Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More on Intel v. Hamidi

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the telnet-port-25 dept.

The Courts 243

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?

cancel ×

243 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I am (-1)

Mao Zedong (467890) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547492)

flirting with disaster.

OK, you requested it!! (-1)

Big_Ass_Spork (446856) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547528)

I'm travelin' down the road,
I'm flirtin' with disaster.
I've got the pedal to the floor,
My life is running faster.
I'm out of money, I'm out of hope,
It looks like self destruction.
Well how much more can we take,
With all of this corruption.

Been flirtin' with disaster,
Ya'll know what I mean.
And the way we run our lives,
It makes no sense to me.
I don't know about yourself or,
What you want to be - YEAH.
When we gamble with our time,
We choose our destiny.

Chorus:
I'm travelin' down that lonesome road.
Feel like I'm dragging a heavy load.
Yeah! I've tried to turn my head away,
Feels about the same most every day.
Speeding down the fast lane,
Playin' from town to town.
The boys and I have been burnin' it up,
Can't seem to slow it down.
I've got the pedal to the floor,
Our lives are runnin' faster,
Got our sights set straight ahead,
But ain't sure what we're after.

Flirtin' with disaster,
Ya'll know what I mean.
You know the way we run our lives,
It makes no sense to me.
I don't know about yourself or,
What you plan to be - Yea!!
When we gamble with our time,
We choose our destiny.

Chorus:
Yeah!! We're travelin' down that lonesome road.
Feel like I'm dragging a heavy load.
Don't try to turn my head away,
I'm flirtin' with disaster every day.
Flirtin' with disaster, baby,
Ya'll know what I mean.
You know the way we run our lives,
It makes no sense to me.
I don't know about yourself or,
What you plan to be - Yea!!
When we gamble with our time,
We choose our destiny.

Chorus:
Yeah!! We're travelin' down that lonesome road.
Feel like I'm dragging a heavy load.
Don't try to turn my head away,
I'm flirtin' with disaster every day.

OK, so which is it . . . (5, Insightful)

Tam-Lin (17972) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547494)

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.

Re:OK, so which is it . . . (1)

kormoc (122955) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547514)

On the one hand, you apparently are against people using legal means to block e-mail

What are you talking about. Intel is sueing them. Intel blocked them and when they got arround it, Intel sued them. No one is against blocking email.

Re:OK, so which is it . . . (1)

Tam-Lin (17972) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547531)

What are you talking about. Intel is sueing them. Intel blocked them and when they got arround it, Intel sued them. No one is against blocking email.

Sorry, that was less than clear. Legal as in using the law system, when technical means (i.e. blocking) fail.

But hey, I got a first post. Which I'm still amazed by. Or is that not a big deal anymore? Or was it ever, really?

Re:OK, so which is it . . . (-1)

Proctal Relapse (467579) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547558)

But hey, I got a first post. Which I'm still amazed by.

1. you're gay.
2. you missed first post -- try browsing at -1, shithose.

(OT: first post) (1)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547647)

Actually, when I saw that this article had only one comment attached, I figured it had to be a troll, and decided not to click through yet :-)

Re:OK, so which is it . . . (2)

56ker (566853) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547529)

Such is life, people always want things both ways. I think they'd have a better time going after some of the big spammers. However they deliberately try to make tracking them down difficult - so they go after the easy target instead.

Re:OK, so which is it . . . (1)

GoatPigSheep (525460) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547561)

I agree, besides, there is nothing wrong with blocking email, especially if it is from someone who has an agenda against the company

for the people on the west coast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547709)

So Moulder doesn't die, They accuse him of killing a super soldier, but we all know that they are invincible, so the trial is a sham. They find him guilty and sentence him to death by lethal injection. He's broken out from the cell by his FBI friends.

That chain smoking FBI guy is still alive hiding out in the desert. Gets blown up by some helicopters. Blah, Blah, Blah....

The episode isn't all that great. Just like any other. Not worth seeing.

Please, Please all the west coast people don't have to thank me

HEHEHEHEHEHE!!!!!

The filthy truth about OpenSource (-1, Flamebait)

Serial Troller (556155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547496)

OPEN SOURCE MISCONCEPTIONS
By Serial Troller [slashdot.org]

Myth: Open Source is written by heterosexuals.

Fact: All Open Source development is done by raging homosexuals. The more flaming examples include Anal Cox, Linus Turdballs, Eric Ass-Reaming Raymond, and the entire Slashdot crew. The ringleader of the slashdotters, a man named CmdrTaco, engages in a practice known as Taco-snotting, along with his faggot-buddies Jeff Homos Bates and CowBoiKneel.

Myth: Open Source is written for heterosexuals.

Fact: Using Open Source software can cause suppressed homosexual fantasies to surface, leading to all out flaming faggotry within 6-8 weeks. Anecdotes of otherwise hetero men turning queer are far too numerous to count, but a few examples stand out. In one case, a man was arrested loitering outside an elementary school and making sexual overtures to several children: he quickly confessed that shortly after installing the Mozilla browser on his computer, he began to have uncontrollable urges to, to put it simply, have his cock sucked off by little boys. He soon met several other like-minded men through discussions on the Bugger Zilla mailing list (all already homosexuals), who together kidnapped a total of seven children whom they brought back to their apartment and sodomized. The other two men are still at large and believed to still be using Mozilla.

Myth: Open Source is multicultural.

Fact: Open Source is openly racist [slashdot.org] .

Myth: Open Source is democratic.

Fact: Open Source is controlled by a few narrow-minded zealots (mentioned throughout this post), most of whom are either Communists, Stalinists, Nazis, or Fascists. Additionally, Open Source supports terrorism.

Myth: Open Source is tolerant of religious preferences.

Fact: Open Source developers regularly engage in holy wars over the superiority of various Open Source projects, such as the Emacs program (preferred by Christians) versus vi (used mostly by neo-pagans and Satanists); or the KDE desktop (a favorite among Muslims) versus the GNOME project (particularly favored by Jews). Posts initiating crusades or jihads against other developers can be found regularly throughout the newsgroups and mailing lists.

Myth: Open Source is tolerant of sexual preference.

Fact: See above. Either you are a homo, you become a homo, or you never visit Richard Stallman alone in his office and hope to God you never meet him on the street at night.

Myth: Open Source is tolerant of political differences.

Fact: Open Source is an anarcho-communist philosophy bent on the destruction of capitalism. The very same Richard Stallman, a man whose name is disturbingly reminiscent of Stalin, has stated several times in public that his vision includes the subjugation of all who own intellectual properties under the jackboot of the GPL. The GPL is a pernicious piece of literature lifted straight from Karl Marxs Communist Manifesto, and is fortunately banned in many democratic nations.

* * * * * UPDATE * * * * *

Myth: Open Source programming is a harlmess, healthy activity.

