipment'. It's the equivalent of buying a product and having a camara hidden in it spying on your daily activity.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
Sounds like this shares legal elements from Cliff Stohl's book "Cookoo's Egg".
There were little or no monitary damages, but the FBI refused to persue it at first because of ploicy, i.e., the damages were less than $1,000,000 even though the activity was still illegal.
The cases detract from each other, since Intel obviously wanted *some* e-mail and Stohl wanted *no* tresspassers, but stil I think Intel is in the right on this one and seems to have lawyers that even allpied something *applicable* to the case.
Much better than the DoJ inventing damages to prosicute Kevin Mitnick, even though he did plenty of chargable (but not as headline worthy as "hacking") acts/offenses/etc.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
So the case comes down to an unsettled legal point: if someone has made some use of your electronic equipment, which you may not have desired but which has not damaged your property nor deprived you of its use, do you have a legal cause of action against them?
Who defines "damage" and "deprived of use"? Specifically, would regular spam be covered by this as well? What of non-malicious viri? Spyware? Distributed.net clients?
I think laws are the wrong way to go about addressing these kinds of issues. The whole point of net connectivity is the give and take of services. If reasonable technical means can be used to prevent abuse of a system, then no law should be necessary. Further, the laws don't stop the abuse, they just make it illegal. In a way, it is very much like the issue of "security through obscurity".
Most confusion regarding civil courts revolves around two points:
An example of this in action is OJ's criminal acquittal followed by the "wrongful death" judgment against him in civil court. Essentially, he was convicted of murder under a lesser standard of evidence, with a lesser penalty (money to the damaged parties) as well.
[ home ]
Yes.
Quick examples of stuff that could should be ourright outlawed. If I truly were allowed to go after people for this simple legal point I'd go after:
SPAMMERS
unsolicited phone advertisements
Privacy Invading software cladestinely installed on my computer
Bumper Slappers (Especially at election time)
Joy Riders
The list could go on forever.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Spamming the whole company because you have a grievance is not the way to procede. Furthermore, this guy is an obnoxious whiner of the worst sort.
"Oooh, no-one told me that sticking my hand into a bucket of known toxic chemicals might make me ill! I'm suing!" probably followed by "Oooh, nobody said that sticking my head into a drill press would brain damage me for life... I'm suing again" I shouldn't wonder.
He's a wanker, and a spammer. He should have his legs cut off just to start with.
... a few megabytes of email more or less is a miniscule cost in terms of computer wear and tear, indeed, too small to measure ...
while this is true, it should also be noted that there would a small loss in productivity of those employees receiving e-mail. in monetary terms, this can be quite costly.
i have to say, though, sueing someone over a small amount of mass-emailing seems excesive.
FindLaw > Legal Subjects > Cyberspace Law > E-Mail > Primary Materials - Laws and Government Documents
Especially Ferguson v. Friendfinder
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Maybe all spammers live in CA? :o)
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
You forgot your "IACATL" (I am clueless about the law.) IANAL, but this is basic business law stuff that anyone in the workforce should know.
Employees, on the job, act as agents of their employer and all email received is the property of the company. They are merely agents handling that email on behalf of their employer.
(This skips some specific situations where this isn't the case because they are clearly irrelevant in this case.)
Intel can't say 'boo' about what mail is sent to employees on their personal accounts, but it certainly has the right to restrict disruptive mail sent to its employees via the corporate email accounts. It's really no different than a former employee harassing employees in the company parking lot. (In this case it's again 'trespass,' and the protester can be arrested if he persists.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
I just went and checked the court docs: He sent 6 emails to *29,000* employees. None of them signed up for it; he had the lists himself. So, the basic bare ASCII text of the first email was approx 5K, add in headers and such and guess his avergae email size utilized was 10K.
6 * 29,000 * 10 / 1024 / 1024 = 1.65 GB of email.
Now, I ain't counting logs and all that other stuff. I'm sure this isn't a huge amount of email to Intel, but it's a helluva lot more than the story suggests. I think the big thing isn't even the size, but the scope. I mean, *29,000* people got spammed, basically. This wasn't just a few emails!
For a moment there I thought 'Hamidi' was just a creative way of spelling AMD (with a brazilian accent, perhaps):
1. The case between Intel and AMD has also been going on for some years.
2. AMD was also started by an ex-Intel guy with a grievance against the company.
The part that finally made me realise we weren't talking about AMD was this:
[...] in real-dollar terms, Intel has suffered very little.
RMN
~~~
I'm not too familiar with the specifics of this case, but it raises an interesting discussion of the design of use doctrine; basically, it says that someone can not commit trespass when they use a public facility as it is designed to be used. Granted, most of this applies to brick-and-mortar matters, but I think it translates to the electronic world. You can't be arrested for trespass for walking into Macdonald's and ordering at the counter. On the other hand, you could be arrested for breaking open the back door and going into the kitchen. Someone can't be arrested for trespasrsing at your house if they come up and ring the doorbell - until you tell them to leave. The same goes at Mcdonalds- they could ask you to leave, and if you don't, you could then be arrested for trespass. But until that point, you can't be charged.
How does this translate to the electronic world? Sending someone an email can't be trespass, because an email server is a gateway, just like a public restaurant. But what if they ask you not to do it anymore? Then, I suppose, you are using their facilities against their will... interesting stuff!
Actually, when I saw that this article had only one comment attached, I figured it had to be a troll, and decided not to click through yet :-)
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
So let me get this right... Intel wants to make it so if your computer passes information that you don't like, you not only have the right to block it (that I don't have an immediate problem with), but you also have the right to sue whoever sent it?
I can see some interesting side effects of this:
If [Insert 3rd party service provider of your choice] could then sue (Not just block or censor, this is an important distinction) someone if that person is using said service to traffic in [Insert information which the 3rd party dislikes], since it qualifies as "trespass to chattels."
How about a specific example...
Microsoft could then sue someone if that person is using Hotmail to send or receive emails relating to open source.
Disclaimer:
IANAL, and I hope I missed something... This scares me.
A while ago I read something along the lines that Hamidi was able to connect to the Intel network and send his emails from there. (my memory may be failing me) I think that that that is what Intl is alleging he has done when they say "tampering". I do not thing it is about spamming.
(emphasis added below)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Email is a communications system. Yes, there are company resources involved, but there are also company resources involved in snail mail making the two no different on the topic of resources. Every person he sent the email to was an Intel employee and he had a message to deliver to Intel employees. There was an in-life relationship between him and his ex-coworkers. Maybe he didn't know every employee personally, but they all worked for the same company which was the subject of his message. This is much more personal than SPAM and the two should not be related.
