Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts

Court Rules Sending Too Many Emails Is "Hacking" 317

Posted by samzenpus
from the if-you-send-it-more-than-twice-your-hacking-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "An appeals court has ruled that having people send a company a lot of emails (in this case, a union protesting a company's business practices) qualifies as hacking under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act. We're not even talking about a true DDoS action here, but just a bunch of protest emails. Part of the problem is that the company apparently set up their email to only hold a small number of emails in their inbox, and the court seems to think the union should take the blame for stuffing those inboxes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Rules Sending Too Many Emails Is "Hacking"

Comments Filter:
  • by arth1 (260657) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:04PM (#37047482) Homepage Journal

    The "problem" is that hacking and disrupting services is governed by the same laws, without much distinction. And it is disrupting services if the sender knew about or had reason to know about the limitation of the recipient.

    • by LateArthurDent (1403947) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:11PM (#37047576)

      The "problem" is that hacking and disrupting services is governed by the same laws, without much distinction. And it is disrupting services if the sender knew about or had reason to know about the limitation of the recipient.

      No, no it's not. If the limitation of the recipient is an unreasonable limitation, you can't blame the union. If they were using a bot to mass-spam them with the intention of crashing their systems, I'd agree with you. Manual protest e-mails are a valid form of a communication with the company. If we allow considering this "disruption of services", companies will start having crappy e-mail systems on purpose just so they have the option open to sue people.

      • by arth1 (260657)

        No, no it's not. If the limitation of the recipient is an unreasonable limitation, you can't blame the union.

        If they knew about it, and exploited it to cause an outage, yes, I both can and think I should blame them.

        This is slashdot, so an obligatory car analogy:
        If I have told you that the company car has an overheating problem, so please don't drive it at high revs, and you wilfully drive it at low gear until the engine breaks, you are to blame. Whether I should have fixed it or not is irrelevant - you knew about it and wilfully chose to ignore it in order to cause damage.

        Intent is what matters here. Was the Uni

        • by postbigbang (761081) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:38PM (#37047930)

          Then what of the slashdot effect? What really is *normal*? If we post this, then crater their website, are we guilty, too? I think not. If they can't do the normal thing and empty their mailboxes in a reasonable manner, then the onus is on the company. The judge will have his ruling overturned.

          • Then what of the slashdot effect?

            Generally speaking, a /. article involves lots of people doing 1 thing (loading the page) a few times because it isn't loading due to volume.

            The union specifically told people to send emails, multiple emails, keep sending them so that they are overloaded. That's close enough to a DDOS to me. If a spammer told his bot army to send emails to someone such that it crashed their email server, how is that different than this?

            They weren't really trying to get responses. If the union said "Contact the co

            • Given that goal of cratering their email system, I'd say it appears like malicious behavior, possibly meeting the test of the law for guilt.

            • This was a non-representative union. It doesn't represent any employees of the target company.

              Tha'ts a problem these days. A small company doesn't just fight with its union that it has a contract with. If any dispute happens, powerful unions from across the country will come down on them with a huge bankroll. They pay for high-power lawyers, robocall centers, mass emailers and (I love this part) non-union picketers.

              They basically have a huge expensive package they can open up at a moment's notice on any com

          • by Obfuscant (592200)

            Then what of the slashdot effect? What really is *normal*? If we post this, then crater their website, are we guilty, too? I think not.

            What is the intent of posting a website address on /.?

            If you take the opportunity now to post the email address of the company, it would appear your intent is to harass the company, since there would be no clear purpose other than to do that. Yes, you'd be guilty of harassment.

            If, however, the web address of some site is posted as part of a normal article, the intent would be to inform and discuss the subject, not harass the website owner. Of course, nothing would stop someone from actually submitting an

            • Interesting. I hadn't thought of flashmobbing as the crux of civil litigation, but I suppose there's something to that.

          • by todrules (882424) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @03:40PM (#37048764) Journal
            To quote from TFA: "Damage alone, however, is not enough for a transmission claim. A defendant must also cause that damage with the requisite intent."

