[1] Trotter Hardy, The Ancient Doctrine of Trespass to Web Sites, 1996 J. ONLINE L. art. 7, par. 1.

 [2] See, e.g., Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 384 (1994) (stating that the right to exclude is "'one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property"') (quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979)); Felix Cohen, 9 RUTGERS L. REV. 357, 371 (1954) ("Private property may or may not involve a right to use something oneself. It may or may not involve a right to sell, but whatever else it involves, it must at least involve a right to exclude others from doing something.").

 [3] See Morris R. Cohen, Property and Sovereignty, 13 CORNELL L.Q. 8, 13-14 (1927).

 [4] Id. at 14.

 [5] W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 15, at 90 (5th ed. 1984).

 [6] See id. at 92 n. 39, 95.

 [7] See id. at 90 & n.13.

 [8] See id. at § 13, at 83.

 [9] See id. at § 87, at 622.

 [10] See id. at 619 & nn. 2, 5.

 [11] See, e.g., CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Oh. 1997); Thrifty- Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).

 [12] See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 217(b) (1965). "Chattel" is movable property -- basically any property other than land. See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 236 (6th ed. 1990). "Intermeddling" means "intentionally bring[ing] about physical contact." REST. (2d) TORTS, supra, at § 217 cmt. e.

 [13] REST. (2d) TORTS, supra note 12, at § 218.

 [14] 75 AM. JUR. 2D. Trespass § 1 (1991).

 [15] KEETON, supra note 5, at § 13, at 70.

 [16] See infra Section 4.

 [17] See, e.g., KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 259.200 (Michie 1994) (trespass on park, camp grounds); S.C. CODE ANN. § 54-13-30 (Law. Co-op. 1992) (trespass on privately owned docks).

 [18] See, e.g., Chase v. Chase, 15 Nev. 259 (1880); State v. Wouters, 177 A.2d 299 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1962).

 [19] MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 266, § 120 (1998).

 [20] N.Y. PENAL LAW § 140.05 (McKinney 1998).

 [21] However, sometimes violation of a state trespass statute can lead to violation of a separate federal statute. For example, in U.S. v. Gerber, 999 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 1071, the Court held that the defendant, who had transported in interstate commerce Indian artifacts that he had stolen from a burial mound on privately owned land in violation of state criminal laws of trespass and conversion, could be convicted under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470ee (c) (1998). That Act forbade transactions involving archaeological resources excavated, removed, sold, purchased, exchanged, transported, or received in violation of state or local law.

 [22] See Pennsylvania ex rel. Feiling v. Sincavage, 313 F. Supp. 967, 970 (W.D. Pa. 1970) ("[A] trespass to property . . . is a common law tort and does not infringe the federal Constitution."). The Second Circuit has defined the federal common law of trespass as "[going] upon the premises of another without invitation, express or implied. . . ." See Heller v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 165 F. 192, 194 (2d Cir. 1920).

 [23] See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 22 (1998) (authorizing Secretary of the Interior to remove trespassers from Yellowstone National Park).

 [24] Kao v. Red Lion Municipal Authority, 381 F.Supp. 1163, 1166 (M.D. Pa. 1974).

 [25] See Andree v. Ashland County, 818 F.2d 1306, 1315 (7th Cir. 1987); Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1335 (10th Cir. 1981).

 [26] 709 P.2d 782 (Wash. 1985).

 [27] 165 A.2d 485 (D.C. 1960).

 [28] Bradley, 709 P.2d at 789, 791-92.

 [29] Cleveland Park Club, 165 A.2d at 488-89.

 [30] 589 F.2d 152 (4th Cir. 1978).

 [31] This case is unreported, but was referred to in H.R. REP. NO. 98-894 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3689, the federal report accompanying the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984.

 [32] H.R. REP. NO. 98-894 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3689.

 [33] The CFAA was codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.

 [34] Mark D. Rasch, Computer Security: Legal Lessons in the Computer Age, SECURITY MANAGEMENT, April 1996, available at <http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6.805/articles/rasch-comp-law.htr>.

