Intel v. Hamidi Oral Arguments 19
"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."
Lost Productivity (Score:2)
Google Cache (Score:1, Informative)
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:T-SJezZJTO8C
Freedom of "speach" (Score:4, Interesting)
Folks like this forget the following:
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" (Score:2, Interesting)
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" (Score:3, Informative)
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 st
Re:Freedom of "speach" (Score:4, Interesting)
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" (Score:2)
IMHO, the question is "what is open to public access?" If the lobby or the cafeteria of Intel was open to the public, then I would expect to be able to enter freely to deliver a message to an employee. And since there are Brink's guards there in the lobby restricting access to the rest of the plant, I would expect to NOT be allowed to go f
I agree with you... but.... (Score:2)
Re:I agree with you... but.... (Score:1)
Re:I agree with you... but.... (Score:3, Informative)
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
This is not about spam (Score:3, Interesting)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [umn.edu] 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.
-
On Spam and Censorship (Score:1)
I realize in advance that this post will be quite unpopular with the anti-spam slashdot community, but here goes anyway ...
Although spam must technically be (by defintion) commercial, to define it as such is irrelevant to me. It takes the same amount of time to delete non-commercial unsolicited messages as it does solicited. Call this whatever you like; this is a spam issue.
While I won't insult anyone's intelligence by adding more insightless drivel to the free speech angle of this debate (because bot
You're all wrong (Score:2)
There are bunches of comments here about what any particular outcome would mean. Let me save everybody some time. They're all wrong. Don't count on the EFF to provide accurate information on this either - the EFF is wrong.
Re:You're all wrong (Score:2)
When there is an SMTP connection to their mail server, that mail server gives permission again for that content to be passed through.
Wow, that's so wrong it's amazing. It's like saying "the shopkeeper kicked me out of the store and told me never to come back, but then he opened the door the next morning, so there was new implied consent." It doesn't work that way. You can never imply consent in a way that is different to a clear expression of consent or non-consent between the parties.
And even if you co
Re:You're all wrong (Score:2)
It's more like this. A shopkeeper lets you in. You are wearing a T shirt that he objects to so he kicks you out. The next day you ask to be let in by his wife/business partner and are granted access.
It's not. Intel told Hamidi either not to send any email, or alternatively not to send email of type 'X'. He continued contrary to that instruction. There is no other human involed. There is nothing else to contradict the explicit withdrawal of implied consent.
Your example really demonstrates that you don't