            The brief goes on to explain, in detail, how it comes to the conclusion that LIUNA had the intent to cause damage:

            "The following allegations illustrate LIUNA’s objective to cause damage: (1) LIUNA instructed its members to send thousands of e-mails to three specific Pulte executives; (2) many of these e-mails came from LIUNA’s server; (3) LIUNA encouraged its members to “fight back” after Pulte terminated several employees; (4) LIUNA used an auto-dialing service to generate a high volume of calls; and (5) some of the messages included threats and obscenity. And although Pulte appears to use an idiosyncratic e-mail system, it is plausible LIUNA understood the likely effects of its actions—that sending transmissions at such an incredible volume would slow down Pulte’s computer operations. LIUNA’s rhetoric of “fighting back,” in particular, suggests that such a slow-down was at least one of its objectives. The complaint thus sufficiently alleges that LIUNA—motivated by its anger about Pulte’s labor practices—intended to hurt Pulte’s business by damaging its computer systems.

            LIUNA attempts—but fails—to justify its conduct. Though it maintains that the calls and e-mails are “fully consistent with an ongoing, lawful, organizing campaign” through which it “is attempting [only] to organize Pulte employees,” LIUNA offers no explanation of how targeting Pulte’s executives and sales offices—rather than employees eligible for recruitment—advances its campaign. And an equally, if not more, plausible explanation is that LIUNA intended to disrupt Pulte’s business by bogging down its computer systems."

            • Does picketing slow down a business? Is picketing free speech? How does one picket electronically and what are the characteristics of picketing? What's the intent of free speech to both qualifying employees versus non-qualifying employees? The judge makes no distinction here, except that he finds sufficient cause under the act to find guilt. Where does the NRLB draw its lines for acceptable versus unacceptable behavior? Is a computer operation as valuable as say, preventing or slowing down employees from pa

              • by todrules (882424)
                Picketing can slow down a business. There are actually laws that prohibit picketers from obstructing the entrance to a business, and even from using threatening and abusive words. It sounds like this "electronic picket" violated both of those, so even in the "real world," they would've had some problems.
        • If I have told you that the company car has an overheating problem, so please don't drive it at high revs, and you wilfully drive it at low gear until the engine breaks, you are to blame.

          That analogy is equivalent to using a bot to mass spam them, which I already agreed with you would be a real issue. Nobody drives at a low gear for the entire trip. On the other hand, if I'm driving that car normally, and the car breaks down, even if I put it at high revs (reasonably high, not red-lining it) while accelerating during the normal course of my driving, and even if I was warned not to do that, they sure as hell can't blame me for breaking an already defective car.

        • by Genda (560240)

          There are two distinctly separate issues here.

          The first is regarding the rights of corporations vs everyone else. If the court system has degenerated into a rubber stamp to give corporations whatever they want effectively criminalizing anyone who isn't a corporation, then we have some serious problems here and they need to be address with velocity and extreme prejudice.

          The other is a technical issue involving a broken service being used by the corporation. Intent is one of those things that is hard to dete

        • by WorBlux (1751716)
          And what if it is overheating because the thermastat is stuck partially shut and your employer was too miserly to fix it? Contributory negligence is a defense. Why didn't IT setup a sane amount of data for emails, or include a graceful failure mode where e-mails less than a week old would be buffered, or a whilelist of customer and official employee addresses that would always make it through?

          Anyways people really need to read the freaking order. The order of dismissal was only reversed in part. It found

      • by Ngarrang (1023425)

        If we allow considering this "disruption of services", companies will start having crappy e-mail systems on purpose just so they have the option open to sue people.

        You mean, more people will switch to Exchange? Bite your tongue!

      • No... your premise demands that the generic public has any rights whatsoever with respect to YOUR hardware. You are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you 50TB of crapflood. In fact, you are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you one single LEGIT byte.

        More appropriate would be that If the action of the sender is a reasonable act, you cannot blame the sender.

        Deliberate mailbombing is not usually considered reasonable. That mailboxes hit quota is of little merit, other than icing on

        • No... your premise demands that the generic public has any rights whatsoever with respect to YOUR hardware. You are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you 50TB of crapflood. In fact, you are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you one single LEGIT byte.

          Publishing my e-mail address gives the general public the right to send me e-mails. I am under absolutely no obligation to facilitate you sending me 50TB of crapflood, but it's my responsibility to administer my system so that it handle the situation where someone tries. I don't have to receive your 50TB e-mail attachment, but I sure as hell can't sue you for trying to send it to me.

          • You certainly can, and certainly would sue - since my sending it would would likely take out your infrastructure for several days, and especially when I refuse to stop it. More especially when you discover that my sending it is a coordinated effort with others, and that WE will repeatedly continue to do this, and that WE will actively compete against any mitigation you attempt, and WE know for a fact that the attachment has no value to you, and WE are doing it explicitly for the purpose of pissing you off.