What if he sent a snail mail to each employee at the companies address? They would probably try to trash all his letters, but he probably would have been protected by government laws (Any lawyers out there to confirm this?). Until laws on electronic communication are comfortably in place (in another 50 years), it will be abused by spammers as well as big corporations.
I'm sure you all understand how spammers abuse the system, but let me clarify my opinion on how Intel is attempting to abuse the system in this case. When Intel realized they were powerless to silence an enemy, they tried to attach their qualms to early, irrational laws. These are laws that our not so technical government have derived in our technical youth. In effect, companies such as Intel, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, etc. (and spammers) are exploiting a hole in our government. Historically, the judicial system is way too slow because it has to be sure of its decisions.
In the meantime, we need God to take control of The Rock's body so he can visit all these greedy bastards and straighten it all out.
x-files just ended for the east coast, spoiler should be posted to slashdot within the hour.
That chain smoking FBI guy is still alive hiding out in the desert. Gets blown up by some helicopters. Blah, Blah, Blah....
The episode isn't all that great. Just like any other. Not worth seeing.
Please, Please all the west coast people don't have to thank me
HEHEHEHEHEHE!!!!!
Telemarketers are also making unauthorized use of a person's and/or a company's property. They cause damage in at least three ways: tieing up a phone line, using a person's time, and consuming electricity used to make the phone ring.
I worked for about a year as a System Administrator in a small web design and software firm in lower Manhattan (half of our company was canned in the wake of the attack on the WTC).
About halfway through my term of employment with the firm, a disgruntled coworker of mine attempted to organize an meeting between the management and the employees, as well as a few former clients that they had dealt with (!) This person took it upon themselves to send out a mass email to everyone.
Needless to say, less than 15 minutes went by before the guy was fired and sent home, so kids next time you think about airing your beef on the wire, think twice if you value your employment.
He spammed. 29,000 x 6 = 174,000 unrequested emails. If he wanted to raise employee awareness of something, he went about it the wrong way.
He should have posted his grievances on the www and let people who were interested find them, not spam them.
Granted, Intel would have sued him regardless and he'd still be in the shithouse, but he would have been in the right.
If he did the same thing today, couldn't he be sued under anti-spam laws in some states?
Liberty.
At an average of 1 minute per email per person, with an average cost of $1/minute (including overhead), I could easily see this email causing ~$175,000 in damages. Not huge, on Intel's scale, perhaps, but enough to put a damper on Mr. Hamidi...
May 2002
The Truth At the Mount Weatehr Complex at Bluemont, Virginia, a helicopter lands. Several men in suits exit the helicopter, including Fox Mulder. The men board a bus that takes them through a doorway into an underground complex. Inside, US Marine Corps officers meet them, but Mulder slips away. Using an electronic key card, he penetrates deeper and deeper into secure areas. In one room he activates a computer console and enters a password. The screen shows the text "December 22, 2012...Date for the mobilization of alien....." Knowel Rorer enters the chamber and finds the computer that Mulder was using. Mulder jumps him and they struggle, but Mulder breaks away and runs. At the end of a hallway, a figure opens a door, letting Mulder through, then locks it so Rorer can't get through. the figure is Alex Krycek. "No -- you're dead," says Mulder. Alarms sound and Mulder runs on. He is trapped on a catwalk and Rorer approaches him. They struggle again and Mulder manages to flip Rorer over a catwalk railing. Rorer falls several stories to electrical cables below and is electrocuted. As Mulder pulls himself back up onto the catwalk, Marine guards have their guns on him.
Mulder is in solitary confinement where is being brainwashed. He is abused and kept from sleeping by uniformed troops. They eventually get him to say that he entered the government facility illegally to find something that wasn't there and that he deserves the harshest punishment for his crime. Scully and Skinner enter the Marine Corps brig. They don't know how long Mulder has been there, but he is being held for the murder of a military man. When they enter his cell, watched by a Marine guard, Mulder is unemotional and it seems that the brainwashing has worked. He says they are treating him well and he is clear about the crimes he has committed. Scully is confused by his reactions. After Scully and Skinner leave, Krycek appears in Mulder's cell.
Doggett and Reyes talk with Scully and Skinner. Mulder is accused of killing Rorer, but Doggett saw Rorer killed earlier. They know that Rorer is a supersoldier and cannot really be killed. They won't be able to produce the body. Scully leaves the room, to beg for mercy with "the man upstairs." Kersh talks with a Marine Corps general. The general will allow the FBI to give Mulder a hearing in a military tribunal, but the general wants a guilty verdict. Mulder is a crusader but a lot of people don't like crusaders. Kersh reluctantly agrees. Scully and Skinner return to Mulder's cell. There is no guard present this time and Mulder makes a Hannibal Lector joke. Mulder says he has to put on an act because of what they do to him if he doesn't. Mulder and Scully engage in a long hug and an extended kiss. Skinner then tells Mulder that he is in big trouble. Mulder wants Skinner to represent him and says that they can't try him without exposing themselves. Doggett and Reyes enter and say that they have identified where Rorer's body is being held, at Fort Marlene. Later, Scully returns to Mulder's cell. She needs him to confide in her or they will lose. Mulder thinks he can't win. Scully is scared, but Mulder says he knows what he is doing. Skinner told him about William being given up for adoption. Scully is afraid Mulder will never forgive her, but he says he knows she had no chance. He has been in New Mexico, looking for the truth. When Scully asks what he found, Mulder smiles and says he cannot tell her.
The military tribunal is ready to begin in a spartan hearing room. The prosecutor is an FBI lawyer. The five judges are FBI executives. Kersh presides. The prosecutor will call no witnesses, but introduces the sworn statements of 30 scientists who witnessed Mulder killing Rorer. Skinner moves for dismissal or delay because he can't find his key witness, Marita Covarubius, but Kersh tells him that it is a military tribunal and he must proceed. Scully testifies first. As a scientist she came to believe in extra-terrestrial life and in a government conspiracy to hide the fact from the public. She believes that life came to Earth millions of years ago in a meteor from Mars, and along with it came an alien virus. It infected life on Earth, but that life died in the last ice age. The virus lay dormant in underground oil reservoirs. It resurfaced in contemporary times and signaled to other aliens who crashed at Roswell in 1947. The government captured aliens, obtained alien technology, and learned of alien plans to retake planet Earth. She also describes how she was abducted in 1994 by the military for experiments. The prosecutor demonstrates that Scully has no proof and accuses that she and Mulder were lovers and that she got pregnant and had Mulder's love child. Scully has no good response to that accusation.
Skinner calls Jeffrey Spender who testifies that his father led the conspiracy to hide the existence of extraterrestrials. Spender and Mulder are half brothers. He describes how Bill Mulder was killed and how Samantha was abducted and experimented on. Spender didn't know of his father's crimes when he went to work for the FBI. The prosecutor counters with Spender's FBI written reports about Mulder, which are not complimentary. In Weed Hope, NM, a Native American youth rides his motorcycle up to a shack. Gibson Praise is inside. They have learned about Mulder. Gisbon will get ready to leave. Scully enters Mulder's cell. She wants Mulder to make a plea bargain but he refuses. This is about the truth. Scully then urges Mulder to take the stand and testify, but he refuses. Scully is not just fighting for Mulder - she is fighting for the two of them, i.e, their relationship. After she leaves, X appears in Mulder's cell. X asks what Mulder is doing and Mulder says he is putting the truth on trial. X says "they" have too much power to be afraid. He gives Mulder a piece of paper with Marita's address written on it. Doggett, meanwhile, is at home on the phone to Fort Marlene, trying to track down the Rorer's body, but he is getting the run-around. Reyes, also there, tells him that somebody is outside. They draw guns and discover that it is the Native American youth. He didn't want to endanger "him," meaning Gibson.
Marita takes the stand. Her former position with the United Nations allowed her to further the interests of the conspirators, who called themselves The Syndicate. They were working to develop a vaccine against the alien virus, tracking subjects in the human population through their vaccination scars. She saw people in Russia actually amputate their arms to keep from being tracked. She came to hate the Syndicate but was found out and made a test subject. The Syndicate was trying to save only themselves but a group of renegade aliens who avoided infection by self-mutilation destroyed the conspirators. She resisted testifying before the tribunal because the conspiracy continues, conducted by others. The supersoldiers, like Rorer, are alien replacements. Krycek appears to Mulder, but nobody else in the room can see him. Krycek tells Mulder that "they" will kill Marita if she testifies further. Mulder insists that Skinner dismiss Marita, just as Skinner is beginning to press her for more details on the identity of the supersoldiers. Doggett enters the tribunal room and confers with Skinner, telling him that Gibson Praise is there to testify. Gibson testifies that he has been hiding Mulder in the desert for the last year. Gibson asserts that he can read minds. He looks around the room, reading the minds of everyone there. He says that one of the judges is an alien. Mulder jumps up, shouting that he wants the judge examined. Mulder struggles and is forcibly removed from the room. (End of the first hour of this two-hour episode.)
Marine guards deliver Mulder to a conference room to talk with Doggett, Reyes and Skinner. Gibson is with Scully and is safe. Gibson feels that three of the judges are wavering. They encourage Mulder to testify. When he again declines, Doggett and Reyes say they will testify. Doggett goes first. He testifies about the supersoldiers and says that Rorer was one of them. Mulder couldn't have killed him because the only way to do that is with a rare metal, magnetite. On cross examination, the prosecutor points out that it is the basis of Mulder's case tat these supersoldiers are aliens. Doggett is unable to swear that he believes that the supersoldiers are aliens. Reyes testifies. She describes how Scully was surrounded by aliens as she was giving birth, including one that was shot at point blank range but didn't die. Scully was one of many women who were used as surrogates. The child was important to the supersoldiers because of his powers. William, of course, cannot be produced to demonstrate these powers. When the prosecutor dismisses Reyes, she offers an outburst - what is the point here? To find the truth or to destroy the truth so nobody can find it? She looks directly at Kersh and says, "either way, you lose."
That night, Doggett and Reyes rush up to Scully's apartment. Doggett finally found somebody at Fort Marlene who didn't know he was supposed to give Doggett the run-around. The alleged body of Rorer has been moved to Quantico and Scully needs to examine it. Doggett will stay with Gibson. Scully and Reyes go to Quantico where they see the burned body. Scully sands Reyes to get Rorer's military medical records. Scully goes to the tribunal and testifies that based on her tests, the body isn't Rorer. Kersh orders her removed from the tribunal because she examined the body without authority. The room erupts and Kersh shouts that the trial is adjourned. Later, the five judges reenter the room. They have a verdict - guilty of first-degree murder. Mulder is allowed to speak before the sentence is passed. He congratulates them on succeeding where so many others have failed. Liars do not fear the truth if there are enough liars. No one lie can be buried forever. As much as they try to bury it, the truth is out there. Mulder sees the spirits of Krycek and X standing behind the judges as he speaks. Mulder tells the judges that they are getting rid of their headache, but only at the expense of cutting off their own heads. Scully, Doggett and Reyes wait at Scully's apartment for the news. Skinner phones. The sentence is death by lethal injection. Scully cries.
Rorer drives up to the Marine Corps brig and is admitted. Doggett and Skinner enter Mulder's cell - they are breaking him out. Skinner has keys and they run through the hallways. Rorer enters Mulder's cell, and finds him missing. The alarm is sounded. As the three fugitives try to escape, the meet Kersh who tells them that they will never get out the way they are trying. Kersh says he is doing what he should have done all along. He helps them get through a cut in the chain link fence of the Marine base and into a waiting vehicle. They drive to where Scully, Reyes and Gibson ware waiting with another vehicle. Kersh tells them to drive north to Canada and get an airplane. They must get off the continent to be safe. Mulder and Scully drive off, but Mulder heads south. He is going to see a man about the truth. Doggett and Reyes take Gibson to the X-Files office, but the file cabinets and furniture have been removed. Skinner knows and he is trying to get to the bottom of it. They all go the Kersh's office and are met at the door by an agent previously shown to be a supersoldier. Only Skinner is allowed to enter. Gibson says that the agent knows where Mulder and Scully are going and "they" are going to kill them.