Fact: Open Source programming has been known to lead to massive obesity [cowboyneal.org] , violent tendencies with an obsession with handguns [tuxedo.org] , paranoid-delusional ranting [slashdot.org] , and in severe cases, complete insanity [slashdot.org] . If anyone you know is thinking about going Open Source, stop them before its too late!

* * * * * UPDATE * * * * *

____________________

© 2002 Serial Troller. Permission to reproduce this document is granted provided that you send all the bukkake porn you can find to serialtroller@hotmail.com [mailto] .

Re:The filthy truth about OpenSource (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547506)

Your Terrorism link is borkened. Anyone have the link to that classic troll? It was someone grepping through the source code finding stuff like "jihad" and "terrors.h" and the like. Trolly here seems to have missed it.

Re:The filthy truth about OpenSource (-1)

Serial Troller (556155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547513)

Jesus Fux0ring Christ, you're right. And now I can't find the page either. SOMEONE HELP!!!!

Re:The filthy truth about OpenSource (-1)

Serial Troller (556155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547544)

Flamebait!?! You crack-smoking moderators... Why, I oughta... Grrr... Eeehhh...!!

That was clearly a TROLL!!! Stupid fucks! Pay attention!!

Re:The filthy truth about OpenSource (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547656)

YHBT
HAND
STFU U MF

Spam (3, Insightful)

Big Stick (318410) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547497)

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.

Re:Spam (1)

daniel_isaacs (249732) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547515)

If this does prove to be illegal (sending unathorized email) the first person I'm suing is mydadssister@msn.com from whom I recieve 3-5 stupid FWD:s a day.

Re:Spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547530)

But then how would you choose who to give authorized use and unauthorized use to your equipment... you recieve an email from some spammer, yeah, blocked, you recieve an email from a lost relative, yeah, blocked....

Would we need a IM setup where by you must authorize someone to your email address list, and if you decline all email unless those in your list get blocked?

I wouldn't be surprised if M$ are already working on new servers and software for this...

.NET / Passport anyone?

Re:Spam (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547535)

No, you would report any spammer to the local authorities and have them prosecuted for criminal tresspass. You call the police when you have a prowler, but you don't call them when Aunt Timothy comes by to visit.

Re:Spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547549)

What if this spammer is from another country then? Russia or China, where the spamming law may not exist, what would we do then?

Re:Spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547553)

That's what the CIA is for.

Re:Spam (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547586)

...but you don't call them when Aunt Timothy comes by to visit.

You do if Aunt Timothy (lol) is entering your property by forcing her way through the door even though you're telling her to keep out. :-p

Re:Spam - class action lawsuits (3, Informative)

Seth Finkelstein (90154) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547610)

For spam class-action lawsuits, look up the various cases at

FindLaw > Legal Subjects > Cyberspace Law > E-Mail > Primary Materials - Laws and Government Documents [findlaw.com]

Especially Ferguson v. Friendfinder [timothywalton.com]

The California Court of Appeal for the First District has ruled that California's spam statute is constitutional and valid. This means that from now on, spammers must comply with its requirements or face legal liability and/or criminal punishment. Read the decision by clicking here.

The California Supreme Court has refused to review the decision.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

And telemarketers (3, Insightful)

cyberformer (257332) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547725)

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.

Go Intel! (1)

weird mehgny (549321) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547505)

If they manage this, fighting spam may get easier :)

mass-mailing cost employee time... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547508)

and time is money (more precisely, money = time*salary). What would that figure look like? (number of mails sent * number of employees on the list * average number of sec to handle the mail * salary in $ per sec)

Re:mass-mailing cost employee time... (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547666)

Then perhaps they shouldn't have PUBLIC mail accounts. If you own a webpage and you don't want me to go there because you have to pay server bandwidth, you don't put it on the fucking web.

Re:mass-mailing cost employee time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547751)

wrong thinking there

i'm not sure aouthis but.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547510)

25th post
The top 10 toughest schools to get into, according to this year's Princeton
Review results, start with Cooper Union, and are followed in order by
Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, the Air Force Academy, West Point, the U.S.
Naval Academy, Columbia, Yale and Amherst College.

Positive implications (1)

Diet Rapture (539750) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547512)

While I find Intel's actions unconscionable, the outcome of this suit could have positive implications against spammers. I'm totally down with those ends...

Re:Positive implications (1)

adamjaskie (310474) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547684)

Hmm I wonder...
If my ISP starts capping bandwidth, can I sue spammers for using up that bandwidth? Since I would be paying for a limited amount of service, and downloading emails uses that service, I should not have to recive unsolicited emails, yes?

Can't do it (3, Interesting)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547522)

He had no business sending emails to anyone in the company. He couldn't have had any work-related business to take care of that would require spamming the entire company.

Digital tresspass is a very real problem. One benefit of any laws passed to combat the problem is that spam would be made completely illegal and spammers would be prosecutable under the law.

Your free speech ends where my ears begin.

Re:Can't do it (-1)

Serial Troller (556155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547537)

Digital tresspass is no problem. The fact that I can't download a terabyte of porn every day -- now that's a problem!

Re:Can't do it (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547545)

Bandwidth problem? Storage problem? Bandwidth quota problem?

Re:Can't do it (1)

198348726583297634 (14535) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547593)

Free speech ends where your ears begin? so.. if people are chanting slogans and you walk by..they have to stop?

Re:Can't do it (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547607)

Yes, if they don't want to be sued for assault.

Sexual harrassment is one example of these good laws being put in place. Or do you think sexual harrassment should be legal?

Re:Can't do it (2)

TheOnlyCoolTim (264997) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547679)

What if people are shouting anti-war slogans on the Mall in Washington D.C.? Do they have to shut up if Bush walks by?

Tim

Re:Can't do it (3, Interesting)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547596)

Sending emails is not trespass. they have an email server -- they connect it to the internet -- they want to recieve emails. this guy sent emails, end of story. he had no intent to cause harm and he didn't do so.

This would be the equivalent of putting someone in jail for "trespass" for sending you a letter in the mail. Its an abuse of the language and the law.

Re:Can't do it (1)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547618)

I own a beach to which a road runs (which I also own) that is attached to a county road. Anyone who enters the property without permission is prosecutable, even if all they did was sit quietly and watch the sunset.

Re:Can't do it (2)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547649)

theres no entry its a piece of mail or a few datagrams. theres no physical analogy!

Re:Can't do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547653)

If I hurl shit from a catapult and splatter my feces all over your yard, I shouldn't be held accountable because it's all biodegradable and you can remove the shit by yourself?

There's quite a few physical analogies, if you think about it.

Re:Can't do it (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547771)

at this point your obviously trolling so I will respond no further

Re:Can't do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547903)

Well, I'm neither the AC you are replying to nor Obviousguy, but it seems to me that your arguments are getting torn to shreds by several posters here. Are you sure you're not simply giving up because you've exhausted your intellectual capital?