      • by rgviza (1303161)
        "intent" is a very important legal concept. hopefully the judge agrees.
      • by DeadCatX2 (950953)

        If they were using a bot to mass-spam them with the intention of crashing their systems, I'd agree with you.

        They did in fact use an outside robo-dialer to flood the phone system with voice mails. http://computerfraud.us/articles/can-a-labor-union-be-sued-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-for-spamming-an-employer%E2%80%99s-voice-and-email-systems [computerfraud.us]

      • Not a bot, but they had their own mail server mass-spamming the company.

        All they need is for their server to be more powerful than the company's to create a denial of service that would require efforts to mitigate, just as is required for large scale DDOS bot attacks, but on a smaller scale.

    • What if the individual senders didn't know or have reason to know about the limitation of the recipient? I know when I send an email I don't think to myself "hmm, I wonder how big their inbox is and if it's full?... Maybe I'd better ring them before sending the email to make sure there's room".

      • by arth1 (260657)

        What if the individual senders didn't know or have reason to know about the limitation of the recipient? I know when I send an email I don't think to myself "hmm, I wonder how big their inbox is and if it's full?... Maybe I'd better ring them before sending the email to make sure there's room".

        But we're not talking about a single e-mail. We're talking about thousands. Would you send someone a thousand e-mails without first checking whether they could receive them, or if you knew they couldn't handle them?

        It's all about intent, and in this case the intent appears to have been to disrupt their service. That's a crime, no matter whether the e-mail server could have been set up better.

        • It's no different than a letter writing campaign.

          When groups organise one it disrupts service as people have to sift through the piles of envelopes for normal business letters yet that's not illegal.

          You'd just spouting the standard "it's different on a computer" bullshit.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            The union used an automated mailing system to send thousands of emails to a few email addresses... It wasn't only a bunch of people sending their own emails. Many emails were "threats and obscenities". The company told the union to stop because it was disrupting their service. The union intentionally continued knowing that it would cause the business problems. It wasn't a protest, it was revenge for firing employees.

            Their intent was clear. To disrupt business by hammering the mail servers. That is very sim

        • by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:20PM (#37047686)

          Every time you send an email you are checking if they can receive them. Did the mail server sent back 421 or 422 or did it accept the mail?

          • by scubamage (727538)
            I think it received them. This issue appears to be that valid emails either got lost in the shuffle, disrupting business, or else they maxed out their email storage causing valid emails to get bounced. Either way, unless there was malintent on the part of the union, its no different than receiving a few hundred paper letters and either A) crushing all of the valid mail that's already in the mailbox into an unrecognizable form or B) filling up the mailbox so much that new letters can't fit in anymore.
        • by fafaforza (248976)

          Every employee has a right to contact an employer. It's the employer's job to have a system to allow for that communication. Has it been shown that each one of these employees used a spam bot? If you have thousands of employees, you should be ready for them to contact you, just as you build a bridge strong enough to support nothing but fully loaded tractor trailers from end to end, as, even though it's an unlikely scenario, it could very well happen. What would you have done if the bridge collapsed, com

          • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

            They hired an auto-dialing service.

            • by scubamage (727538)
              Auto-dialing != email spam. You don't dial to send an email.
              • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

                No, auto-dialing = telephone spam.

                fafaforza asked if they used a spam bot. I don't know if they used a spam bot to send e-mails, but do know that they hired an auto-dialer to make phone calls.

          • What would you have done if the bridge collapsed, complained that the truck drivers should have ascertained the maximum load of the bridge? It's not their task.

            Sure it is. They simply need to drive progressively heavier trucks over the bridge until it collapses. Then rebuild the bridge to the exact specifications, and post the weight of the heaviest truck to survive.

            Its quite simple, Calvin.

        • What confirms it was intended to disrupt their service. From what I can see it wasn't 1 person sending 1,000 e-mails, it was 1,000 people sending 1 e-mail. By this logic every campaign that has said "Write a letter to your congressman to say you oppose or support ______" is an attempt to disrupt government business. Unless the campaign itself said something like "send as many e-mails as you possibly can to this address" then the campaigns intent was to show how many people were upset.
          • by arth1 (260657)

            The difference is that those who organize letters to your congress critter expects his mail staff to be able to handle the mail. The intent is to have the congie realize that "a lot" of people have an opinion on this, strong enough to pay for a letter, envelope and postage.

            In this case, the Judge seems to think that the Union who organized the e-mails had the expectation that it would cause service disruption, and thus the intent was bad.

