Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Court refuses to block a disgruntled ex-worker from bombarding Intel'scomputers ...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Court refuses to block a disgruntled ex-worker from bombarding Intel'scomputers ...




    Court refuses to block a disgruntled ex-worker from
    bombarding Intel's computers with thousands of
    electronic messages

    Putting a crimp in corporate efforts to police internal
    e-mail systems, a deeply divided California Supreme Court on
    Monday refused to allow Intel to block a disgruntled
    ex-worker from bombarding its computers with thousands of
    electronic messages critical of the chip giant's labor practices.

    The Supreme Court broke new ground in Internet law by
    rejecting Intel's argument that it should have broad powers
    to exclude unwanted e-mail from its own computer systems,
    thus siding with ex-Intel employee Ken Hamidi in his
    long-running feud with one of Silicon Valley's most powerful
    businesses. The justices voted 4-3 to overturn lower court
    rulings, concluding that even in the age of relentless spam,
    there are limits on what a company can do to control what
    flows into its electronic property.

    The ruling is unlikely to hamper efforts to curtail spam
    that peddles products because state laws address the subject
    and commercial speech enjoys less First Amendment protection
    than individual messages. But legal experts say the Intel
    decision places limits on applying traditional property
    rights to the digital age, forcing companies to overcome
    major free-speech hurdles if they want to freeze the
    mouse-clicking of message-senders like Hamidi.

    The Supreme Court, noting Intel's desire to muzzle unwanted
    individual speech directed at its employees, found that the
    company simply failed to prove that Hamidi's e-mail messages
    harmed its property.

    "He no more invaded Intel's property than does a protester
    holding a sign or shouting through a bullhorn outside
    corporate headquarters," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar
    wrote for the majority.

    In dissent, three justices warned that the ruling ignores
    the realities of the computer era and a company's right to
    control its property.

    "His action," the dissenting justices wrote, "is more like
    intruding into a private office mailroom, commandeering the
    mail cart and dropping off unwanted broadsides on 30,000 desks."

    Hamidi, now an employee with the state Franchise Tax Board
    in Sacramento, was "elated" by the ruling, saying if time
    permits, Intel employees may arrive to work this morning to
    a fresh batch of e-mails.

    "I'm going to use that freedom to the max," said Hamidi, 56.
    "My intention was not to harm - my intention was to relay
    information people could benefit from."

    Intel, meanwhile, is reviewing its legal options, weighing
    what it might do if Hamidi resumes his e-mail campaign and
    whether it can appeal the decision's huge business and
    free-speech implications to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    "We've never contested Hamidi's right to express his views,"
    said Intel spokesman Chuck Molloy. "What we've always said
    is what this is about is Intel's property."

    The legal dispute between Hamidi and Intel spilled into
    court in 1998, when he tested the limits of e-mail freedom
    by firing off anti-Intel messages to as many as 30,000 of
    the company's employees. Hamidi and Intel had already been
    sparring for years over his 1995 firing and a
    worker's-compensation conflict.

    Intel struck back with a lawsuit, obtaining an injunction
    barring Hamidi from sending any more e-mail to Intel. A
    state appeals court upheld the injunction two years ago, but
    the Supreme Court overturned that ruling Monday. Throughout
    the court case, Hamidi has remained a thorn in Intel's side,
    setting up an anti-Intel Web site and at one point arriving
    on horseback to deliver a bushel of printed e-mails to the
    company's Santa Clara headquarters.

    Intel's lawsuit rested on an age-old legal theory known as
    "trespass to chattels," which has governed private property
    rights for centuries. Courts have consistently held that
    property owners must prove they were harmed in order to
    establish a "trespass" on their rights, and that is where
    Intel got tripped up in the Supreme Court.

    Intel maintained that Hamidi's e-mail harmed the company by
    flooding its servers with unwanted and distracting
    information. But the justices disagreed, noting that Intel
    could pursue other legal remedies against unwanted speech,
    such as suing for defamation or injury to its ability to
    conduct business. The justices also suggested the
    Legislature could fix the problem.