Re:Can't do it (2)

NineNine (235196) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547650)

A tresspass comes about when you notify someone else that they cannot use your private property. Their email system is definately private property. Same in real property. It's not illegal for Jehova's Witnesses to come on your property to try to indoctrinate you, but if you tell them "if you come back again, then you'll be tresspassing", if they come back again, you call the sheriff and have them thrown off the land. That's not a civil action, but a legal action. You could get a restraining roder against them, but suing them isn't really possible unless they've casued you harm. You *can* have the offenders thrown in jail, though. If this moron was told by Intel not to use their email system anymore, then he's tresspassing by continuing to use it. He should be thrown in jail for tresspassing.

Re:Can't do it (2)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547812)

Your snail mail analogy doesn't hold water. In order to mail a letter the sender must pay all communications costs or it gets returned for insufficient postage. Intel spent a non-negligible amount of money setting up those e-mail servers for the ability to receive e-mail and that resource expenditure alone should give them some right to control who can use it and when.

One word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547936)

Fuck you! I bet you are one of those spammers aint you? The company set up it's email servers for work related business and that fucker abused it. Now he has to pay.

Torn... (2, Interesting)

xonker (29382) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547526)

If in Intel wins, it will set a precedent that should make it very easy to sue spammers. On the other hand, this is an example of a large company throwing a tantrum, and they shouldn't be rewarded.

If they win, I'd be willing to bet it will eventually come back to bite them in the ass.

Re:Torn... (2)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547686)

(* If they win, I'd be willing to bet it will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. *)

Their chip logo might be found to increase the weight of PC's by say 0.001 ounce. Multiplied over millions of units, this can add up a bit, increasing shipping costs. Isn't this some form of "trespassing" under some law somewhere?

What kind of HONEY BITCH TOOL have you become? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547527)


MY GOD MAN!!! Do you realize what you're doing? DO you? What kind of HONEY BITCH TOOL have you become? Have you no shame? None at all?


Look at you. Look at yourself. Look at what you've BECOME. Your job is writing code to BREAK PEOPLE'S COMPUTERS if they dare to put a CELINE DION CD into their disk drive. Is this what you always wanted? Is this what you went to school for? Is this what we've all -- all of us, every other hacker and programmer and geek and computer person -- is this what we've all helped you to do?

Do you really think that you don't OWE us anything? That you don't owe anybody anything? That what really matters is that you get some of Celine Dion's FILTHY CANADIAN LUCRE? Hell, man, I'll pay you out of my OWN POCKET to quit your job right now. What kind of job is that? What kind of man, or woman, are you?

I know you didn't start off like this. I know that you're like me, that you're like all of us. That you love these things called computers, that your fingers itch when you're away from them, that your whole essence pours out of your fingertips into the keyboard when you make that system DO YOUR MAGIC. It's incredible, it's power, it's a tradition that goes back centuries, and it's flowing through you right now, right this very second.

And you're BETRAYING it. You're standing on the shoulders of giants and SHITTING on them. For something you believe in? For something you're PROUD OF? Or for the dollars of Sony Megacorp and the opportunity that that brings?

Who the HELL are you? What the FUCK has gotten into you? Just in case you didn't notice, this recession is OVER, and there are a JILLION jobs out there for you to take. Jobs that make people's lives easier, jobs that OPEN DOORS onto a new plateau of human awareness that the people we owe our livelihoods to only DREAMED of. Jobs that could make this world a PARADISE instead of the shitty money-grubbing craphole it's been since the dawn of time.

And instead you choose to take a job fucking up people's IMACS. For NO GOOD REASON.

It's really not too late. You can stop RIGHT NOW, you can get up and walk out the door and turn your back on the forces of REACTION and of GREED and of SMALL-MINDED CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLISM that say that the most important thing in the world is keeping some tweaked housewife in South Dakota from sharing a goddamn CELINE DION TRACK with her mom or friend or neighbor. You can stop. You can do it. YOU ARE BETTER THAN THIS.

For the sake of everyone who ever helped you with your homework. For the sake of everyone who answered your plaintive and ignorant plea for help on Usenet or some mailing-list. For the sake of every person everywhere who wrote a driver or an app or a goddamn EXAMPLE PROGRAM to show you how to make these machines sing like angels under your hands. Pay us back. Stop this crap. Stop this humiliating bullshit and stop being a tool of The Man.

pigdog [pigdog.org]

Re:What kind of HONEY BITCH TOOL have you become? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547585)

I couldn't have said it better myself. I wish I had points with which to mod this up.

If someone uses my computers, they pay (2)

dh003i (203189) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547536)

If someone breaks into my computer from off-site and uses it for some purpose, whether it harms the computer or not, they should have to pay me money. Furthermore, this is illegal: breaking and entering. I don't want anyone using my computer without my persmission -- irrelevant of the reason, and irrelevant of the effect it has on my computer.

However, Intel's case is decidedly different. For one thing, the e-mails are their *employees* e-mail addresses. Its up to the employees to decide whether or not they want to receive them, not Intel. Furthermore, if Intel's really serious about this, they'd set their servers not to accept any e-mails from the e-mail address of their former employee.

Irrelevant of such, it comes down to a question of who's decision is it? Intel or their employees'? Intel does own the server and computers; however, their employees have certain rights despite such. If it is Intel's right to decide whether or not they want to accept the e-mail, they should be able to call for restraints against their former employee, the same way we could demand a spammer stop sending us e-mail, and have legal force. If we want to be able to legally prevent someone from sending us SPAM (or any other unsolicited or unwanted e-mail) so should Intel.

Re:If someone uses my computers, they pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547555)

For one thing, the e-mails are their *employees* e-mail addresses


Actually, the addresses are Intel's.

Re:If someone uses my computers, they pay (2)

jimhill (7277) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547581)

"Intel's case is decidedly different. For one thing, the e-mails are their *employees* e-mail addresses. Its up to the employees to decide whether or not they want to receive them, not Intel."

Actually, you could not be more wrong.

Re:If someone uses my computers, they pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547639)

> Actually, you could not be more wrong.

Sure he could. Brilliant posters manage to be so wrong it astounds me on a regular basis. I've long been considering making an accont with a witty name such as "HowCouldYouBeSoClueless" solely for the purpose of expressing my bemusement at the lack of intellectual standards required to participate on Slashdot. Evidently, computers have become so easy to use that a level of insight that would have at one point been insufficient to operate a mouse is now capable of installing Linux and commenting about it in a snide fashion.

This post barely registered as an ignorant and poorly-thought out remark. Truly great incompetence obviously requires both a total inability to grasp the obvious and a persistently stubborn belief of your own infallibility. But it also requires creativity in expressing exactly to what degree you fail to get it. I mean, just today we had someone argue that pi was not a constant and would vary with the speed of light. It must have been a while since the last time you read the comments.

Re:If someone uses my computers, they pay (3, Insightful)

backtick (2376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547591)

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" (3, Insightful)

coyote-san (38515) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547613)

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.)

Damages? Perhaps. Restrictions? Yes (3, Insightful)

n3rd (111397) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547546)

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?