          • by arth1 (260657)

            What confirms it was intended to disrupt their service.

            Apart from hiring an auto-dialler service to fill up voice mail boxes and apart from continuing to send e-mails from the LIUNA server after being contacted and told that it disrupted services, you mean?

        • by sjames (1099) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:36PM (#37047900) Homepage

          No, *I* wouldn't send them thousands, because that's simply a harassment. However, if I disagree with a company's actions, I might well decide to be one of thousands of people to send them AN email to let them know what I think. It's perfectly valid to ask individuals to let someone (or something in the case of a corporation) know you don't approve of them.

          The intent is to communicate and email is for communication, so there is no abuse happening.

          Here's a good thought experiment, I post in a /. story that everyone should email their congressman and let them know what they think. Did I just "hack" Congress? Am I assaulting the U.S. government? Or am I exercising my 1st amendment rights, participating in a demopcratic government, and urging others to do the same?

          Beyond that, if their email system is such a creaking rust bucket that it can't handle a thousand emails, it was hardly a "sound" system.

          • Here's a good thought experiment, I post in a /. story that everyone should email their congressman and let them know what they think. Did I just "hack" Congress?

            Good point. But let's go back 100 years to a time before email. If you ran that same story in a NEWSPAPER and 1,000 people sent LETTERS to Congress, would that be an attack on Congress?

            Beyond that, if their email system is such a creaking rust bucket that it can't handle a thousand emails, it was hardly a "sound" system.

            Sticking with the 100 years

      • by iamhassi (659463)

        What if the individual senders didn't know or have reason to know about the limitation of the recipient? I know when I send an email I don't think to myself "hmm, I wonder how big their inbox is and if it's full?... Maybe I'd better ring them before sending the email to make sure there's room".

        You can't call them, that's hacking too. FTFA [techdirt.com] "because it asked members to email and call an employer many times"

        Another source: "The calls clogged access to Pulte’s voicemail system, prevented its customers from reaching its sales offices and representatives, and even forced one Pulte employee to turn off her business cell phone." [computerfraud.us]

        Since you don't know who else is calling or emailing them you could be contributing to "hacking".

    • The "problem" is that hacking and disrupting services is governed by the same laws, without much distinction. And it is disrupting services if the sender knew about or had reason to know about the limitation of the recipient.

      If I size my business related "inbox" to hold no more than 20 emails, should I then be able to have anyone who fills it up arrested and charged?

      Of course not.

      Public facing email "inboxes" should necessarily be very large. As well there are all sorts of filtering technologies for routing incoming email based on content, subject line, sender, just about anything.

      There is no excuse for "email box full" for a business of any real size above mom-and-pop.

      What this company really needed to do was learn to manage t

    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:34PM (#37047882)

      Would the same amount of physical mail result in any legal actions against the union?

      No? Then the judge is an idiot.

      • Or more correctly, the law is an idiot.

        It is entirely possible (and legal) for congress to pass a law treating things differently on the idiot. That doesn't make it good law, but if it isn't unconstitutional, just stupid, that isn't for the judge to decide.

    • by hairyfeet (841228)

      Uhhh...no. If you set up your system to royally suck, how would it be the other guy's fault? I've dealt with companies that were so damned stingy that the employee inboxes were 25Mb! I'm sure a single attachment I'd send when they requested a file would be enough to overload and shut off their inbox. is that MY fault? I sure as hell wouldn't have chosen such lame ass inbox policies!

      Now if they were pounding the servers trying to DDoS the system? right there with you. But it seems to me if this is allowed to

      • by Cederic (9623)

        In this day and age of $50 2Tb drives having someone's inbox shut down because of plain old emails is just lame.

        The cost of email storage is significantly higher than the price of a retail storage disk. Particularly if you want resilience, backup, regulatory compliance, performance, availability and support.

        Not that I can actually find any 2Tb drives for $50..

  • by mcmonkey (96054) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:05PM (#37047496) Homepage

    What about a company sending a lot of emails to a person?

    • by BitHive (578094) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:08PM (#37047530) Homepage

      A company's actions, as long as they serve its profit motive, are beyond reproach. This article is about a union, which is a whole other story!

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        A company's actions, as long as they serve its profit motive, are beyond reproach.

        You sure you don't work for BP?

      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        A company that sent thousands of emails and phone calls per day for a period of days would be in trouble. The issue is not who did it but the volume and intent.

      • My friend works for a major internet provider and his job is cleaning up e-mail issues usually caused by jackasses; sometimes its the programmers where he works; but mostly its groups who decide to they are going "Show someone whats what".