 [35] See id.

 [36] See id.

 [37] See id.

 [38] 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991).

 [39] Bob Page, A Report on the Internet Worm (Nov. 7, 1988) <http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/hack/worm.html>.

 [40] See KEETON, supra note 5, at § 13, at 73-74.

 [41] 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) (1998).

 [42] See Morris, 928 F.2d at 508.

 [43] See id. at 509.

 [44] 162 N.E. 99 (2d Cir. 1928).

 [45] See id. at 101.

 [46] 46 Cal. App. 4th 1559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).

 [47] See, e.g., Waschak v. Moffatt, 109 A.2d 310 (Pa. 1954) (holding that there was no trespass where defendant blew gas onto plaintiff's property); Amphitheatres, Inc. v. Portland Meadows, 198 P. 2d 847 (Or. 1948) (holding that there was no trespass where defendant projected light onto plaintiff's property); Metzger v. Pennsylvania, Ohio & Detroit Railroad Co., 66 N.E.2d 203 (Oh. 1946) (holding that there was no trespass where defendant blew smoke onto plaintiff's property).

 [48] See Ream v. Keen, 838 P.2d 1073, 1075 (Or. 1992) (holding that entry by smoke could give rise to trespass); Wilson v. Interlake Steel Co., 649 P.2d 922, 924-35 (stating that migrating intangibles such as sound waves may result in a trespass as long as they cause damage).

 [49] See Thrifty-Tel, 46 Cal. App. 4th at 1567 n.6.

 [50] 763 F. Supp. 1473 (D. Minn 1991).

 [51] 735 P.2d 1362 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987).

 [52] See generally Hardy, supra note 1, at par. 24-52.

 [53] See MINN. STAT. § 548.05 (1998) (creating trespass liability for those who carry away, use or destroy such property "of another person, without lawful authority. . . "). Minnesota courts have long construed the phrase "other personal property" as being limited to products of the soil. See, e.g., Berg v. Baldwin, 18 N.W. 821, 822 (Minn. 1884).

 [54] See American Computer Trust Leasing, 763 F. Supp. at 1493 (citing Mondt v. Sexter Realty Co., 293 N.W.2d 376, 377 (Minn. 1980)).

 [55] See id. at 1493-94.

 [56] See Hardy, supra note 1; ETHAN KATSH, LAW IN A DIGITAL WORLD (1994).

 [57] The heading of WASH. REV. CODE § 9A.52.110 (1997) is "Computer trespass in the first degree."

 [58] See State v. Olson, 735 P.2d 1362, 1364 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987).

 [59] See, e.g., CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Oh. 1997); Thrifty- Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).

 [60] See, e.g., Gilbert v. Kennedy, 22 Mich. 5 (1870); Zimmerman Mfg. Co. v. Daffin, 42 So. 858 (Ala. 1906).

 [61] 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

 [62] This is done by gathering all unsolicited emails sent by Cyber Promotions to undeliverable AOL addresses, altering the return path of such email, and then sending the altered email in a bulk transmission back to Cyber Promotion's ISPs in order to disable the ISPs. See id. at 437 n.1.

 [63] See Held in Email Bombing, N.Y. DAILY NEWS, Dec. 4, 1995, p. 3.

 [64] 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Oh. 1997).

 [65] See, e.g., Cleveland Park Club v. Perry, 165 A.2d 485 (D.C. 1960) (remanding for a finding of whether the plaintiff had observed without comment the defendant's invasive actions, thereby granting implicit permission.)

 [66] See, e.g., State v. Carriker, 214 N.E. 2d 809, 812 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964) (holding that a business invitee's privilege to remain on the premises is revoked upon reasonable notification to leave by the owner).

 [67] See, e.g., Peerenboom v. HSP Foods, Inc., 910 S.W.2d 156, 163 (Tex. App. 1995) (holding that although employee was permitted to enter the employer's dumpster area during working hours for work-related purposes, she exceeded the scope of her invitation by entering it after hours for personal purposes).

 [68] See CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, 962 F. Supp.1015, 1024 (S.D. Oh. 1997). The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has also reached the same conclusion. See Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 948 F.Supp. 436, 442 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (holding that "[a]lthough AOL has technically opened its email system to the public by connecting with the Internet, AOL has not opened its property to the public" and has thus preserved its right to exclude others).

 [69] See CompuServe, 962 F. Supp. at 1024.

 [70] See id.

 [71] See Courtney Macavinta, California Enacts Antispam Laws (Sept. 28, 1998) <http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,26859,00.html>.

 [72] See CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Oh. 1997); Held in Email Bombing, supra note 63 (describing an incident of spamming at Monmouth University).

 [73] ECMA-script is part of the latest Document Object Model 1 specification recently released by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). See W3C, Appendix E: ECMA Script Language Binding (visited Dec. 8, 1998) <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/ecma-script-language-binding.html>.

 [74] See egghead.com (visited Dec. 9, 1998) <http://www.egghead.com>.

 [75] See supra Section 3.2.

 [76] PICS is the Platform for Internet Content Selection, a filtering protocol developed by the World Wide Web Consortium. For more information, see W3C, Platform for Internet Content Selection (last modified Jan. 3, 1998) <http://www.w3.org/PICS/>.

 [77] See Network Abuse Clearinghouse, Bulk Mail Transfer Protocol (last modified June 11, 1998) <http://www.abuse.net/bmtp/>.

 [78] See John Marshall Law School, Unsolicited Email - State Statutes (last modified Aug. 31, 1998) <http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/statutes/email/state.html>.

 [79] See Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, The "New" HR3888 (last modified August 21, 1998) <http://www.cauce.org/markup/index.html>.

 [80] See THOMAS, Bill Summary and Status (visited Dec. 9, 1998) <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR01748:>.

 [81] See Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (visited Dec. 9, 1998) <http://www.cauce.org/>.

 [82] See SAFEeps (modified Nov. 9, 1998) <http://www.safeeps.com/>.

 [83] See Mail Abuse Prevention System Realtime Blackhole List (last modified Nov. 19, 1998) <http://maps.vix.com/rbl/>.

 [84] 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1) (1998).

 [85] Hardy, supra note 1, at par. 1.

 [86] See, e.g., Cornelius v. The Benevolent Protective Order of the Elks, 382 F. Supp. 1182 (D. Conn. 1974) (holding that a local lodge of a national private organization is permitted to maintain a constitutional requirement that all members be white).

 [87] See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a) (1998). This section provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ll persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation . . . without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

 [88] See, e.g. N.Y. CIVIL RIGHTS LAW § 40-b (McKinney's 1998). This section provides, in relevant part, "No . . . place of public entertainment and amusement . . . shall refuse to admit to any public performance . . . any person over the age of twenty-one years who presents a ticket of admission to the performance a reasonable time before the commencement thereof."

 [89] See, e.g., id. (permitting "the refusal of admission to or the ejection of any person whose conduct or speech thereat or therein is abusive or offensive or of any person engaged in any activity which may tend to a breach of the peace").

 [90] See, e.g., Katzenbach v McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) (holding that restaurant had violated the Civil Rights Act by refusing to serve blacks); Christie v. 46th St. Theatre Corp., 265 A.D. 255 (N.Y. App. Div., 1942) (affirming judgment for plaintiff, who had been ejected from a movie theater for no apparent reason).

 [91] See, e.g., Mathias Törnblom (visited Dec. 8, 1998) <http://hem.passagen.se/matte/index.html> (providing a hyperlink described only as "White house"). In this case, the hyperlink was tied to www.whitehouse.com, a pornographic web site.