Mulder and Scully are on the Texas-New Mexico border. Mulder stops the car, kissing Scully as she sleeps. He gets out of the car to urinate. The spirits of the Lone Gunmen greet him. They ask him why he would risk perfect happiness. Mulder needs to know if he can change the truth. He gets back into the car and drives on. Mulder and Scully arrive at an ancient Anasazi pueblo. They see smoke from a fire - someone is living on an upper level of the pueblo. Mulder and Scully climb the ladders. A Navajo woman is cooking. Mulder says he was sent a message and a key to the Marine facility by a wise man who lives in the ruins - the Keeper of the Truth. Doggett and Reyes are in a helicopter, flying across the desert, looking for Mulder and Scully. Mulder and Scully are ushered into the presence of the wise man - it is the Cigarette Smoking Man, with long gray hair and still with a tracheotomy device in his throat. He says that Mulder now knows the truth, which he found in the Marine base, but Mulder refuses to speak it, even though it could save his life. Indian wise men hid in this pueblo as their own culture was destroyed by the aliens. The pueblo contains magnetite, which makes it safe against the aliens. Those wise men were the first "shadow government." The Cigarette Smoking Man wants to tell Scully his story - a story that has terrified every President since Truman. The Mayans were so afraid that their calendar stops on the date of the final alien invasion, December 22, 2012. Mulder saw the date at Mount Weather where our own secret government will be hiding when the invasion happens. The Cigarette Smoking Man protected Mulder all those years, waiting for this final moment. Broken and afraid, now you can die, the Smoking Man says.
As two black helicopters fly through desert canyons, Doggett and Reyes are dropped off from their own helicopter. As they approach the pueblo, Rorer drives up in another vehicle. He approaches them and Doggett fires at him. Rorer is not affected by the gunshot to the chest, but as he continues forward, the magnetite affects him. He zooms into the rock and explodes with a puff of dust. Doggett and Reyes run on and meet Mulder and Scully, running out of the pueblo. They know you are here and you have to get out, Doggett tells them. Mulder and Scully won't get into their own vehicle, but grab Rorer's and drive off. Doggett and Reyes leave in Mulder and Scully's original vehicle. The black helicopters arrive and use rockets to destroy the pueblo. One rocket impacts directly on the room where the Smoking Man sits, exploding the chamber in a ball of flame.
In Roswell, New Mexico, Mulder and Scully are in a motel room. It isn't said, but the implication is that the government thinks they are dead, killed at the pueblo. Scully, in a bathrobe, is on the bed. Mulder sits on the floor. Mulder recalls sitting in a motel room like this when they first met. He wanted to convince her of the truth and he eventually did, but he has been chasing after monsters with a butterfly net. He didn't tell her what he had learned because he didn't want to accept defeat. He was afraid it would crush her spirit. She asks why she would accept it if he won't. You only fail if you give up and Scully knows Mulder won't give up, even now. If this is the truth he has been looking for, what else is to believe, she asks. He replies that he wants to believe that the dead are not lost to us, and if we listen to them they can give us the power to save ourselves. Scully says, "we believe the same thing." Mulder moves to the bed and they hold each other. "Maybe there's hope," he says as the episode and the TV series ends.
I think it's time for Mr. Hamidi to get over this and move on to more productive life goals.
Wouldn't the lost productivity of the employees count as damages? If they have 80,000 employees, and it takes each employee 1 minute to read the email, figure out it is trash, and discard it, isn't that 80,000 lost man minutes (1333 man hours)? They made efforts to block his emails, and he tried to get around them to send more emails. I hope intel comes out on top on this one.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Okay first of all, having an email server is very much like having an actual mailbox. People can send you mail without fear of prosecution unless there are other circumstances surrounding them.
If you run an email server, expect to recieve email. It's that simple.
Now then, if measures to block unwelcome email are put into place and those measures are intentionally avoided through indirection or otherwise subversive means, it implies that the sender has fore-knowledge that his emails are unwelcome and is acting against the will of the email recipient.
I don't see how this conflicts at all with the current position most people have on SPAM.
This guy has reportedly circumvented attempts to block him and so the question is whether or not that was intentional. Did he follow accepted email practices and represent himself honestly? If not, I would consider it a form of trespass just as I consider spamming a form of inappropriate use of my mail server for their advertisements. (If any spammer wants to purchase space on my email server, he is welcome to negotiate a deal of course, but my server is not FREE.)
So this guy feels the need to pass along the information he has gathered to people who might suffer the same problems he has experienced. It should be his right and should be guaranteed and preserved. But that doesn't give him the right to bring his material into the offices of the people he wants to educate... either in person or electronically.
If he knows their non-intel email addresses, I wouldn't see any problem at all. If he wants to stand on the street outside of Intel's buildings handing out flyers; again, no problem!
I don't want to see this guy lose, but at the same time, the consequences of him winning on this particular matter could hurt the internet community and that would suck. If Intel wins, it could actually be a better win for all of us who oppose SPAM.
Fuck you! I bet you are one of those spammers aint you? The company set up it's email servers for work related business and that fucker abused it. Now he has to pay.
Yeah, take your -1 bullcrap somewher else.
Trespass, be it to person, property or goods ("chattels"), is the most basic law in the theory of torts; you can't mess around with someone else's stuff without their permission.
If someone has a mail server, you can't mess around with it. But if they attach it to the net, they are, prima facie, giving the public permission to use it in an ordinary way. They are like a storekeeper opening his store to the public. You can come in and buy goods. You can't come in a raid the safe in the store (i.e. break my secure areas). And the storekeeper retains the right to refuse entry to particular individuals. You can't go in if the storekeeper has expressly forbidden you to, even if you just want to buy goods.
Assuming that Intel have made clear to the ex-employee that he is not allowed to send emails to their servers, they have every right to sue him for what he has done.
No, that is the reason. The default standard of evidence is a preponderance, but because criminal punishment is viewed as particularly harsh and stigmatizing, the standard is raised to the beyond a reasonable doubt level.
(this also has the effect of lowering the burden of proof needed for a criminal defendant who is attacking the prima face case of the prosector to enough to cause a reasonable doubt; he'll likely need to meet a higher standard to make an affirmative defense such as self-defense or insanity, however)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
While I admit that my knowledge of the American Legal system is lacking, from what I know about other common law systems, you don't need to prove any damage whatsoever in order to successfully make out the elements of any of the trespass actions.
In fact, in Australia, it is usually enough for a plaintiff to just prove that the trespass occurred and the defendant must prove that it wasn't their fault etc for the action to succeed.
Of course when it comes to damages (note: a very different term from damage in legal terms), the amount of damage suffered will go towards the amount of damages awarded. In the case of no damage suffered, the damages may only be nominal or even contemptuous depending on the circumstances. This doesn't really matter though, because you have still won the case which is sometimes the only thing that really matters to the litigants.
This is not true in negligence actions though, where damage is an essential element of the action.