    Free-speech advocates say the court set a crucial First
    Amendment balancing test. Mark Lemley, a law professor at
    University of California-Berkeley's Boalt Hall and a
    cyberlaw expert, said Internet service providers will still
    be able to stop spam that shuts down computer systems. But
    he said companies won't be able to use trespass laws "as a
    competitive weapon or a way to stop speech."

    Added American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ann Brick, who
    supported Hamidi's position in the case, "They tried to use
    the power of the courts to shut him up. To the extent people
    try to interfere with the communication of information, it
    is going to be much harder to do."

    The business community, however, expressed alarm at the
    ruling. Intel was backed in the case by a host of leading
    business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
    Intel's supporters have insisted a private company should be
    able to filter what it wants from its computer system.

    "I'm dumbfounded," said Richard Epstein, a University of
    Chicago law professor who wrote a brief in Intel's defense.
    "In an age in which spam is understood to be a terrible
    problem, why this type of message is regarded as less
    important just baffles the mind."

    www.jewishworldreview.com/0703/e-bombarding.asp

  • #2
    Court refuses to block a disgruntled ex-worker from bombarding Intel's computers ...

    Whats the big deal, block the ******. Or better still, send every
    messgae back to him, after his ISP crashes several times he won't be
    able to get an account.



    On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:12:27 -0400, Pulver <[email protected]> wrote:
    Court refuses to block a disgruntled ex-worker frombombarding Intel's computers with thousands ofelectronic messagesPutting a crimp in corporate efforts to police internale-mail systems, a deeply divided California Supreme Court onMonday refused to allow Intel to block a disgruntledex-worker from bombarding its computers with thousands ofelectronic messages critical of the chip giant's labor practices.The Supreme Court broke new ground in Internet law byrejecting Intel's argument that it should have broad powersto exclude unwanted e-mail from its own computer systems,thus siding with ex-Intel employee Ken Hamidi in hislong-running feud with one of Silicon Valley's most powerfulbusinesses. The justices voted 4-3 to overturn lower courtrulings, concluding that even in the age of relentless spam,there are limits on what a company can do to control whatflows into its electronic property.The ruling is unlikely to hamper efforts to curtail spamthat peddles products because state laws address the subjectand commercial speech enjoys less First Amendment protectionthan individual messages. But legal experts say the Inteldecision places limits on applying traditional propertyrights to the digital age, forcing companies to overcomemajor free-speech hurdles if they want to freeze themouse-clicking of message-senders like Hamidi.The Supreme Court, noting Intel's desire to muzzle unwantedindividual speech directed at its employees, found that thecompany simply failed to prove that Hamidi's e-mail messagesharmed its property."He no more invaded Intel's property than does a protesterholding a sign or shouting through a bullhorn outsidecorporate headquarters," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegarwrote for the majority.In dissent, three justices warned that the ruling ignoresthe realities of the computer era and a company's right tocontrol