 [92] It is fairly common to confuse www.whitehouse.gov, the official White House web site, with www.whitehouse.com, a pornographic web site. In fact, this mistake was made recently by an article published online, which was -- ironically enough -- about web searching techniques. See Cheryl M. Davis, White House Site Good Example of Internal Searches (last modified February 4, 1996) <http://www.winonanet.com/help/columns/col31.html> (erroneously identifying the official White House URL as "www.whitehouse.com").

 [93] For example, some businesses maintain nonpublic documents on their servers which may be accessed by typing in the exact URL, but not by simply following hyperlinks. See Email Interview with Benjamin Adida, Research Assistant in Scalable Online Communities, MIT Lab for Computer Science, and System Administrator, photo.net (Dec. 3, 1998) (asserting that ArsDigita, L.L.C. maintains a business plan on its web page, www.arsdigita.com, that is not linked to other web pages, whether internal or external).

 [94] Recently, disciplinary charges were brought against two Harvard Law School students who inadvertently happened upon a web page containing the Social Security Numbers of all first-year students. See Ben Lehrer, ITS Director Vik Throws Book at RECORD Reporter, HARVARD LAW RECORD, Dec. 4, 1998, at 1.

 [95] For example, the Harvard Law Review maintains a public web site. From there, members of the Law Review can access members-only web pages containing confidential information by clicking on the photograph of the Law Review building. A dialog box requires a userid and password before access will be allowed. See Harvard Law Review (last modified Oct. 7, 1998) <http://gannett-netserv.law.harvard.edu/>.

 [96] Note that this statement is only true among those who are cyber-literate; among the general public, disproportionate hysteria and fear remain the norm with regard to computer hacking. See, e.g., Doug Fine, Why is Kevin Lee Poulsen Really in Jail? (visited Dec. 3, 1998) <http://www.well.com/user/fine/journalism/jail.html> (describing governmental hysteria over one particular hacker's activities); Ali Hossaini, Interview: Kevin Poulsen (last modified July 24, 1997) <http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/thesite/0797w4/iview/iview747jump2_072497.html> (stating that "people are going overboard" with regard to hackers); Dorothy E. Denning, Concerning Hackers Who Break Into Computer Systems (visited Dec. 3, 1998) <http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/crime/denning.hackers.html> (listing specific incidents of public overreaction to relatively harmless hackers). Either way, the level of social condemnation for hacking does not match, or even approximate, the level of social condemnation for burglary.

 [97] See, e.g., Michael W. Carroll, Garbage In: Emerging Media and Regulation of Unsolicited Commercial Solicitations, 11 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 233, 276-80 (1996) (passim); David J. Goldstone, A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Cyber Forum: Public v. Private in Cyberspace Speech, 69 U. COLO. L. REV. 1, 48 (1998) (comparing spam to phone calls and faxes); Jerry Kang, Information Privacy in Cyberspace Transactions, 50 STAN. L. REV. 1193, 1124 (1998) (comparing the privacy implications of junk mail, telemarketing, and spam); David J. Loundy, E-Law 4: Computer Information Systems Law and Systems Operator Liability, 21 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 1075, 1093 (1998) ("Simply regulate email like U.S. mail, regulate networks like common carriers, etc.").

 [98] Mark D. Robins, Electronic Trespass: An Old Theory in a New Context, COMPUTER LAWYER, July 1998, at 1, 7 ("[T]respass to chattels provides a useful mechanism to redress injuries to intangible interests that result . . . [from] a variety of practices occurring over the Internet.").

 [99] See Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 564-65 (1980).

 [100] See Project 80's, Inc. v. City of Pocatello, 942 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding, on remand from Supreme Court, that a complete ban on commercial solicitation is unnecessarily broad in furthering the state's interest in protecting privacy and preventing crime).

 [101] 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e)(1), (e)(2)(iii), (e)(2)(iv) (1994).

 [102] See Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995).

 [103] Cf. People v. Weeks, 591 P.2d 91, 96 (Colo. 1979) ("A ringing telephone is an imperative, which, in the minds of many, must be obeyed with a prompt answer.).