Like I said though, I can only speak for other common law jurisdictions such as the UK and Australia, so if the US case law says otherwise, I apologise.
IANAL (but IAAL student), and as far as I can see, there is no need for substantive damages like that anyway. Unless I'm much mistaken, it's quite a well settled point that in the tresspass torts, they are actionable per se, no damages at all need be demonstrated to be successful (though that can mean the end payout isn't huge). So while my opinion is hardly an expert one, I'm pretty sure intel have a good footing as far as the lack of a need of damages is concerned.
Consent, including implied consent, may be limited to certain purposes and uses. For example, if you set up a bricks-and-mortar store, you have given implied consent for customers to enter to browse or buy, and those customers are not trespassers. On the other hand, if a thief enters to steal, the implied consent does not extend to that purpose so the thief is a trespasser. Likewise in email, the implied consent has always been acknowledged as extending to personal email, but spam is another question entirely.
Both explicit and implicit consent can be withdrawn. Intel gave notice to Hamidi that he was not permitted to send his messages, thus withdrawing implied consent.
Before you try to post a message claiming some absurd outcome, think about the effect of consent, whether explicit or implied, in your example. Hamidi's lawyers have not done this, and are in for a major smack-down by the court.
An inalienable right to one last email message to all your soon-to-be-former coworkers and work-friends before they boot you out the door...
And don't forget the thinly veiled criticisms of the management practices that caused you to be laid off..
While I have nothing but sympathy for Hamidi and his actions (I've done similar things to past companies I've worked for), a part of me thinks that if Intel wins this one it could set a precedent that would allow us common folk to fight spammers legally in the courts.
If it is shown that you can prosecute someone for damages if they "use" your "assets" without your permission, then unsolicited spam certainly falls into that category. BOOM! With one fell swoop pretty much all spam could be eliminated. The remainder would have to formulate some sort of "opt-in" setup that requires you to give permission before they could send you anything.
I'm sure the spammers would (a) fight this with every breath in their diseased, noxious, puss-filled bodies and (b) try to come up with something that got around it anyway, but DAMN wouldn't it be fun to sue a spammer and WIN more frequently than is common right now?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
They shouldn't be reading non-business-related email on company time anyway.
Let's suppose for a moment that Mr. Hamidi hadn't used email but instead used either snail mail or (gasp) the telephone. Let's sidestep the impracticality issue of making 29,000 phone calls six different times and examine the legality only.
It would be perfectly legal for Mr. Hamidi to have called each and every one of these employees and given them a piece of his mind. People can hang up, not be at their desk, or screen calls with caller ID if they wanted to avoid him. I don't think there are many (if any) legal precedents in this area that show this to be illegal.
Ditto for snail mail. If Mr. Hamidi had written 29,000 letters six different times and mailed them all, Intel's mail room would've dutifully processed them (at least the first time). Would Intel have been able to sue Mr. Hamidi for using their mail room illegally? Of course not.
So, how is email any different? Answer: it's not. It's a method of communication. Other methods have existed for centuries and no one has ever sued anyone else for doing so -- until now.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Let us see...
$1/min = $60/hr = an average employee salary of $124,800. Let's trim $5 off for overhead, and you are still at $114,400.
What kind of crack do you smoke? Unless I went to sleep last night and inflation hit a one-day high of 300% you're esitmates are way off.
Let's assume the average employee salary at $50,000. Realistically, the higher salaries are balanced out by the sheer number of lower salaries. Without questioning any other math/figures here, we have cut your total by 2.5 (2.946 if you want to be picky) bringing the figure to roughly $70,000 - just over half of one employees salary by your original calculations.
By your math, they would save money by firing a lawyer and allowing the e-mails to continue to flood in.
Continuing, I can delete well over 20 identifiable crap messages per minute, and I will be conservative in saying 5 deceptively-titled, carefully typed crap messages per minute. This slices your number by 80%, bringing my estimation down to $14,000.
Additionally, I don't know what overhead you are talking about. Power? Heat? Water? If the majority of your workforce is hourly, you aren't going to expend much more on utilities with 12 seconds (max) gone per person. Let's face it, people waste more time than that staring into space trying to think of a word each day.
I assume you aren't talking about server space/processing power. Intel (hopefully) has the processors on hand to ensure that they won't be running sluggishly becuase of slightly higher e-mail traffic. Bandwidth is even more laughable, as large companies generally aren't subject to tranfer charges, only line/connection costs. Hell, even small companies. Does your ISP charge you because you bought software online and exceeded your transfer limitations? Do not argue about web hosting - this is not a case of Intel paying someone else to host their mail server and having to pay extra b/c of Hamidi's messages.
So once your drug-induced haze has worn off, try reading the story and your post again and see if you can understand your nearly-incoherent babblings. Let us know.
Is whether company receiving the benefits of the spammer (the advertiser) can be pursued for damages. If they pay for someone to trespass, then they're responsible for damages, no? If so, we skip going after spammers, and go for the businesses which *HAVE* to have contact information to derive benefits from the spam. Put people who hire spammers out of business, and most spammers will wither on the vine - with no money, there's no incentive for them.
-- Ender, Duke_of_URL
I have to disagree. You are arguing as a man (human) of principle, and assuming that the law is the embodiment of principle. In practice, however, if you've got the bucks, you can make life hell for a mere mortal by making shit up that sounds reasonable enough and then filing your complaint. Not because it's right, but because it's in your interest and you can.
Does this refer to people who apply bumper stickers to your car without your consent, like those eco-maniacs that were on the news recently for applying stickers to SUVs?
I'd love to catch somebody try that on one of my vehicles, except that I'd probably spend more time in jail than he would in the hospital...
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
As the submitter stated, there was little if any monitary loss by Intel. If Intel would like to sue for money, then they should be required to list each individual item and the amount of each ($.10 electricity, $1.00 hard drive space, $2.00 bandwidth, etc) and make them reasonable. In contrast to Sun suing Mitnick for millions when he had source code that was available for $100.
Why? Intel asked him to stop before this began. They tried to avoid a big deal in court. Hamidi wouldn't listen. A good million or two in damages should shut the fucking bastard up.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I got one of his E-mails. I went to my manager and I told him I wanted his emails blocked as I didn't to be waisting my time at work on some ex-employee with a grudge. Maybe he got burned by the company, maybe he was treated fairly, and is just a bitter, vengefull person. What ever the case, it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
...