its property."His action," the dissenting justices wrote, "is more likeintruding into a private office mailroom, commandeering themail cart and dropping off unwanted broadsides on 30,000 desks."Hamidi, now an employee with the state Franchise Tax Boardin Sacramento, was "elated" by the ruling, saying if timepermits, Intel employees may arrive to work this morning toa fresh batch of e-mails."I'm going to use that freedom to the max," said Hamidi, 56."My intention was not to harm - my intention was to relayinformation people could benefit from."Intel, meanwhile, is reviewing its legal options, weighingwhat it might do if Hamidi resumes his e-mail campaign andwhether it can appeal the decision's huge business andfree-speech implications to the U.S. Supreme Court."We've never contested Hamidi's right to express his views,"said Intel spokesman Chuck Molloy. "What we've always saidis what this is about is Intel's property."The legal dispute between Hamidi and Intel spilled intocourt in 1998, when he tested the limits of e-mail freedomby firing off anti-Intel messages to as many as 30,000 ofthe company's employees. Hamidi and Intel had already beensparring for years over his 1995 firing and aworker's-compensation conflict.Intel struck back with a lawsuit, obtaining an injunctionbarring Hamidi from sending any more e-mail to Intel. Astate appeals court upheld the injunction two years ago, butthe Supreme Court overturned that ruling Monday. Throughoutthe court case, Hamidi has remained a thorn in Intel's side,setting up an anti-Intel Web site and at one point arrivingon horseback to deliver a bushel of printed e-mails to thecompany's Santa Clara headquarters.Intel's lawsuit rested on an age-old legal theory known as"trespass to chattels," which has governed private propertyrights for centuries. Courts have consistently held thatproperty owners must prove they were harmed in order toestablish a "trespass" on their rights, and that is whereIntel got tripped up in the Supreme Court.Intel maintained that Hamidi's e-mail harmed the company byflooding its servers with unwanted and distractinginformation. But the justices disagreed, noting that Intelcould pursue other legal remedies against unwanted speech,such as suing for defamation or injury to its ability toconduct business. The justices also suggested theLegislature could fix the problem.Free-speech advocates say the court set a crucial FirstAmendment balancing test. Mark Lemley, a law professor atUniversity of California-Berkeley's Boalt Hall and acyberlaw expert, said Internet service providers will stillbe able to stop spam that shuts down computer systems. Buthe said companies won't be able to use trespass laws "as acompetitive weapon or a way to stop speech."Added American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ann Brick, whosupported Hamidi's position in the case, "They tried to usethe power of the courts to shut him up. To the extent peopletry to interfere with the communication of information, itis going to be much harder to do."The business community, however, expressed alarm at theruling. Intel was backed in the case by a host of leadingbusiness groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Intel's supporters have insisted a private company should beable to filter what it wants from its computer system."I'm dumbfounded," said Richard Epstein, a University ofChicago law professor who wrote a brief in Intel's defense."In an age in which spam is understood to be a terribleproblem, why this type of message is regarded as lessimportant just baffles the mind."www.jewishworldreview.com/0703/e-bombarding.asp

    Comment


    • #3
      Court refuses to block a disgruntled ex-worker from bombarding Intel's computers ...

      On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:55:31 GMT, EliotNess'sGhost <[email protected]> wrote:
      Whats the big deal, block the ******. Or better still, send every messgae back to him, after his ISP crashes several times he won't be able to get an account.
      I think any such activity designed to crash the ISP would get Intel sued by
      the ISP and possibly prosecuted criminally. Blocking would be the best bet.

      Isaac

      Comment


      • #4
        Court refuses to block a disgruntled ex-worker from bombardingIntel's computers ...



        EliotNess'sGhost wrote:
        Whats the big deal, block the ******. Or better still, send every messgae back to him, after his ISP crashes several times he won't be able to get an account.
        Typical stupidity from an idiot top poster
        On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:12:27 -0400, Pulver <[email protected]> wrote:
        Court refuses to block a disgruntled ex-worker frombombarding Intel's computers with thousands ofelectronic messagesPutting a crimp in corporate efforts to police internale-mail systems, a deeply divided California Supreme Court onMonday refused to allow Intel to block a disgruntledex-worker from bombarding its computers with thousands ofelectronic messages critical of the chip giant's labor practices.The Supreme Court broke new ground in Internet law byrejecting Intel's argument that it should have broad powersto exclude unwanted e-mail from its own computer systems,thus siding with ex-Intel employee Ken Hamidi in hislong-running feud with one of Silicon Valley's most powerfulbusinesses. The justices voted 4-3 to overturn lower courtrulings, concluding that even in the age of relentless spam,there are limits on what a company can do to control whatflows into its electronic property.The ruling is unlikely to hamper efforts to curtail spamthat peddles products because state laws address the subjectand commercial speech enjoys less First Amendment protectionthan individual messages. But legal experts say the Inteldecision places limits on applying traditional propertyrights to the digital age, forcing companies to overcomemajor free-speech hurdles if they want to freeze themouse-clicking of message-senders like Hamidi.The Supreme Court, noting Intel's desire to muzzle unwantedindividual speech directed at its employees, found that thecompany simply failed to prove that Hamidi's e-mail messagesharmed its property."He no more invaded Intel's property than does a protesterholding a sign or shouting through a bullhorn outsidecorporate headquarters," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegarwrote for the majority.In dissent, three justices warned that the ruling ignoresthe realities of the computer era and a company's right tocontrol its property."His action," the dissenting justices wrote, "is more likeintruding into a private office mailroom, commandeering themail cart and dropping off unwanted broadsides on 30,000 desks."Hamidi, now an employee with the state Franchise Tax Boardin Sacramento, was "elated" by the ruling, saying if timepermits, Intel employees may arrive to work this morning toa fresh batch of e-mails."I'm going to use that freedom to the max," said Hamidi, 56."My intention was not to harm - my intention was to relayinformation people could benefit from."Intel, meanwhile, is reviewing its legal options, weighingwhat it might do if Hamidi resumes his e-mail campaign andwhether it can appeal the decision's huge business andfree-speech implications to the U.S. Supreme Court."We've never contested Hamidi's right to express his views,"said Intel spokesman Chuck Molloy. "What we've always saidis what this is about is Intel's property."The legal dispute between Hamidi and Intel spilled intocourt in 1998, when he tested the limits of e-mail freedomby firing off anti-Intel messages to as many as 30,000 ofthe company's employees. Hamidi and Intel had already beensparring for years over his 1995 firing and aworker's-compensation conflict.Intel struck back with a lawsuit, obtaining an injunctionbarring Hamidi from sending any more e-mail to Intel. Astate appeals court upheld the injunction two years ago, butthe Supreme Court overturned that ruling Monday. Throughoutthe court case, Hamidi has remained a thorn in Intel's side,setting up an anti-Intel Web site and at one point arrivingon horseback to deliver a bushel of printed e-mails to thecompany's Santa Clara headquarters.Intel's lawsuit rested on an age-old legal theory known as"trespass to chattels," which has governed private propertyrights for centuries. Courts have consistently held thatproperty owners must prove they were harmed in order toestablish a "trespass" on their rights, and that is whereIntel got tripped up in the Supreme Court.Intel maintained that Hamidi's e-mail harmed the company byflooding its servers with unwanted and distractinginformation. But the justices disagreed, noting that Intelcould pursue other legal remedies against unwanted speech,such as suing for defamation or injury to its ability toconduct business. The justices also suggested theLegislature could fix the problem.Free-speech advocates say the court set a crucial FirstAmendment balancing test. Mark Lemley, a law professor atUniversity of California-Berkeley's Boalt Hall and acyberlaw expert, said Internet service providers will stillbe able to stop spam that shuts down computer systems. Buthe said companies won't be able to use trespass laws "as acompetitive weapon or a way to stop speech."Added American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ann Brick, whosupported Hamidi's position in the case, "They tried to usethe power of the courts to shut him up. To the extent peopletry to interfere with the communication of information, itis going to be much harder to do."The business community, however, expressed alarm at theruling. Intel was backed in the case by a host of leadingbusiness groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Intel's supporters have insisted a private company should beable to filter what it wants from its computer system."I'm dumbfounded," said Richard Epstein, a University ofChicago law professor who wrote a brief in Intel's defense."In an age in which spam is understood to be a terribleproblem, why this type of message is regarded as lessimportant just baffles the mind."www.jewishworldreview.com/0703/e-bombarding.asp

        Comment

        Working...
        X