        I don't care if its a union or not, slamming someone's mailbox is not a proper method to demonstrate your position. One e-mail from each union member is one thing, organizing outside groups is another. Which brings me to one item I have experience with, when unions want to

    • A company is a person [blogspot.com] by the way...This idea originated [washingtonpost.com] in the 19th century.

      • unfortunately a company is now a "super-person"
        -immortal
        -immoral
        -and unaccountable if large enough

        • by Slur (61510)

          Not to mention, 500 feet tall, retarded, childish, selfish, and murderous. Unless constrained.

    • by cashman73 (855518)
      Per a recent US Supreme Court ruling, corporations have the same, and in fact, better, Constitutional rights as individuals. Unions, on the other hand, do not.
  • If you can get charged with being one of a thousand emails, the only way to avoid that is being pseudonymous. To put it in a nutshell, shit's about to get fake.

  • by rotide (1015173) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:08PM (#37047526)
    My physical mailbox at home is kind of small and when I go on vacation it can get full to the point of no longer being able to put more mail in. Do I get to go after Capital One or any/all of the other habitual mail spammers now? If not, why? Because this Act only covers electrons flowing through wires and not physical items physically limiting my mailbox?
    • by scorp1us (235526)

      Contact the post office. You can put your mail on hold. You can even do it on their web site. Amazing, isn't it?

      Bulk bail is the only way the post office survives. Sad but true.

  • by blair1q (305137) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:08PM (#37047532) Journal

    If the company can't handle the consequences of its actions, it shouldn't act.

  • [We] conclude that a transmission that weakens a sound computer system—or, similarly, one that diminishes a plaintiff’s ability to use data or a system—causes damage.

    The problem with this is likely that their computer system was not sound, and should not have caused any real damage.

    • by Beorytis (1014777)

      [We] conclude that a transmission that weakens a sound computer system—or, similarly, one that diminishes a plaintiff’s ability to use data or a system—causes damage.

      The problem with this is likely that their computer system was not sound, and should not have caused any real damage.

      I think you hit the nail on the head, and that may be an important argument in the next appeal. Are there any /. lawyers who want to file an amicus curiae?

    • by jklovanc (1603149)

      You try to sift through 10,000 emails and see if they does not diminish your ability to use data in the legitimate emails you were sent. The damage is the time wasted doing the sifting and the lost business due to customers not being able to communicate with the company; damage does not need to be to the computer.

  • Seems like this is the digital equivalent of every bit of Bush Jr.-era legislation rolled into one.

    Maybe they could direct their protest emails into a digital free speech cage? (mailbox that stores in /dev/null)

  • A group of people send a bunch of emails to an email server, bringing it down. Court rules that activity is illegal.

    A group of people send a bunch of server requests to a website server, bringing it down.

    Ergo, Slashdotting is illegal.
  • by Animats (122034) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:25PM (#37047766) Homepage

    Here's the actual decision. [courtlistener.com] First, the company's request for an injunction to stop the mail campaign, denied by the district court, is still denied. The claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse act goes back to the district court, and can proceed there, but the appellate court makes no comment on the merits of that claim. The appellate court was only dealing with the issue of whether the Norris-LaGuardia act, which gives jurisdiction to the National Labor Relations Board when the behavior involved arises out of a labor dispute, preempted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act . The appeals court decided that this isn't an NLRB matter, and goes back to the district court.

  • What if a bunch of people send e-mails to their political representatives and slog the representatives' inboxes? Is that considered hacking? Didn't that just happen after a digital call to arms by Preseident Obama regarding the debt ceiling ordeal?

    That kind of gets into a fuzzy grey area about the freedom to contact one's own political representative (i.e. speech).
  • I'll disagree with what seems to be the consensus here, if they sent emails with the deliberate intent to bring down the mail server. It's a crude hack but it is taking advantage of a flaw in a system to cause damage.

    It seems that they carried on emailing without actual malicious intent. However it looks like they were told that this would bring them down. That brings it down to recklessness. Does recklessly damaging a computer system count as hacking?
  • by NiteShaed (315799) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:28PM (#37047818)

    The law in question is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse act, and I'd say they're going with the angle of abuse. In this case, LIUNA seems to have been going for what amounts to a DDoS attack against the contractors phones and emails.

