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?

OK, so which is it . . .

[Tam-Lin]

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.

Spam

[Big Stick]

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.

Damages? Perhaps. Restrictions? Yes

[n3rd]

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?

Email is a COMPANY resource

[backtick]

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.

Other consequences

[droleary]

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".

Re:If someone uses my computers, they pay

[backtick]

There's the rub: Employees do not own their email addresses at almost any organization; it is a resource provided for them by the company for the employee to produce work for the company benefit, much like the desk, chair, and computer they sit at. I know Intel has an internal computer use policy employees have to agree to as part of their employment agreements, and it includes a statement of this fact. The agreements also include that all emails are to be considered company property, etc etc. Employee rights w/ regards to company-provided email are in fact very limited, especially (as in this case, for example) when the company has gone to special steps to make that very clear (computer use policies, etc).

basic "agency"

[coyote-san]

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.)

"Designed use"

[mlknowle]

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!

And telemarketers

[cyberformer]

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.

Trespass is basic law

[LagerFrenzy]

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.

Re:OK, so which is it . . .

[tomstdenis]

So, the issue becomes whether we think that free speach include the right to send email critizing a company using their mail servers, and if so how that is different from allowing spammers to send solicitations on my mail server when I don't want them to.

This isn't a free speech issue. Those are intel servers not his. Its like me running up to the house of a Jewish person and saying over and over "I hate jews, stupid cheap bastards!".

The computers he accessed belong to Intel not him. If Intel doesn't want him using their system they should have every right to stop him within the bounds of the law.

Note that the law in question is not that of the ability for Hamidi to share his thoughts, just he can't share them by using Intel servers. There is nothing stopping him from setting up a website or buying air time on a local TV station.

Note also we don't know *why* Hamidi was fired/laid off. Maybe he's a drunk with a cause?

Tom

Re:Here's another something to chew on...

[mamba-mamba]

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.

I think you are wrong.

Say he called Jane, an Intel employee, and pestered her so much she told him not to call again. If he called Jane again, despite her protestations, couldn't she conceivably have a restraining order placed against him because he is harrassing her? In any event, I can pretty much guarantee you that he would be enjoined before he finished calling all 29,000 Intel employees on his list. There is no "right to harrass," nor should there be, in my opinion.

MM
--

Re:Where could this go?

[erroneus]

In life, there is such a thing as invading personal space. Now I know this is a far cry from invading an individual's personal space in the physical sense. In the moral sense his emailer has certainly resorted to invading Intel's space in an unwanted way.

The fact that no effective damages could be assessed is immaterial to the matter. I see a moral problem of going where you're specifically and undeniably unwanted. I know a court of law is not necessarily a court of 'moral' law, however, there is such a thing as 'the spirit of the law' which is often used to carry application of law into areas that previously did not exist. The act of trespass is enough.

I hope I am not misunderstood here. I want this guy to what he's after -- exposure and correction of all Intel's dubious legal and ethical practices. But there are bigger issues at stake.

Yes, it should, in theory be hard to prosecute him because it's hard to punish spammers who are a great deal more damaging but the damages are not what the suit is about.

If I had a no trespass sign and someone came over uninvited and planted a flower garden, trimmed my hedges and cut my grass, I could STILL prosecute for tresspass.