What happened in this case is something like the EFF's form for emailing your representatives when there's some important bill that's up for voting. The EFF makes their members aware of that fact and then the individual members send email to their Congress-critters. That's not a DoS, though, that's "a lot of people with the same thing to say".
In this case, it seems like a bunch of employees were all upset about the same issue, and they all emailed the same person about it. The court ruled this a computer crime.
Yes, See my response above to saulrh about intent. If they were encouraged to each send one message to petition, it should be legal. If they were encouraged to bombard with more than one message it's probably abuse.
This is exactly like a DDoS attack. I don't take this to mean that email spam is hacking, though - I take it to mean that a DDoS is not. Snail mail campaigns can't get you prosecuted. Telephone complaint campaigns can't get you prosecuted. Even physical protests don't get you prosecuted. Email campaigns and SYN campaigns should fall under the same rules.
I agree a DDoS is not hacking, and I quickly looked and didn't see the terms hack or hacking in any of the articles(I could be wrong though as I only looked for a minute).
In any case I think this probably boils down to intent. If the intent was to take down the server, it's CFAA, if the intent is a non destructive protest then it's not.
More to the point, the company everyone was emailing had a limit on the number of emails in a given inbox. The IT department for the company could have temporarily raised that limit or done other things to prevent disruption in service.
So basically, if you send emails to a company that is incapable of managing their email servers, you will be found guilty of hacking.
Nice, so now when I unsubscribe to an email list and still get messages for a few days, my mail server is being hacked? Excellent. I see a lot of jail time for email marketers in the near future.
[We] conclude that a transmission that weakens a sound computer system—or, similarly, one that diminishes a plaintiff’s ability to use data or a system—causes damage.
This sounds pretty broad to me. How the hell am I supposed to know how many messages or what size attachments your crappy -- I mean "sound" -- mail system can handle?
There's no malice in this unless Greenpeace tells their followers to spam and/or clog them which this Union explicitly did. "When the Union ignored his request, the company filed suit for, among other things, a violation of the CFAA for “knowingly caus[ing] the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally caus[ing] damage without authorization, to a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A). "
Your statement of Greenpeace is disingenuous and bordering on slant.
Here Techdirt hasn't bothered to read the opinion they pasted to the end of their own article, in which it is pointed out that the holding in this case comports with several prior cases, including one specifically involving degrading an email server.
The article also leaves out the detail that LIUNA instructed their members to send thousands of email messages to the target server, to "fight back" against Pulte.
And finally, the article falsely claims that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act criminalizes "hacking", which is not what it does; it criminalizes computer abuse, specifically, the intentional inflicting of damages on someone else's computing systems.
LIUNA orchestrated a campaign to bombard Pulte with email messages --- not individual messages, but thousands of messages, to executives, per member --- and in doing so flooded Pulte's server off the net. LIUNA also hired an autodialer firm to do the same to Pulte's phone systems. LIUNA is culpable for the resulting chaos.
Want to not have the same thing happen to you? Don't use your computer to fuck with other people. You'll be fine.
12 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 37.8 ms ] threadIn this case, it seems like a bunch of employees were all upset about the same issue, and they all emailed the same person about it. The court ruled this a computer crime.
In any case I think this probably boils down to intent. If the intent was to take down the server, it's CFAA, if the intent is a non destructive protest then it's not.
So basically, if you send emails to a company that is incapable of managing their email servers, you will be found guilty of hacking.
This sounds pretty broad to me. How the hell am I supposed to know how many messages or what size attachments your crappy -- I mean "sound" -- mail system can handle?
To keep up the pressure we urgently ask you to send an email to the Danish minister for foreign affairs, Per Stig Møller. --http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/take-action/denmark
Your statement of Greenpeace is disingenuous and bordering on slant.
The article also leaves out the detail that LIUNA instructed their members to send thousands of email messages to the target server, to "fight back" against Pulte.
And finally, the article falsely claims that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act criminalizes "hacking", which is not what it does; it criminalizes computer abuse, specifically, the intentional inflicting of damages on someone else's computing systems.
LIUNA orchestrated a campaign to bombard Pulte with email messages --- not individual messages, but thousands of messages, to executives, per member --- and in doing so flooded Pulte's server off the net. LIUNA also hired an autodialer firm to do the same to Pulte's phone systems. LIUNA is culpable for the resulting chaos.
Want to not have the same thing happen to you? Don't use your computer to fuck with other people. You'll be fine.