The second email I got, after efforts had been taken to stop it, got me a little peeved. I mentioned it again to my manager, and let it go at that. I haven't heard about it but a couple times since then.
...
But lets clear one thing up: One employee at Intel does not want his emails. The company is taking steps (I hope) to do a good job for it's Shareholders(ME), it's employees(ME), and the community in which it exists(ME included).
...
So, while emails regarding Intel usually end with the standard, "My opinion, not Intel's" thing... In this case, we seem to share some common opinion on this one. Thanks.
While I have to admit that I'm a bit tired of seeing What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com] I am impressed that you relentlessly let us know about it.
I'm also impressed that you're big enough to share this email with the slashdot community.
Big talk from an AC.
Yes, this is ironic. But I'm proving a point.
Why is it that every time this story gets repeated the poster never seems to notice that Intel is not suing for money, just an injunction to keep the guy from Spamming them?
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
His bullshit link is worth nothing since Michael put up this.
I can't believe you don't even have the decency to avoid using the words from the mouth of a man you appear to hate so very much in support of anything you might say. Its so ironic I could cry.
Posting AC since I have a life that doesn't need disturbing.
Lawrence Lessig Answers Your Questions: 3) The Judicial Branch
... without any concern about whether such regulation will threaten cyberspace and free speech generally ... I think the problem is that courts don't see the connection between certain kinds of technology and legal values ... If courts could be made to see this, then we could connect this struggle to ideals they understand.
Courts make illegal all sorts of technology
You bastards! You used my laptop screen to display your news on. I'll sure you for every unit of electricity wasted. Oh, wait .. there's more. I think you even used my CPU cycles to generate a nice page from YOUR html code. I'll get you for that too!!! PS: I'll settle out of court for $1, ok?
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
As an Intel employee, I received his mail, and I can understand much of why Intel's annoyed. Hamidi is a crack who was fired from Intel something like 15 years ago, probably for incompetence. He's spent the time since on some sort of vendetta, and even his lawyer has told him that he should get over it.
Hamidi managed to get a list of all employees at Intel, and sent every single one a piece of mail that basically claimed that Intel was going to fire them as soon as they got experienced and expensive and would replace them with cheaper, new employees straight out of college. Most employees immediately purged this out of their inbox, but some were disturbed by it and ended up wasting time talking to their managers and getting it explained to them that they weren't due to be fired, and that you can actually advance at Intel without fear that you'll be let go when you become expensive. There is a very real cost involved in lost productivity, although it's probably pretty small.
Intel decided that Hamidi's mail constituted unlawful trespass, and shouldn't be allowed, and asked the courts to provide a restraining order against his making such maillings again. There was no request to have Hamidi close his (rather ridiculous) website, or to stop his eternal quest to slay the great dragon. They just said that he shouldn't be able to spread his rather ridiculous opinions using Intel's machines. They way I look at it is this, Hamidi can walk up and down in front of Intel all he likes, as long as he stays on the city's sidewalks. The minute he tries to enter the private property and start handing out flyers to people going to work, he's trespassing and can be shown the door. IANAL, but it makes sense to me.
Please don't view me as an Intel apologist, I've got plenty of my own issues with the company, but Hamidi's spamming clearly meets the standards of trespass against chattels.
Personally, I'd like to see such laws applied to a few more organizations. Companies that try to install Gator on my box are, frankly, commiting a similar trespass, as are most spammers, virus writers, Kazaa (with the hidden "Brilliant Network" crap), etc, etc, etc.
Think of a parallel to actual goods:
You come home one day to find me walking my dog on your lawn and letting him do his bussiness there. Now you're a nice guy and believe in not making things legal so you just ask me to leave. The next day I'm back. Again, you try and be nice about it, you tell me to leave and post a no tresspassing sign. The next day I'm back. Still not willing to take it to teh courts you decide to erect a fence around your yard. The next day I climb it and am back.
So finally you get sick of this crap and take me to court. I then try and claim "well you could have done more to block me, like get a bigger fence or an armed guard". This is clearly stupid, you should HAVE to block me through technical means, it's your lawn and I'm welcome to stay the hell off.
This is the same deal, Intel tried to block this guy, he kept evading them, and they finally got sick of it and took it to court. Now he's whining that they should have done more to try and block him. Thankfully, the court isn't buying it and apparently the is a law giving legal backing to it as well.
The fucking towelhead whiner Hamidi should have his visa revoked and sent back where he came from, the little asshole.
While you are out one day (or sleeping, or too busy on the computer), somone you know breaks into your home. This person is someone you used to know, but something caused you to not trust them anymore.
They didn't do any damage, or steal anything. Instead, they made themselves a coffee and watched some TV. They left the TV on, used the cup you'd saved for them, and didn't clean up the coffee spills or wash the cup. They also left a note telling you what a loser you are.
At first, you just decide to let it slide, not wanting to go to any trouble. The incedents continue. You try changing the locks, throwing out the coffee cup, unplugging the TV. Nothing helps. Are you just going to sit back and let it go?
This is harrassment. An individual harrassing a company. There may not be "damages" as such, but there is the nuisance factor, which would put staff on edge. Or at least on gossip-patrol. Less work gets done, because of one sigle moron who was sacked, probably for similar attitude problems.
Personally, I'm with Intel on this one. And the points about SPAMmers makes it a doubly good deal for the rest of us to watch for.
Of all the things you can accomplish by screwing up your face and swearing into a dark room, sleep is not one of them.
--Bob
If someone has made some use of your wife, which she may not have desired but which has not damaged her property nor deprived her of its use, does she have a legal cause of action against them?
Spam is "unauthorized" use of my electronic equipment. If Intel wins, it would set a precident which could be used to sue spammers. Wouldn't that be a Good Thing?
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
but most people here seem to be ignoring... 1 minute per email per person
The judges addressed this point and both majority oppinion and dissent agreed against it.
Why? If you allow it then every phonecall/e-mail/converstaion/whatnot that does not directly advance a business interest would be a tresspass of chattel. That would be a BadThing.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
A good million or two in damages should shut the fucking bastard up.
Yes, million dollar fines are a useful and effective tool for censorship. If the ruling stands it will be widely applied on the internet.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The judges addressed this point and both majority oppinion and dissent agreed against it.
Akk, my bad. That is only the dissenting judges oppinion.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
See this case which established trespass to chattels as a valid cause of action for unauthorized use of another party's computer resources:
CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Oh. 1997)
This was the first case in which the antiquated tort of "trespass to chattels" was used as a cause of action in a case directed at spammers. This prompted subsequent legislative efforts like Washington State's Anti-Spam Bill.
This guy must have a message that is rather important to him to get to people working at Intel.
Is he just bashing them, or is there a real problem? If he's just being a prick because he's pissed about losing his job (and who wouldn't be a tad upset about that?), that's one thing and I figure he should pay the piper.
However, if there is a real problem at Intel, especially with the way employees are treated/managed, maybe the whistle needs to be blown?
I just want to know what the content of those e-mails was so I can draw my own conclusions. Anybody have a copy?
Vortran out
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
As we transform into a digital world, and abandon paper mail is this really the case? Isn't email just the new US Postal service mail, and no more a strictly company private resource than their mail room is today? If Intel has a strict policy against employees receiving personal physical paper mail at work, then I might agree with their stand that personal email at work is a violation of stated company policy too. In this case the ex-employees involved could have derived a physical employee roster and sent paper email with the same message - and with the same level of ire by the corportate managers and had full US Law backing the privacy of the delivery of that mail if addressed to the individuals and marked personal and private.
We as a nation are well into the transition from resource wastefull paper mail - as we struggle with the lack of natural resources and the impacts of thousands of acres of forests harvested for paper that will end up largely in landfills. As we fully transition to a paperless society, then email must have the full rights we expect of paper mail today
The real issues behind this case evolve around the concerns that really drive profession unions sucessfully organizing in corporations. If the people involved in this case had mentioned possible organization under US law, then large amounts of their communications would have included madated access to the rank and file employees of the company. I largely suspect this is more a case of deep pockets trashing individual rights in attempts to silence legal protest for the corporations abuse of their employees, and ex-employees.
Yes, million dollar fines are a useful and effective tool for censorship. If the ruling stands it will be widely applied on the internet.
As it should. Should anyone be able to bombard your server with requests/posts/emails/etc...?
Intel provides access to the outside web as a courtesy not as a "do what you want!"
And this is not even censorship. Hamidi is allowed to express his ideas. He just can't use the intel email server todo so.
Is that really hard to understand?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I am writing to announce my full support for the CBTPA currently sponsored by Senator Hollings. In order to be fully compliant with the act though I must violate another law and immediately commit suicide upon the bills implementation. As I observed in S.2048 section 4(14) that digital content when converted to analog may be copied or redistributed illegally I have no choice but to terminate. Where I being the receiver of a digital broadcast illegally produced by my parents with improper auditory receptors that convert digital signals to analog (ears) and being in posession of sound generating material (vocal chords) that might be used to reproduce digitally broadcast copyrighted material (albeit badly) without proper copyright protection material (software or hardware based) might illegally reproduce said material in the shower, car, or other locality. Furthermore I recognize that by allowing my fellow devices (people) to continue to function and engage in this, "threat to America's content industries" by the continued illegal reproduction of copyrighted material it will soon come about that the entire US population will be in violation of the new law. I urge Senator Hollings to join me in leading this brave new revolution that will protect the content industry of America from the future proliferation of devices that might be used to illegally reproduce (pun intended) content in analog form.
Sorry just finished reading the bill. I could continue but this will be the end of the current rant.
Imagine that Hamidi breaks into Intel's offices and has a party in the cafeteria. He carefully cleans up afterwards so there was no monetary loss by Intel. He can still be prosecuted for breaking and entering.
I think he should be prosecuted for the criminal act. Intel should be able to sue for realisic damages, which in this case are quite small.
>>censorship. If the ruling stands it will be widely applied on the internet.
As it should
I didn't explain myself because I was trying to avoid being redundant. See my other post.
Do not get swept up in blind support of anything that sounds anti-spam. This is a bad ruling and can be put to evil use. If the ruling stands it will be widely applied on the internet - for censorship - not just spam.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I realize that this has already been said in different ways on this board, but I don't see how one can be anti-spam and pro-Hamidi.
Hamidi sent unsolicited bulk email to a bunch of people. I realize that it probably wasn't commercial email and also that the number of recipients of his email almost certainly did not number in the millions, but to me it still qualifies as spam.
Spam is annoying whether it is an advertisement, a stupid chain letter, or just some digruntled ex-employee you never met.
I think a far better choice for Hamidi would have been to start his own anti-Intel webpage. Using that method he can still express his opinions without annoying anyone other than folks who intentionally visit his site.
By connecting its systems to the Internet, Intel knowingly took the risk that it might receive messages it doesn't like. It's a dangerous world out there, and if you don't want to take the risks, don't connect to the Internet. If you want the benefits, you must accept the risks too. Intel needs to grow up and take responsibility for hiring this guy in the first place.
A. Definition: As generally used, "trespass" occurs when either: (1) D intentionally enters P's land, without permission Does that mean I can sue for each spam that hits my personal email server? All those damm emails that the return doesn't work and I certainly never signed up with?
Consider this...
Instead of email addresses he used phone numbers. Instead of routers and mail servers, he used phone lines and switches. Would this be considered trespassing, and could he be legally stopped this way? Would it even be an issue? I personally see little difference between the two forms of communication.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
First, off - I am a disgruntled employee of more than one company. I have kept my disputes private, and once more, handled by an attornee.
What I see here is Intel actually going to bat for everyone against spam. I hope Haimidi loses, and this results in compensation for spam victims - and an end to spam in general.
Read it, still disagree. For instance,
Some people comment on the volume of data. Intel's systems were designed to handle volumes of data. They were not in any way burdened.
Does it matter if they are burdened at all? Intel asked him to stop. He didn't. While the "chattel" law may be inappropriate [I actually don't know either way] its not upto Hamidi whether he can use the Intel servers.
Hamidi did have an out and he's still pressing it.
Again I will repeat myself. The judgement is not to shut Hamidi up, its to stop him from using Intel servers. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Nobody is saying Hamidi isn't allowed to express his hate for Intel. The judgement is just to stop him from using private property.
Stop trying to see a cause in this. Whats the worse thing that could happen? If the judgement is carried through in the end only Hamidi is barred from using Intel servers. He can still host his crap anywhere and get TV spots, etc...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
sounds like you are a small dicked SUV owner. Only small dick SUV owners would react to "This car is contributing to Global Warming" sticker like that.
