The following appeared in today's Risks-Forum Digest, Volume 20, Issue 35,
available at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.35.html
As I read it I began to wonder if perhaps I should ban Intel addresses
from my lists, seeing as how they are recreational in nature and this
judge's definition makes me uncomfortable sending anything to their
private network that doesn't pertain directly to their business.
What do y'all think?
-Mitch
---------
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 08:17:45 -0700
From: "NewsScan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Court labels unwanted e-mails "trespassing"
A California court has ruled that mass e-mails sent to Intel workers by a
disgruntled former employee were an illegal form of trespass, setting a new
legal boundary between private computer networks and the public Internet.
The case had centered on a barrage of unsolicited e-mail messages sent by
Ken Hamidi, who'd been fired in 1995, criticizing Intel's workers'
compensation policies and other issues. Intel had sued Hamidi, charging
misuse of the company's computer networking resources, and Judge John R.
Lewis agreed, comparing borders between computer networks to property
boundaries: "The mere connection of Intel's e-mail system with the Internet
does not covert it into a public forum." Meanwhile, some legal scholars
questioned the judge's analogy: "In the real world, trespass involves
physical presence," says Jonathan Zittrain, a law lecturer at Harvard. "But
in this case, it's his speech they're restricting." However, the judge
noted that Intel has never published its employees' e-mail addresses,
strengthening its argument that its computer system is private company
property rather than a public gathering place. (*Los Angeles Times*,
29 Apr 1999, http://www.latimes.com/home/business/t000038417.html)
