Monday, June 30, 2003 I know this isn't a tech blog, but I just heard that the California Supreme Court ruled today that simple spam is not property trespass unless there is proof of harm to the computer network on which it is received. The case involved a former Intel employee who sent email critical of the company to other employees.

I personally like the analogy that it would be like saying a "mailbox was harmed after reading an unpleasant letter or the telephone was harmed after receiving an intrusive phone call." (The mailbox read the letter? The telephone received an intrusive phone call?) Sorry...I digress...

Here's my question...does this mean that this man could now step up his campaign and send snail mail (in addition to the email)to the employees? Could he begin phone calling them? Surely there is some theory that would prevent this type of harassment. So why didn't they argue that in this email case?

No comments: