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 . . .
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.
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!