Re:Damages? Perhaps. Restrictions? Yes (1)

hacksoncode (239847) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547816)

It's an interesting theory, but most people here seem to be ignoring the largest cost of this: time.

At an average of 1 minute per email per person, with an average cost of $1/minute (including overhead), I could easily see this email causing ~$175,000 in damages. Not huge, on Intel's scale, perhaps, but enough to put a damper on Mr. Hamidi...

Re:Damages? Perhaps. Restrictions? Yes (1)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547863)

Wouldn't the lost productivity of the employees count as damages? If they have 80,000 employees, and it takes each employee 1 minute to read the email, figure out it is trash, and discard it, isn't that 80,000 lost man minutes (1333 man hours)? They made efforts to block his emails, and he tried to get around them to send more emails. I hope intel comes out on top on this one.

Technical vs. legal measures, some thoughts (4, Informative)

Seth Finkelstein (90154) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547554)

This was a pretty intersting message written a while back on the topic, from a mailing-list.

[Disclaimer: Although I'm posting a message written by Michael Sims, this has nothing to do with What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com] . I thought this was an very insightful message on the topic, and I'm big enough to say so]

From: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com>
Subject: Re: Intel v. Hamidi
Date: 30 Apr 1999 16:32:24 -0000

Mike Godwin wrote:
> Isn't it trivial for Intel to block Hamidi?

No. It isn't, and that's the crux of the matter. China has been trying for several years now to suppress email messages from dissidents in the U.S. China has absolute technical control over the routers into the country and a willingness to use it. China is willing to incarcerate anyone they can get their hands on who aids this process. China has failed to stop the flow of email messages, or even temper it. Intel is obviously more realistic about its odds of stopping Hamidi with technical means than Godwin is.

Godwin would prefer (in his usual abrasive fashion) to simply insist that technical solutions are the be-all and end-all, and no dissent will be tolerated. Trespassing should not be a crime - after all, anyone can build a 30-foot wall with razor wire around their property, which is certainly more effective than the legal system in preventing trespass.

If anyone wants an interesting thought to chew upon, try this one. More and more military members have email access through the military, which is often their only electronic contact, and definitely their only free contact with the outside world. What if the U.S. military desired to prevent some persons from sending mail to military members at their military addresses, either because it was frivolous, or spam, or deemed a threat to morale ("Ban the Bomb!"), or what-have-you... Keep in mind that the military has a firm commitment to delivering snail-mail to its members, anytime, anywhere, which is generally to a military unit address as well.

Any thoughts? I can definitely see future electronic activists emailing 5,000 people on the carrier U.S.S. America, telling them to stop bombing whoever it may be that we're bombing that particular day. Obviously this might annoy the military. What recourse do they have, if any? Technical solutions are obvious but not particularly effective, especially since the mailer gets infinite no-cost tries to get through. What could they do, legally?

-- Michael Sims

Re:Technical vs. legal measures, some thoughts (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547579)

What if the U.S. military desired to prevent some persons from sending mail to military members at their military addresses, either because it was frivolous, or spam, or deemed a threat to morale ("Ban the Bomb!"), or what-have-you... Keep in mind that the military has a firm commitment to delivering snail-mail to its members, anytime, anywhere, which is generally to a military unit address as well.

Mail to units in sensitive/classified etc. missions or locations goes through military censors, including e-mail.

Love or hate? You can't have it both ways (-1)

beee (98582) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547597)

Listen, Seth, you can't go around running a webpage dedicated to hate-mongering Mr. Sims and then simultaneously post his "insightful" views for others to read. You can't claim to be his #1 enemy and then shamelessly use his writing for karma.

If you ask me, Michael Sims is an Internet visionary -- anyone who's read his views on Censorware and the like knows that he was miles ahead of anything censorware.org could ever hope to accomplish. However, I still wouldn't stoop as low as copy-and-pasting his insightful comments for karma points.

Stop flip-flopping, it'd make your argument against him a lot more credible. No wonder he shut censorware.org, if he had to deal with this kind of crap.

Re:Technical vs. legal measures, some thoughts (2, Informative)

joshki (152061) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547621)

;) They'd have a hard time emailing anybody on the America... I think their servers have been down for about 6 years (the ship was decommissioned in 1996 or so)....

Seriously, though, email in the military is most definitely NOT a free, unregulated contact to the outside world. It is highly regulated, monitored, and can be cut off at the slightest sign of any problem. I would think a situation such as you discuss would qualify for these kinds of measures. And one other thing -- snail mail in the military is not necessarily free either. Any communications leaving or coming to a military unit can be monitored.

Re:Technical vs. legal measures, some thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547755)

Hey, look, it's that psycho Seth F again.

Hey Seth, time to log off, man, get a life.

I'm surprised... (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547565)

I'm quite surprised that the Slashdot community isn't more excited about this... seems to me that, if Intel wins, this really opens the door for ISPs to sue spamming outfits.

I know a lot of spammers are hard to track down, but others aren't - especially the ones that give phone/fax/physical addresses in the spam.

Email is a COMPANY resource (4, Insightful)

backtick (2376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547569)

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.

slave? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547575)

chattel (chtl)
n.

1.Law. An article of movable personal roperty.
2.A slave.

trojan horses (1)

trelaneopn (563678) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547576)

I have to side with intel in this, and here is why. If it's found that "no real damage" = no case, then trojan horses, if used only to snoop around a system, passive packet sniffing and capturing, and other such activities that compromise privacy of our systems, but do no actual damage TO those systems will be legal, although we'd like to think people can use whatever resources they want, I run a secure linux box for a reason, and for the others that do the same, think about why you do.

Re:trojan horses (1)

MrRudeDude (450053) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547672)

I think the law can draw a distinction between cladestine activity and direct communication with someone, which is by definition overt.

I think that our society has an interest in allowing the disgruntled, even when they are kooks like this guy, to communicate. I see no benefit in setting a precedent that big companies are allowed to sue people who send email critical of them. If the Intel persued every spammer who sent much more spam than that at their systems, I'd consider giving them the benefit of the doubt, but it seems clear that this kook is in court because of the content of his email.

If I sent 29,000 emails to Intel employees claiming AMD sucked in my benchmarks, you can bet they wouldn't be suing me.

Better uses for a 'trespass' law (1)

GoatPigSheep (525460) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547582)

Adware, I deffinately see adware as 'misuse of electronic equipment'. It's the equivalent of buying a product and having a camara hidden in it spying on your daily activity.

"Cookoo's Egg" (2)

GMontag (42283) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547583)

Sounds like this shares legal elements from Cliff Stohl's book "Cookoo's Egg".

There were little or no monitary damages, but the FBI refused to persue it at first because of ploicy, i.e., the damages were less than $1,000,000 even though the activity was still illegal.

The cases detract from each other, since Intel obviously wanted *some* e-mail and Stohl wanted *no* tresspassers, but stil I think Intel is in the right on this one and seems to have lawyers that even allpied something *applicable* to the case.

Much better than the DoJ inventing damages to prosicute Kevin Mitnick, even though he did plenty of chargable (but not as headline worthy as "hacking") acts/offenses/etc.

Other consequences (3, Insightful)

droleary (47999) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547587)

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:Other consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547624)

Further, the laws don't stop the abuse, they just make it illegal.

That's like saying that making homocide a felony doesn't stop murders from occuring, it just makes them illegal. Should we then eliminate the laws on the books simply because they don't stop a particular behavior?

Further, the "access to chattel" isn't quite as obscure as one may be lead to believe. For those who remember such things, that was how AOL and Earthlink won cases against Spamford Wallace.

To sue someone, you have to claim actual damages (2, Informative)

squarooticus (5092) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547589)

I've found that civil courts are greatly misunderstood by most Americans. If you can't prove that you were actually damaged by the other party, you won't be awarded any damages.

Most confusion regarding civil courts revolves around two points:

  1. In general, laws have little to do with civil courts. Civil court judgments are generally based on precedent. Laws that apply to civil courts are generally to limit or regulate penalties.

  2. Civil courts only have to show a "preponderance of evidence," as opposed to "clear and convincing" or "beyond a reasonable doubt," the latter of which is used in criminal trials. (I am unclear on the exact reason; surely, taking away someone's fundamental civil liberties by putting them in jail should be very hard, but that doesn't mean evidence in civil trials should be weaker.)

    An example of this in action is OJ's criminal acquittal followed by the "wrongful death" judgment against him in civil court. Essentially, he was convicted of murder under a lesser standard of evidence, with a lesser penalty (money to the damaged parties) as well.

Short Answer (2)

cluge (114877) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547600)

Yes.

Quick examples of stuff that could should be ourright outlawed. If I truly were allowed to go after people for this simple legal point I'd go after:

SPAMMERS
unsolicited phone advertisements
Privacy Invading software cladestinely installed on my computer
Bumper Slappers (Especially at election time)
Joy Riders

The list could go on forever.

cluge

Re:Short Answer (2)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547644)

(* If I truly were allowed to go after people for this simple legal point I'd go after: SPAMMERS, unsolicited phone advertisements *)

You probably could and be fairly likely to win if you pursue it all the way. Hoever, nobody bothers.

I say, make the guy pay 4 dollars and 50 cents to cover the equipment usage, and be done with it.

Otherwise, it might be an attack on freedom of speech IMO.

Hamidi is an arsehole. (1, Flamebait)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547604)

Spamming the whole company because you have a grievance is not the way to procede. Furthermore, this guy is an obnoxious whiner of the worst sort.

"Oooh, no-one told me that sticking my hand into a bucket of known toxic chemicals might make me ill! I'm suing!" probably followed by "Oooh, nobody said that sticking my head into a drill press would brain damage me for life... I'm suing again" I shouldn't wonder.

He's a wanker, and a spammer. He should have his legs cut off just to start with.

Re:Hamidi is an arsehole. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547750)

How about just all this fingers ;)

the human factor (2)

AdTropis (6690) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547606)

... a few megabytes of email more or less is a miniscule cost in terms of computer wear and tear, indeed, too small to measure ...

while this is true, it should also be noted that there would a small loss in productivity of those employees receiving e-mail. in monetary terms, this can be quite costly.

i have to say, though, sueing someone over a small amount of mass-emailing seems excesive.

Effect on spammers (1)

Yakko (4996) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547611)

I have to wonder how this will enable ISPs to sue spammers if inhell wins. Maybe in CA, but certainly not in any other state.

Maybe all spammers live in CA? :o)

EXACT trespass reasoning of Appeals Court (4, Informative)

Seth Finkelstein (90154) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547628)

In discussing the case, it's helpful to read the exact reasoning of the appeals court decision [eff.org] , for example:

Hamidi's conduct was trespassory. Even assuming Intel has not demonstrated sufficient "harm" to trigger entitlement to nominal damages for past breaches of decorum by Hamidi, it showed he was disrupting its business by using its property and therefore is entitled to injunctive relief based on a theory of trespass to chattels. Hamidi acknowledges Intel's right to self help and urges Intel could take further steps to fend off his e-mails. He has shown he will try to evade Intel's security. We conceive of no public benefit from this wasteful cat-and-mouse game which justifies depriving Intel of an injunction. (Cf. America Online, Inc. v. Nat. Health Care Discount, Inc. (N.D. Iowa 2000) 121 F.Supp.2d 1255, 1259-1260 [detailing ongoing technological struggle between spammers and system operators].) Even where a company cannot precisely measure the harm caused by an unwelcome intrusion, the fact the intrusion occurs supports a claim for trespass to chattels. (See Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 126 F.Supp.2d 238, 249-250 [applying New York law, based on the Restatement, "evidence of mere possessory interference is sufficient to demonstrate the quantum of harm necessary to establish a claim for trespass to chattels"].)

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

More than a 'few MB' of email (3, Informative)

backtick (2376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547629)

I just went and checked the court docs: He sent 6 emails to *29,000* employees. None of them signed up for it; he had the lists himself. So, the basic bare ASCII text of the first email was approx 5K, add in headers and such and guess his avergae email size utilized was 10K.

6 * 29,000 * 10 / 1024 / 1024 = 1.65 GB of email.

Now, I ain't counting logs and all that other stuff. I'm sure this isn't a huge amount of email to Intel, but it's a helluva lot more than the story suggests. I think the big thing isn't even the size, but the scope. I mean, *29,000* people got spammed, basically. This wasn't just a few emails!

Re:More than a 'few MB' of email (2)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547663)

(* So, the basic bare ASCII text of the first email was approx 5K, add in headers and such and guess his avergae email size utilized was 10K. *)

5+k for headers? I suppose it depends on how it is sent, but that sounds a bit high.

Also, some email clients compress email.

IOW, your number sounds a bit on the high side to me.

Re:More than a 'few MB' of email (2)

billn (5184) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547702)

Obviously you haven't seen all the cool extensions things like Outlook apply to the header space for things like layout and font control. I can hold 2000 emails in a standard unix mailbox where an Outlook server would store 100. (You pedantic types can eat me, it's a rough estimate, however true.)

Am I the only one...? (3, Funny)

Rui del-Negro (531098) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547633)

For a moment there I thought 'Hamidi' was just a creative way of spelling AMD (with a brazilian accent, perhaps):

1. The case between Intel and AMD has also been going on for some years.

2. AMD was also started by an ex-Intel guy with a grievance against the company.

The part that finally made me realise we weren't talking about AMD was this:

[...] in real-dollar terms, Intel has suffered very little.

