Slashdot Mirror
Court rules for Intel in mass-mail case
Rudolf writes "Here in Sacramento, CA, a court has ruled that an ex-employee of Intel does NOT have the right to send mass-mail to current Intel employees. The judge ruled that "The mere connection of Intel's e-mail system with the Internet does not convert it into a public forum." The court finds that Hamidi's e-mails are not protected speech."
The Sacramento Bee has the story here.
" I'm torn on this one-I'd hate to get the mail from this guy, but the EFF (quoted in the article) has a good point as well.
This one is laced in analogy:
A) Not blocking out the mail after the first time is the electronic equivalent to leaving your front door unlocked after you've had your house broken into once. Very stupid.
B) Going onto Intel's private network and broadcasting that kind of crap is the electronic equivalent of breaking into someone's house, going into their bedroom, and telling the guy how much of a jerk/idiot/etc. he is at the top of your voice, through a megaphone, while defacating on his floor. At least twice as stupid as point A.
C) This guy's "speech in a public park" theory is wrong, see my point B.
D) This is not a matter of "Its free speech, you aren't forced to read it". Its unsolicited, its unwanted, its tying up private resources, and its annoying. E and F tie into this.
E) Putting up a billboard beside a road is a good example of free speech. The electronic equivalent to this being a web page.
F) Going into someone's house and writing on their walls is a good example of trespassing and vandalism. The electronic equivalent is dropping tons of mail onto Intel's users.
Summary: Intel could have handled this better. However, they handled it nowhere as badly as this idiot from faceintel.com.
IANAL, but:
If you've posted your email address on a web page or in a news group, I'd say you were giving tacit permission for someone to send *pertinent* email to you. You're not giving permission to be put on spam lists, however, so yes, I'd say this means you can sue a spammer.
If I step into your front yard, that technically is trespassing, although you couldn't make a case out of one incident unless I either (a) refuse to leave when you ask me to, or (b) you have "Posted: No Trespassing" signs.
Of course, when you file a lawsuit, you have to show that the defendent has caused you some damage, economic or otherwise. One unsolicited email wouldn't make much of a case, but 30,000 does.
I'm with Intel on this. Intel told the guy to stop, and he refused. Unsolicited email *is* trespassing, and I for one would like to see some class-action lawsuits filed against spammers.
--
Guys and gals, your barking up a tree here that doesn't exist..
Sure, anyone can sue anyone to make them STOP SENDING you email.. It's an electronic version of a restraining order. That's all that was done here..
He would have the right to contact any of these employees at their home addressif he liked, but he didn't. He used a professional contact address for personal use.
They didn't throw him in jail here. They didn't collect millions in damages. NONE of this happened.. He wasn't put to death. He was merely ordered to stop. Just as if you had a restraining order against an old flame. That's it..
Let's not make this something it's not. They did the equivilant of posting a 'No Trespassing' sign the first time he did it. The next time, they took him to court to say stop.
I think they are using the same right we all have. To tell someone legally that they aren't wanted and to keep the heck away.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
This is not what is at issue in the case at all. The question is whether the man has a right to use Intel's computers to send the email. It is basically about property rights. Intel's servers belong to Intel, and so they have a right to prohibit specific people from using them. If the employees have non-work email accounts, then intel would have no right to ban email to those accounts.
In fact, I think all free speech issues boil down to property rights. My right to freedom of the press derives from the fact that the owner of the press has given me permission to print on it. My right to speak derives from the fact that I own my lungs and vocal chords. My right to give a speech derives from the fact that the owner of the building where I am speaking has given me permission to do so.
By the same token, my right to send email derives from the fact that I own my computer, and the computers between me and the destination have all consented to be used in this manner. If someone on the 'net asks me not to send email to his computer, then I have no right to do so, as this is an invasion of his rights to control what goes on his computer. I am free to send my packets by another route, or to go with another ISP, but I have no necessary right to use his computer for my communication.
Even better, it's like a phone call with call blocking.
Let me make my point short and sweet: Intel is prosecuting the wrong action.
For Intel to complain that they are receiving email Mr. Hamidi is WRONG. For Intel to complain that their employees are being harrassed by him is RIGHT. That's the key difference.
Mr. Hamidi is, however, correct to liken his action to making a speech outside Intel's building. He's shouting through open windows, that Intel could close to him anytime they want. How tough is it to install a new address in a mail filter?
So, NO, Intel is not being trespassed upon. They have simply not shut a simple window to block the ranting of an irate neighbor. They may call the cops and make the guy shut up, but they may not claim he is infringing on their property rights.