    To generate a high volume of calls, LIUNA both hired an auto-dialing service and requested its members to call Pulte. It also encouraged its members, through postings on its website, to “fight back” by using LIUNA’s server to send e-mails to specific Pulte executives. Most of the calls and e-mails concerned Pulte’s purported unfair labor practices, though some communications included threats and obscene language.

    Now, right or wrong, I can at least see the reasoning of the ruling, and this isn't just a clueless judge saying "Oh noes, they hax0r3d the company interwebs". LIUNA seems to have decided that they were going to use their membership and outside companies to shut down Pulte's communications. That they used individual members instead of a botnet to go after the email server seems irrelevant, the intent was clearly to beat the company into submission, not just to voice dissatisfaction. Had they not hired the guys with the autodialer it would have been much easier to believe they were just trying to make themselves heard.

    • by waddgodd (34934)

      That's kind of the point of a picket line, to completely close off outside access to a company. The fact that it was done via electronic means really doesn't change that they were doing exactly what they set out to do. My real worry here is that they win on 1st amendment grounds, then Spamford Wallace claims a moral victory. Like it or not, yelling your own free speech isn't criminal, even if it prevents the other side from saying anything.

  • So now any company with union workers can set their inboxes to hold only a few messages, do something the union workers think is un-fair, and charge them with hacking when people start sending angry e-mails? This seems to be a cop-out to a larger problem. On the other hand I guess it could make union workers sit down with their union and think about what is to be said, rather than everybody e-mailing "this sucks"
  • by Joe_Dragon (2206452) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:37PM (#37047916)

    what's next voice mail full = hacking? parking lot full is = hacking as a Computer turns on the full sign?

  • by Haedrian (1676506) on Wednesday August 10, 2011 @02:40PM (#37047948)

    If we comment too much on this post we might be hacking /.

  • cable systems can use the same stuff on high free VOD use and big time downloaders by saying your use is give a DDoS to others.

  • Time for tech judges and courts with jury who know about IT or at the very least have to pass some kind of basic test on IT / Computers.

    Now this seems a like a judge who is to much on the letter of the law with not known must about IT other then not working / maxed out.

  • I think certain people ( first post, LOL, etc.) should be charged with hacking. ;) and anyone using emoticon.
  • From the opinion:

    Not content with its NLRB charge, LIUNA also began using an allegedly illegal strategy: it bombarded Pulte's sales offices and three of its executives with thousands of phone calls and e-mails. To generate a high volume of calls, LIUNA both hired an auto-dialing service and requested its members to call Pulte. It also encouraged its members, through postings on its website, to âoefight backâ by using LIUNAâ(TM)s server to send e-mails to specific Pulte executives. Most of the

  • I don't want to be accused of hacking my senator's account. I would have to quit my day job and devote my self to writing emails 18 hours a day to protest everything I feel deserves a protest message, and it now seems that even if I could do this, it would be against the law....
  • [We] conclude that a transmission that weakens a sound computer system -- or, similarly, one that diminishes a plaintiff's ability to use data or a system -- causes damage.

    But from the article, it sounds explicitly like this wasn't a "sound" system ... it was badly configured, and couldn't keep up with the load put on it. If a court is upholding this as "hacking" then they're unqualified to evaluate this.

    Seems like every time someone tries to pass a law related to technology, the law is written so badly a

  • "The people running them and involved are all being charged with hacking and being sentenced to 5 years in prison." Give me a break, the government should no longer be allowed to make rulings on anything tech related since most judges and elected officials either A) Don't even know how to type or use a computer or B.) Type with two fingers at about 10 words per minute. This is just further prove about how putting a bunch of senior citizens as judges and congressmen is a bad idea. My father is only in his 50
  • It is not a "public call to action". It is a Union orchestrating a campaign with the intent of making it impossible for a company to do business until the business complies with the the union's demands. It is a basic DoS attack with the intent of intimidation; do what we want or we will ruin your business.

    "Sound Computer"
    All mail servers have a limit on the number of emails it can handle. Overload that limit and there can be issues. Thousands of emails a day and phone calls every few minutes can easily rea

    • by gubers33 (1302099)
      Everything you mentioned makes no sense if your mail server administrator is remotely competent. It actually is not hard to filter out emails. If you are getting email you do not want, write a filter rule with the action of "Move to deleted". If your Mail Server is getting full it means 1.) You probably have your limit set to low, meaning your a skimming cost on your IT being cheap and 2.) You mail server administrator is incompetent and should be fired. It is not hacking nor a DoS attack. Yes, you could do
  • I broke into this website and left a comment on their webpage!

Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."

Working...