RMN
~~~

"Designed use" (5, Insightful)

mlknowle (175506) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547643)

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!

Re:"Designed use" (3, Informative)

backtick (2376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547654)

He sent six emails; five of these were sent after being told explicitly by Intel to cease. He explained to the court he would continue to evade Intel's attempts to block him from sending email. So the courts ruled against him in no uncertain terms. He wasn't taken to court for the first one, but rather for the second one.

Th other factor you even mentioned above: "when they use a public facility as it is designed to be used". Intel's mail system was designed as a method for people to communicate w/ Intel employees for business purposes. This was not a business purpose. Again, the system is being abused after first notice of a cease and desist request.

Re:"Designed use" (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547671)

That's a valid point. Another issue with real property (realty) is right-of-way. If you don't enforce your property rights, you can be barred from enforcing them. If, for example, everyone in the neighborhood takes a shortcut through your backyard (ithout your explicit permission), after a statutory amount of time (10+ years usually), it becomes a right-of-way, and you can't put up a fence on your own property to keep them out.

If Intel didn't try to assert their rights here, they could be barred sometime in the future from trying to stop spammers, etc. I don't know or care about the beef of Intel & Hamidi, but I believe Intel (and everyone) has the right to make assertions on their property.

Wait... (1)

Mockery (170888) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547659)

So let me get this right... Intel wants to make it so if your computer passes information that you don't like, you not only have the right to block it (that I don't have an immediate problem with), but you also have the right to sue whoever sent it?
I can see some interesting side effects of this:

If [Insert 3rd party service provider of your choice] could then sue (Not just block or censor, this is an important distinction) someone if that person is using said service to traffic in [Insert information which the 3rd party dislikes], since it qualifies as "trespass to chattels."

How about a specific example...

Microsoft could then sue someone if that person is using Hotmail to send or receive emails relating to open source.

Disclaimer:
IANAL, and I hope I missed something... This scares me.

I may be wrong, but... (3, Informative)

sasha328 (203458) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547675)

A while ago I read something along the lines that Hamidi was able to connect to the Intel network and send his emails from there. (my memory may be failing me) I think that that that is what Intl is alleging he has done when they say "tampering". I do not thing it is about spamming.

Court on spam versus "a few unwanted e-mails" (1, Troll)

Seth Finkelstein (90154) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547681)

Again, many of the issues being discussed in these threads have been addressed in the appeals court decision [eff.org] . Regarding the idea of using email as it was intended, this is very relevant:
(emphasis added below)

Hamidi insists Intel's act of connecting itself (and thus, its employees) to the Internet and giving its employees e-mail addresses makes Intel's e-mails a public forum. By the same reasoning, connecting one's realty to the general system of roads invites demonstrators to use the property as a public forum and buying a telephone is an invitation to receive thousands of unwanted calls. That is not the law. (CompuServe, supra, 962 F.Supp. at p. 1024; Cyber Promotions, supra, 948 F.Supp. at p. 442.) Intel is as much entitled to control its e-mail system as it is to guard its factories and hallways. No citizen has the general right to enter a private business and pester an employee trying to work. It may be a few unwanted e-mails would not be sufficient to trigger a court's equity powers. Indeed, such may be an inevitable, though regrettable, fact of modern life, like unwelcome junk mail and telephone solicitations. (See Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. Apex Global Information Svcs., Inc. (E.D.Pa. 1997) 1997 WL 634384, p. *3 [bulk e-mail "annoying and intrusive"].) However, the massive size of Hamidi's campaign caused Intel much trouble , not the least of which was caused by the lost time of each employee who had to read or delete an unwanted message, either out of fear of a virus or a lack of desire to communicate with Hamidi. As we pointed out in another case, "When a camel's back is broken we need not weigh each straw in its load to see which one could have done the deed." (Woodland Joint Unified School Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1457.)

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

How is this Illegal? (1)

Nintendork (411169) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547689)


Email is a communications system. Yes, there are company resources involved, but there are also company resources involved in snail mail making the two no different on the topic of resources. Every person he sent the email to was an Intel employee and he had a message to deliver to Intel employees. There was an in-life relationship between him and his ex-coworkers. Maybe he didn't know every employee personally, but they all worked for the same company which was the subject of his message. This is much more personal than SPAM and the two should not be related.

What if he sent a snail mail to each employee at the companies address? They would probably try to trash all his letters, but he probably would have been protected by government laws (Any lawyers out there to confirm this?). Until laws on electronic communication are comfortably in place (in another 50 years), it will be abused by spammers as well as big corporations.

I'm sure you all understand how spammers abuse the system, but let me clarify my opinion on how Intel is attempting to abuse the system in this case. When Intel realized they were powerless to silence an enemy, they tried to attach their qualms to early, irrational laws. These are laws that our not so technical government have derived in our technical youth. In effect, companies such as Intel, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, etc. (and spammers) are exploiting a hole in our government. Historically, the judicial system is way too slow because it has to be sure of its decisions.

In the meantime, we need God to take control of The Rock's body so he can visit all these greedy bastards and straighten it all out. :)

offtopic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547705)

x-files just ended for the east coast, spoiler should be posted to slashdot within the hour.

Re:offtopic (1)

Nintendork (411169) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547746)

Dude, it took less time than that. Also, I think it should be a rule that those with the subject offtopic with something slashdot worthy to say should not get modded down. :)

those who email their complaints beware (1)

bitpusherdotorg (544243) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547738)

I worked for about a year as a System Administrator in a small web design and software firm in lower Manhattan (half of our company was canned in the wake of the attack on the WTC).

About halfway through my term of employment with the firm, a disgruntled coworker of mine attempted to organize an meeting between the management and the employees, as well as a few former clients that they had dealt with (!) This person took it upon themselves to send out a mass email to everyone.

Needless to say, less than 15 minutes went by before the guy was fired and sent home, so kids next time you think about airing your beef on the wire, think twice if you value your employment.

I hope he looses. (5, Interesting)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547759)

He spammed. 29,000 x 6 = 174,000 unrequested emails. If he wanted to raise employee awareness of something, he went about it the wrong way.
He should have posted his grievances on the www and let people who were interested find them, not spam them.
Granted, Intel would have sued him regardless and he'd still be in the shithouse, but he would have been in the right.
If he did the same thing today, couldn't he be sued under anti-spam laws in some states?

Intel truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547833)

May 2002

