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?

Comments

Technical vs. legal measures, some thoughts

[Seth Finkelstein]

This was a pretty intersting message written a while back on the topic, from a mailing-list.

[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

EXACT trespass reasoning of Appeals Court

[Seth Finkelstein]

In discussing the case, it's helpful to read the exact reasoning of the appeals court decision, for example:

Hamidi's conduct was trespassory. Even assuming Intel has not demonstrated sufficient "harm" to trigger entitlement to nominal damages for past breaches of decorum by Hamidi, it showed he was disrupting its business by using its property and therefore is entitled to injunctive relief based on a theory of trespass to chattels. Hamidi acknowledges Intel's right to self help and urges Intel could take further steps to fend off his e-mails. He has shown he will try to evade Intel's security. We conceive of no public benefit from this wasteful cat-and-mouse game which justifies depriving Intel of an injunction. (Cf. America Online, Inc. v. Nat. Health Care Discount, Inc. (N.D. Iowa 2000) 121 F.Supp.2d 1255, 1259-1260 [detailing ongoing technological struggle between spammers and system operators].) Even where a company cannot precisely measure the harm caused by an unwelcome intrusion, the fact the intrusion occurs supports a claim for trespass to chattels. (See Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 126 F.Supp.2d 238, 249-250 [applying New York law, based on the Restatement, "evidence of mere possessory interference is sufficient to demonstrate the quantum of harm necessary to establish a claim for trespass to chattels"].)

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)