In case you were inhaling the fumes of your unnecessary large V8, remember these following facts:
1. Car manufacturers paid off politicians to allow their SUV's to go on the market without
A. Proper safety features (Compared to a sedan)
B. Adherence to EPA fuel efficiency standards
C. Adequate customer education (no, Ms. Murphy, this car does not take 80 mph corners)
D. Tax! (in proportion to a sedan, SUV's can be used as tax deductions 4 to 5 times more than a sedan - and also are somehow exempt from luxury tax
These vehicles are the main reason that when you drive you pay $1.50 for a gallon of gas - when you ship or fly you pay a "fuel surcharge", or when road maintainence / bridge maintainence needs to be done the projects go outside their budgets - SUV's weigh twice as much as sedans, and therefore, destroy roads faster.
Additionally, these vehicles offer no safety for the people in or out of them. SUV's are responsible for many horrific accidents, every day. That's because its a truck, with a "luxury" interior thrown on top. These vehicles are shoddy handlers, poor brakes, and have a tendency to tip over. In accidents, these vehicles don't hold up as well in collision than a sedan because of the fundamental differences in chassis design (a sedan uses the body of the car (unibody) to reinforce its structure. An suv is merely a body on top of a chassis.
These vehicles are gas gulpers, and are needlessly increasing our dependence on Arab oil - and therefore are indirectly responsible for 2 major wars.
Now - I have proven that SUV's are harmful, without even mentioning the environment! The environment is a totally different issue. The here-and-now problem is that these vehicles are an undue burden to society, and thanks to crooked politicians, a burden all of us have to carry so some middle aged, overweight suburban housefrau can drive 1 and half miles to school so that little johnny doesn't interfere with her busy schedule. If people cared about their children, they'd put them in BMW's, Volvo's & other euro imports - that have cutting age safety features installed because the company cares about safety - not because they were ordered to, like american manufacturers.
So shut the FUCK UP about "ecocrazies" you stupid fuck. Here is an entire list of reasons these vehicles should be taxed into extinction to benefit all americans. None of those reasons are ecology considerations - all of them are economic considerations.
The judgement is not to shut Hamidi up
Intel persued this for one reason, and one reason only - they did not like what he had to say. From what I read, it seems that the content of his messages were Intel employment practices and employee rights. Under California labor laws he may (or may not) have had a protected right to send the E-mails.
Does it matter if they are burdened at all?
If they wish to persue this as tresspass to chattel, then then it matters. If Intel wants to press a nuisance suit against him, fine, go ahead. Forget about Hamidi - he's not the point...
Stop trying to see a cause in this.
The problem is that the two judges on the majority oppinion rewrote the law. They said times change, we are going to change the law. The change they made is a bad one. Very bad. When you change the law you affect everyone.
Picture your phone company said "we do not consent to carry any message critical of us". You then have a conversation with a friend on the phone and say "my phone company sucks". Now picture yourself guilty of tresspass.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Intel persued this for one reason, and one reason only - they did not like what he had to say. From what I read, it seems that the content of his messages were Intel employment practices and employee rights. Under California labor laws he may (or may not) have had a protected right to send the E-mails.
Wrong. The original injunction only was aimed at preventing him from using their servers. Intel was not stressing some "shut up NDA" thingy that prevented him from talking about it at all.
Picture your phone company said "we do not consent to carry any message critical of us"
That's different for many reasons
1. You pay for the phone service
2. Its regulated by the government
3. Its actually illegal in many countries to provide sub-par telephone service over land-lines.
If you read all the material Intel tried to filter out Hamidi originally. Only when he bypassed their filters did they seek a state injunction to barr him from using their servers.
Hamidi is not paying for the intel servers, nor is Intel a government agency. And believe it or not its not illegal to barr a citizen from talking to a private citizen [re: restraining order].
Hamidi has no explicit right to use their servers at all. The right is implied, however, when Intel asked him to leave them alone the implicit rights vanish.
You seem to think Intel just sat on this then went to court right away. That's not the case. Intel did try to filter out his posts originally.
Also you seem to forget this sole fact. THE INJUNCTION IS FOR INTEL SERVERS ONLY!
Holy shit get that through your head. The judges said nothing about his freedom of speech. They are only legally banning him from using PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Tell ya what. Please tell me your home address. I will pay you a visit every day and night just for kicks. When you ask me to leave I will come more often. Then when you get a restraining order I will cry "1st Admendment!".
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I'm not defending the guy, but your computations may be waaaay off based on an assumption that may or may not be valid. I got hired to teach classes inside some of the Intel campuses and depending on when this happened and where it happened, they used Banyan servers for at least some, if not most, of their e-mail system.
So what difference does that make? If you send the same message to 29,000 people on a Banyan system, you get ONE copy of the message on each server designated as a mail server and a set of pointers to the recipients. The pointers go away as the message gets read and deleted and the message is finally deleted when the last pointer is gone. (It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.) If Intel was still using Banyan at the time this happened (and it's not unlikely they were, although they didn't make it too public, some divisions were asking Y2K questions and Banyan the company was all but gone by then) and unless Hamidi did it in a way to purposely generate excess diskspace and bandwidth, the totals per message would be much less. Can't get exact without knowing how many servers, distribution lists, and formats of the StreetTalk object names but it's doubtful that any one message got past 6MB distributed on all the servers even if they had all the logs cranked up to maximum verbosity.
Of course, all bets are off if they'd migrated to something less efficient.
Holy shit get that through your head.
Almost your entire post was wasted arguing that an injunction against Hamidi is OK. I said: "If Intel wants to press a nuisance suit against him, fine, go ahead. Forget about Hamidi - he's not the point..."
I wasn't objecting to the injunction. I was objection to the basis for it, and the change in the law created by the judges. They stated in the ruling that they were making new law. They took a perfectly good law - tresspass to chattel - and altered how it works, but just on the internet. The change they made breaks the function of the law. If the majority judges' ruling stands as is, it *will* be abused. It does not just apply to E-mail, and it does not just apply to excessive quantities.
You didn't like my phone company analogy, fine. That was for dramatic effect. Every internet server is "chattel". Every piece of internet data crosses a numerous privately owned servers. If Microsoft does not consent to transport anti-Microsoft messages then you would be guilty of tresspass to chattel if your data crossed a Microsoft server while you read or post to slashdot. If this sounds ludicrious it's because the ruling judges didn't understand the internet implications of their ruling. It is ludicrious.
The owner of each and every server would have the chance to use "tresspass to chattel" against anything they didn't like for any reason. The impact on the internet would be disasterous.
If Intel wants to get an injunction, fine. Just don't choose the wrong law, then break how it works to make it apply.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Intel should grow up and move on.