The Truth At the Mount Weatehr Complex at Bluemont, Virginia, a helicopter lands. Several men in suits exit the helicopter, including Fox Mulder. The men board a bus that takes them through a doorway into an underground complex. Inside, US Marine Corps officers meet them, but Mulder slips away. Using an electronic key card, he penetrates deeper and deeper into secure areas. In one room he activates a computer console and enters a password. The screen shows the text "December 22, 2012...Date for the mobilization of alien....." Knowel Rorer enters the chamber and finds the computer that Mulder was using. Mulder jumps him and they struggle, but Mulder breaks away and runs. At the end of a hallway, a figure opens a door, letting Mulder through, then locks it so Rorer can't get through. the figure is Alex Krycek. "No -- you're dead," says Mulder. Alarms sound and Mulder runs on. He is trapped on a catwalk and Rorer approaches him. They struggle again and Mulder manages to flip Rorer over a catwalk railing. Rorer falls several stories to electrical cables below and is electrocuted. As Mulder pulls himself back up onto the catwalk, Marine guards have their guns on him.

Mulder is in solitary confinement where is being brainwashed. He is abused and kept from sleeping by uniformed troops. They eventually get him to say that he entered the government facility illegally to find something that wasn't there and that he deserves the harshest punishment for his crime. Scully and Skinner enter the Marine Corps brig. They don't know how long Mulder has been there, but he is being held for the murder of a military man. When they enter his cell, watched by a Marine guard, Mulder is unemotional and it seems that the brainwashing has worked. He says they are treating him well and he is clear about the crimes he has committed. Scully is confused by his reactions. After Scully and Skinner leave, Krycek appears in Mulder's cell.

Doggett and Reyes talk with Scully and Skinner. Mulder is accused of killing Rorer, but Doggett saw Rorer killed earlier. They know that Rorer is a supersoldier and cannot really be killed. They won't be able to produce the body. Scully leaves the room, to beg for mercy with "the man upstairs." Kersh talks with a Marine Corps general. The general will allow the FBI to give Mulder a hearing in a military tribunal, but the general wants a guilty verdict. Mulder is a crusader but a lot of people don't like crusaders. Kersh reluctantly agrees. Scully and Skinner return to Mulder's cell. There is no guard present this time and Mulder makes a Hannibal Lector joke. Mulder says he has to put on an act because of what they do to him if he doesn't. Mulder and Scully engage in a long hug and an extended kiss. Skinner then tells Mulder that he is in big trouble. Mulder wants Skinner to represent him and says that they can't try him without exposing themselves. Doggett and Reyes enter and say that they have identified where Rorer's body is being held, at Fort Marlene. Later, Scully returns to Mulder's cell. She needs him to confide in her or they will lose. Mulder thinks he can't win. Scully is scared, but Mulder says he knows what he is doing. Skinner told him about William being given up for adoption. Scully is afraid Mulder will never forgive her, but he says he knows she had no chance. He has been in New Mexico, looking for the truth. When Scully asks what he found, Mulder smiles and says he cannot tell her.

The military tribunal is ready to begin in a spartan hearing room. The prosecutor is an FBI lawyer. The five judges are FBI executives. Kersh presides. The prosecutor will call no witnesses, but introduces the sworn statements of 30 scientists who witnessed Mulder killing Rorer. Skinner moves for dismissal or delay because he can't find his key witness, Marita Covarubius, but Kersh tells him that it is a military tribunal and he must proceed. Scully testifies first. As a scientist she came to believe in extra-terrestrial life and in a government conspiracy to hide the fact from the public. She believes that life came to Earth millions of years ago in a meteor from Mars, and along with it came an alien virus. It infected life on Earth, but that life died in the last ice age. The virus lay dormant in underground oil reservoirs. It resurfaced in contemporary times and signaled to other aliens who crashed at Roswell in 1947. The government captured aliens, obtained alien technology, and learned of alien plans to retake planet Earth. She also describes how she was abducted in 1994 by the military for experiments. The prosecutor demonstrates that Scully has no proof and accuses that she and Mulder were lovers and that she got pregnant and had Mulder's love child. Scully has no good response to that accusation.

Skinner calls Jeffrey Spender who testifies that his father led the conspiracy to hide the existence of extraterrestrials. Spender and Mulder are half brothers. He describes how Bill Mulder was killed and how Samantha was abducted and experimented on. Spender didn't know of his father's crimes when he went to work for the FBI. The prosecutor counters with Spender's FBI written reports about Mulder, which are not complimentary. In Weed Hope, NM, a Native American youth rides his motorcycle up to a shack. Gibson Praise is inside. They have learned about Mulder. Gisbon will get ready to leave. Scully enters Mulder's cell. She wants Mulder to make a plea bargain but he refuses. This is about the truth. Scully then urges Mulder to take the stand and testify, but he refuses. Scully is not just fighting for Mulder - she is fighting for the two of them, i.e, their relationship. After she leaves, X appears in Mulder's cell. X asks what Mulder is doing and Mulder says he is putting the truth on trial. X says "they" have too much power to be afraid. He gives Mulder a piece of paper with Marita's address written on it. Doggett, meanwhile, is at home on the phone to Fort Marlene, trying to track down the Rorer's body, but he is getting the run-around. Reyes, also there, tells him that somebody is outside. They draw guns and discover that it is the Native American youth. He didn't want to endanger "him," meaning Gibson.

Marita takes the stand. Her former position with the United Nations allowed her to further the interests of the conspirators, who called themselves The Syndicate. They were working to develop a vaccine against the alien virus, tracking subjects in the human population through their vaccination scars. She saw people in Russia actually amputate their arms to keep from being tracked. She came to hate the Syndicate but was found out and made a test subject. The Syndicate was trying to save only themselves but a group of renegade aliens who avoided infection by self-mutilation destroyed the conspirators. She resisted testifying before the tribunal because the conspiracy continues, conducted by others. The supersoldiers, like Rorer, are alien replacements. Krycek appears to Mulder, but nobody else in the room can see him. Krycek tells Mulder that "they" will kill Marita if she testifies further. Mulder insists that Skinner dismiss Marita, just as Skinner is beginning to press her for more details on the identity of the supersoldiers. Doggett enters the tribunal room and confers with Skinner, telling him that Gibson Praise is there to testify. Gibson testifies that he has been hiding Mulder in the desert for the last year. Gibson asserts that he can read minds. He looks around the room, reading the minds of everyone there. He says that one of the judges is an alien. Mulder jumps up, shouting that he wants the judge examined. Mulder struggles and is forcibly removed from the room. (End of the first hour of this two-hour episode.)

Marine guards deliver Mulder to a conference room to talk with Doggett, Reyes and Skinner. Gibson is with Scully and is safe. Gibson feels that three of the judges are wavering. They encourage Mulder to testify. When he again declines, Doggett and Reyes say they will testify. Doggett goes first. He testifies about the supersoldiers and says that Rorer was one of them. Mulder couldn't have killed him because the only way to do that is with a rare metal, magnetite. On cross examination, the prosecutor points out that it is the basis of Mulder's case tat these supersoldiers are aliens. Doggett is unable to swear that he believes that the supersoldiers are aliens. Reyes testifies. She describes how Scully was surrounded by aliens as she was giving birth, including one that was shot at point blank range but didn't die. Scully was one of many women who were used as surrogates. The child was important to the supersoldiers because of his powers. William, of course, cannot be produced to demonstrate these powers. When the prosecutor dismisses Reyes, she offers an outburst - what is the point here? To find the truth or to destroy the truth so nobody can find it? She looks directly at Kersh and says, "either way, you lose."

