Intel v. Hamidi Oral Arguments

www.sorehands.com writes "This morning, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Intel v. Hamidi. This is a case where Ken Hamidi, an ex-employee of Intel build a website that complained of Intel's employment practices and sent emails to all of Intel's employees. Intel tried to block Hamidi's emails, then Intel filed a lawsuit for several claims including tresspass to chattel." ess' to the server and the first ammendment." Read on below for a few more notes from Mr. Hands about the Hamidi case (mentioned on Slashdot a few times before). Update: 04/03 00:56 GMT by T : That should be "Hamidi" throughout, not "Hamibi."

"Intel argued that Hamidi's sending the email disturbed the employees and interfered with their business. causing lost productivity.

Hamidi argued that Intel only complained because the the content. That Intel dropped the nuisance claim because Intel would have had to argue the content and that Intel could not file a libel claim, where did not dispute the truth of the statements in the email or the website.

This case will set the lines of control for one's own servers. From the spammer's claims that if you are on the internet, they have full rights to hijack servers and fill your mailbox with viagra offers, to the ability of an ex-friend filing a lawsuit when you asked for the $20 that they borrowed.

I spoke with Hamidi, and he takes the position that if you have email, then you are agreeing to accept non-commercial email because of the 'public access' to the server and the first ammendment."

Comments

Freedom of "speach"

[wowbagger]

An oft-heard term in anti-spamming circles is "freedom of speach" - this refers to the spammers' arguements that "I gots my rites! I gots freedom of speach! If you sets up a mail server, I gots the rite to send my messages to it!"

Folks like this forget the following:

1. Freedom of speech protects you from the GOVERNMENT inhibiting your speech, not private citizens.
2. Your freedom of speech does not obligate me to provide you with a forum in which to speak.
3. Your freedom of speech ends where my property begins.

Does this guy expect to be allowed into Intel's buildings to deliver his messages? If he does not, then why does he feel he has the right to enter their mail server?

However, most folks regard "freedom of speach" as "I gits to say whutever I want - so you can shut the fuck up!"

Now, if this guy wants to set up a web server with a "why I hate Intel" page, great! But spamming somebody else's mail server is wrong.

Re:Freedom of "speach"

[Orthanc_duo]

I have to agree with you on this one.
Regardless of weather he is right or not IMHO the mail was SPAM even though it was non-comercial (by the same token I consider mass political emails to be spam, as did a lot of slashdot recently).
I'm affraid that If Itel looses it will further open the floodgates on spam.

Re:Freedom of "speach"

[L-Train8]

Does this guy expect to be allowed into Intel's buildings to deliver his messages? If he does not, then why does he feel he has the right to enter their mail server?

Could Mr. Hamidi expect to be allowed call every phone in Intel's office? Intel has phones connected to a public phone network. Calling Intel uses their PBX resources to deliver the call.

There are avenues that can be used to address these problems. Since the 6 original emails Mr. Hamidi sent, Intel has gotten a restraining order prohibiting him from emailing Intel anymore. And he hasn't emailed them since they got it. It seems to me that this case really isn't about "trespass to chattel" and all about Intel not liking the content of Mr. Hamidi's messages. They are not suing anyone for sending penis enlargement emails to Intel servers.

The EFF says this about the case's potential to set a precedent:
"Under Intel's theory, even lovers' quarrels could turn into trespass suits by reason of the receipt of unsolicited letters or calls from the jilted lover. Imagine what happens after the angry lover tells her fiance not to call again and violently hangs up the phone. Fifteen minutes later the phone rings. Her fiance wishing to make up? No, tresspass to chattel."

Re:Freedom of "speach"

[www.sorehands.com]

I'm affraid that If Itel looses it will further open the floodgates on spam.

That is not true. The court will not just say, "Yes" or "No." What the court will do is to draw a lines as to what is permissible. Hamidi's case is based on freedom of speech and first amendment, which provides greater protection for non-commercial speech than comercial speech. The other issue that was mentioned earler in the case (not argued yesterday -- though I suggested arguing it to him) is that his speech is protected by statute under the various anti-discrimination and unionization laws.

This is not about spam

[iCEBaLM]

Spam is unsolicited *commercial* email, as in, I'm trying to sell you something to make a profit. What this guy was doing was not commercial in the least and therefore it is not spam.

The point is, if you have a server on a public network accepting connections from the public at large then you have authorized the public at large to connect to it. Just like a webserver, if you want to block certain IP's go ahead, if you want to filter on subject, be my guest. If this guys actions are found to be illegal or damaging in any way than ANYONE can be found the same way just because someone says "no, you're not allowed to access my server" after the fact!

These should be dealt with technically, not litigously.

-- iCEBaLM

Dangerous legal foundation!

[Alsee]

If they want to go after this guy with a harrassment suit or something, then fine. But Intel is persuing this case on an extremely dangerous legal premise. They want to extend the legal premise of "trespass to chattel" to the internet data. The theory is that his messages (electrons) TRESSPASSED on Intel's computers. The EFF has an article on trespass to chattel and the internet.

Sure trespass to chattel could be (and at times has been) twisted to deal with spammers, but that would also mean it can be used to attack ANYTHING on the internet. The cure would be worse than the disease. Any and every internet message would be subject to tresspass violations from each and every server it crosses. This (long) paper explains how trespass to chattel can essentially destroy the internet as we know it.

Trespass to chattel should NOT be twisted to apply on the internet. Any judge who does needs to be hit with a cluestick.

-

Re:I agree with you... but....

[www.sorehands.com]

The issue here is not the permission to use Intel's property, but the reason for requesting him to stop.

Generally, an employer may terminate an employee for any reason, EXCEPT an illegal reason. Similar applies to public accomodations. Here, you have Intel (ex-employer) banning Hamibi from sending email to Intel's employees but not banning others from sending email though servers to Intel's employees. This was done specifically because Hamibi was engaging in a protected act, complaining of discrimination, wage&hour violations. One is not required to file a lawsuit to be protected by the anti-retaliation laws.