To use another analogy, Hamidi is no worse or different than an annoying telemarketer, and Intel has a very capable robotic calling attendant that could easily not accept his calls. It's up to them to do so.
I don't see any reason not to categorize this man's emails the same as spam such as "Make Money Fast", "Hundreds of Sexy Young Girls Are Waiting For You!!!", and so forth. They're all unsolicited and they tie up resources for those who receive and process them. Individuals who pay for the time it takes to download spam from their ISPs are understandably upset about receiving it, as are their ISPs when they have to handle it. I don't see any reason a corporation shouldn't demonstrate the same unhappiness with the appropriation of their mail-handling resources, whether or not they agree with the content that is transmitted.
I don't agree with the argument that this case makes any email's sender liable to suit for trespass. If you have a publicly posted email address with a specific purpose identified, then you certainly wouldn't be able to sue people who used the address for that purpose. /.ing the posted ZDnet comments address with arguments about an article, for example, isn't trespass even if there are 30000 replies because that address was provided for that purpose. If Intel had provided a public "cranky ex-employees" email address, then they wouldn't be able to sue this guy for posting to it (although 30000 times would be a bit much). But unsolicited email to a public email address which doesn't match the purpose of that address is spam, plain and simple.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The Intel employees have the inherent right to do their job unobstructed by outside forces that do not concern them. This guy's complaint did not concern them because they a) aren't unionized and b) since they aren't, they deal with management on an individual basis. His experiences are not necessarily those of the other workers.
I like the idea of electronic trespass. If someone e-mails me without my permission (it would be implied that if I replied FAVORABLY, such as a long-lost friend e-mailing me and I replied back with a positive response, then I have given permission), then that is trespass. Its the rough equivalent of putting up a sign in my front yard. Sure, I can delete the message, but that's like informing me I have to tear down a sign on my own land that I didn't ask for in the first place.
Free speech, I believe, should always apply. Conversely, though you may have the right to speak, I have the right not to hear you.
The rights of Intel to control their own servers is not in doubt. In fact, I wonder why Intel didn't implement a global killfile across its mail servers instead of going to court -- that would have been the easiest way to deal with the problem. Remember the discussion on /. some time ago -- your right to talk does not imply my obligation to listen.
However, the issue in this case was different. The question was, did the guy have the right to SEND e-mail. The right of Intel to block it was not in doubt, but Intel wanted the sending of e-mail to stop, and the judge supported them.
This is rather interesting: the ruling implies that the owner of a mail server has rights with regard to people sending mail to his server. Leaving aside the denial-of-service attacks, I belive this is new and I don't really like it. Think about it: can AOL prohibit you from sending any e-mail to any @aol.com address? Do you want it to be able to?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
He likened his actions to making a speech in a public park near Intel? Not even close, methinks. He used Intel's resources (mail servers, etc), which means they should be allowed to determine who gets to use them. It wouldn't cost Intel anything for him to have a speech in the park.
He still has the right to send every one of those employees a good old fashioned US Postal letter. That really *is* a public service. And he'd have to use his own money. I don't think he would have gotten the EFF on his side if he'd said "Hey, I want to spam these folks, but I can't afford the postage. Can you turn this into a free speech issue?" The founding fathers never said you specifically have a right to email.
There is a valid issue hiding in there, that there's a *potential* precedent for a company to single out somebody and say "Ok, you there - we don't like you, you can't use our service." I'm pretty sure a similar case happened many years ago when Compuserve got into a fight with a customer (over some shareware he'd written), so they stopped his service. He sued on the grounds that he had a right to that service (back when CServe was one of the few ways you could get service). I can't remember the outcome of that one, though.
I think I remember the guy winning, with the courts agreeing that, like phone service, you can't cut the person off because you don't like what they're saying (just like if you call your mom and say "Bell Atlantic sucks", they can't decide to stop selling you service).
I have a problem with someone trying to limit my ability to communicate over the net, yes - just like I have a problem with non-secretaries who say "Can I ask what this is about?" before deciding whether to put my call through. I don't have a problem with a company instituting solutions on the order of "If you send 30,000 emails through our server in 10 minutes, we'll bar you for life."
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
email is a public communication no different than a letter in the US Mail
This is (generally) true
And no one should be able to tell him he cannot send an email because they don't like what he says
They're not telling him he can't send email; they're telling him he can't send email TO THEM, which is perfectly reasonable.
You're also right about existing protections against harrassment - but other people tried to turn this from a harrassment issue into a 'free speech' issue. Fortunately the courts ruled correctly.
Free speech != right to be heard. You can say anything you like, but you are not allowed to force me to listen. 1984 has nothing to do with it.