That night, Doggett and Reyes rush up to Scully's apartment. Doggett finally found somebody at Fort Marlene who didn't know he was supposed to give Doggett the run-around. The alleged body of Rorer has been moved to Quantico and Scully needs to examine it. Doggett will stay with Gibson. Scully and Reyes go to Quantico where they see the burned body. Scully sands Reyes to get Rorer's military medical records. Scully goes to the tribunal and testifies that based on her tests, the body isn't Rorer. Kersh orders her removed from the tribunal because she examined the body without authority. The room erupts and Kersh shouts that the trial is adjourned. Later, the five judges reenter the room. They have a verdict - guilty of first-degree murder. Mulder is allowed to speak before the sentence is passed. He congratulates them on succeeding where so many others have failed. Liars do not fear the truth if there are enough liars. No one lie can be buried forever. As much as they try to bury it, the truth is out there. Mulder sees the spirits of Krycek and X standing behind the judges as he speaks. Mulder tells the judges that they are getting rid of their headache, but only at the expense of cutting off their own heads. Scully, Doggett and Reyes wait at Scully's apartment for the news. Skinner phones. The sentence is death by lethal injection. Scully cries.

Rorer drives up to the Marine Corps brig and is admitted. Doggett and Skinner enter Mulder's cell - they are breaking him out. Skinner has keys and they run through the hallways. Rorer enters Mulder's cell, and finds him missing. The alarm is sounded. As the three fugitives try to escape, the meet Kersh who tells them that they will never get out the way they are trying. Kersh says he is doing what he should have done all along. He helps them get through a cut in the chain link fence of the Marine base and into a waiting vehicle. They drive to where Scully, Reyes and Gibson ware waiting with another vehicle. Kersh tells them to drive north to Canada and get an airplane. They must get off the continent to be safe. Mulder and Scully drive off, but Mulder heads south. He is going to see a man about the truth. Doggett and Reyes take Gibson to the X-Files office, but the file cabinets and furniture have been removed. Skinner knows and he is trying to get to the bottom of it. They all go the Kersh's office and are met at the door by an agent previously shown to be a supersoldier. Only Skinner is allowed to enter. Gibson says that the agent knows where Mulder and Scully are going and "they" are going to kill them.

Mulder and Scully are on the Texas-New Mexico border. Mulder stops the car, kissing Scully as she sleeps. He gets out of the car to urinate. The spirits of the Lone Gunmen greet him. They ask him why he would risk perfect happiness. Mulder needs to know if he can change the truth. He gets back into the car and drives on. Mulder and Scully arrive at an ancient Anasazi pueblo. They see smoke from a fire - someone is living on an upper level of the pueblo. Mulder and Scully climb the ladders. A Navajo woman is cooking. Mulder says he was sent a message and a key to the Marine facility by a wise man who lives in the ruins - the Keeper of the Truth. Doggett and Reyes are in a helicopter, flying across the desert, looking for Mulder and Scully. Mulder and Scully are ushered into the presence of the wise man - it is the Cigarette Smoking Man, with long gray hair and still with a tracheotomy device in his throat. He says that Mulder now knows the truth, which he found in the Marine base, but Mulder refuses to speak it, even though it could save his life. Indian wise men hid in this pueblo as their own culture was destroyed by the aliens. The pueblo contains magnetite, which makes it safe against the aliens. Those wise men were the first "shadow government." The Cigarette Smoking Man wants to tell Scully his story - a story that has terrified every President since Truman. The Mayans were so afraid that their calendar stops on the date of the final alien invasion, December 22, 2012. Mulder saw the date at Mount Weather where our own secret government will be hiding when the invasion happens. The Cigarette Smoking Man protected Mulder all those years, waiting for this final moment. Broken and afraid, now you can die, the Smoking Man says.

As two black helicopters fly through desert canyons, Doggett and Reyes are dropped off from their own helicopter. As they approach the pueblo, Rorer drives up in another vehicle. He approaches them and Doggett fires at him. Rorer is not affected by the gunshot to the chest, but as he continues forward, the magnetite affects him. He zooms into the rock and explodes with a puff of dust. Doggett and Reyes run on and meet Mulder and Scully, running out of the pueblo. They know you are here and you have to get out, Doggett tells them. Mulder and Scully won't get into their own vehicle, but grab Rorer's and drive off. Doggett and Reyes leave in Mulder and Scully's original vehicle. The black helicopters arrive and use rockets to destroy the pueblo. One rocket impacts directly on the room where the Smoking Man sits, exploding the chamber in a ball of flame.

In Roswell, New Mexico, Mulder and Scully are in a motel room. It isn't said, but the implication is that the government thinks they are dead, killed at the pueblo. Scully, in a bathrobe, is on the bed. Mulder sits on the floor. Mulder recalls sitting in a motel room like this when they first met. He wanted to convince her of the truth and he eventually did, but he has been chasing after monsters with a butterfly net. He didn't tell her what he had learned because he didn't want to accept defeat. He was afraid it would crush her spirit. She asks why she would accept it if he won't. You only fail if you give up and Scully knows Mulder won't give up, even now. If this is the truth he has been looking for, what else is to believe, she asks. He replies that he wants to believe that the dead are not lost to us, and if we listen to them they can give us the power to save ourselves. Scully says, "we believe the same thing." Mulder moves to the bed and they hold each other. "Maybe there's hope," he says as the episode and the TV series ends.

Get Over It!!! (1)

dark&stormynight (69479) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547834)

I think it's time for Mr. Hamidi to get over this and move on to more productive life goals.

Where could this go? (5, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 12 years ago | (#3547895)

Okay first of all, having an email server is very much like having an actual mailbox. People can send you mail without fear of prosecution unless there are other circumstances surrounding them.

If you run an email server, expect to recieve email. It's that simple.

Now then, if measures to block unwelcome email are put into place and those measures are intentionally avoided through indirection or otherwise subversive means, it implies that the sender has fore-knowledge that his emails are unwelcome and is acting against the will of the email recipient.

I don't see how this conflicts at all with the current position most people have on SPAM.

This guy has reportedly circumvented attempts to block him and so the question is whether or not that was intentional. Did he follow accepted email practices and represent himself honestly? If not, I would consider it a form of trespass just as I consider spamming a form of inappropriate use of my mail server for their advertisements. (If any spammer wants to purchase space on my email server, he is welcome to negotiate a deal of course, but my server is not FREE.)

So this guy feels the need to pass along the information he has gathered to people who might suffer the same problems he has experienced. It should be his right and should be guaranteed and preserved. But that doesn't give him the right to bring his material into the offices of the people he wants to educate... either in person or electronically.

If he knows their non-intel email addresses, I wouldn't see any problem at all. If he wants to stand on the street outside of Intel's buildings handing out flyers; again, no problem!

I don't want to see this guy lose, but at the same time, the consequences of him winning on this particular matter could hurt the internet community and that would suck. If Intel wins, it could actually be a better win for all of us who oppose SPAM.

Well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3547921)

If it's my fucking computer! Jezuz people. It's not that tough of a question. If I pay someone to do a job and he goes and uses my MY computer against my policies then his ass is toast!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>