 [104] See Rowan v. United States Post Office, 397 U.S. 728, 736-37 (1970).

 [105] See, e.g., In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 206 n.20 (1982) (holding that imposition of a labeling requirement on commercial solicitations from attorneys is constitutional).

 [106] See Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 75 (1983) (declaring unconstitutional a federal statute that prohibited unsolicited mailing of advertisements for contraceptives).

 [107] See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) (1998).

 [108] See, e.g., Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

 [109] See Carroll, supra note 97, at 279-80.

 [110] 942 F.2d 635, 638-39 (9th Cir. 1991).

 [111] See Carroll, supra note 97, at 252 & n.105.

 [112] James R. Rosenfield, Confessions of a Gasp "Junk Mailer," DIRECT, May 1994, at 82.

 [113] See supra note 103.

 [114] See Mark S. Nadel, Rings of Privacy: Unsolicited Telephone Calls and the Right of Privacy, 4 YALE J. ON REGS. 99, 103 n.23 (1986) (citing FRANKLYN HAIMAN, SPEECH AND LAW IN A FREE SOCIETY 146 (1981)) (arguing that visual communication is less intrusive than aural communication).

 [115] See Anne Wells Branscomb, Anonymity, Autonomy, and Accountability: Challenges to the First Amendment in Cyberspace, Symposium: Emerging Media Technology and the First Amendment, 104 YALE L.J. 1639, 1674 (1995).

 [116] For example, students and researchers with .edu and .gov domain names presumably have free Internet access. Moreover, every major online service and many national ISPs offer flat-rate access plans. See Online Connection (visited Dec. 8, 1998) <http://www.barkers.org/online/>.

 [117] See Carroll, supra note 97, at 277.

 [118] See, e.g. Cyber Promotions, Inc.v. America Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 436, 437 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

 [119] John Seabrook, Home on the Net, NEW YORKER, Oct. 16, 1995, at 66 (describing the author's experience in designing his Home Page on the World Wide Web).

 [120] See Carroll, supra note 97, at 269-80.

 [121] KATSH, supra note 56, at 24-25.

 [122] Id. at 24.


 [124] Joshua A. Marcus, Note, Commercial Speech on the Internet: Spam and the First Amendment, 16 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 245, 302 (1998).

 [125] See ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-39-303 (1998).

 [126] See 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(e)(2)(iii) (1994).

 [127] See Rowan v. United States Post Office, 397 U.S. 728, 736-37 (1970).

 [128] See supra Section 7 (the beginning of the metaphors section, citing Cohen and others.).

 [129] See Hardy, supra note 1, at paras. 24-29, 49-52.

 [130] See supra Section 7.3.

 [131] See supra Section 7.5.

 [132] See Project 80's, Inc. v. City of Pocatello, 942 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1991).

 [133] Carroll, supra note 97, at 240.

 [134] Guido Calabresi & A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 HARV. L. REV. 1089 (1972).

 [135] This framework also applies to the right to access electronic data and computers which are not connected to the Internet.

 [136] See id., at 1090.

 [137] See id., at 1092-93.

 [138] An inalienable entitlement prevents a sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer. See id., at 1093.

 [139] See supra Section 10.3.

 [140] Owners also can recover nominal damages.

 [141] See An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, 85 COLUM. L. REV. 1193, 1196-1204 (1985).

 [142] See id.

 [143] See 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (1998).

 [144] Of course as new users who do not value information sharing enter cyberspace, this social norm may be tested and challenged.  The default rule of "access permitted" should help inculcate the value of free exchange of information in new users.  If strict liability of ISPs for the actions of others is permitted, the costs of Internet access could increase substantially.  Therefore, society should not impose strict liability ISPs or other providers of Internet access (e.g. educational institutions, businesses, government.

 [145] This also applies to renters.

 [146] Contracts apply here and would bind parties if one with a contractual right to access otherwise private space violates the rules of behavior for accessing this space. Damages would be specified in the contract. In this situation, liability rules do not apply.

 [147] See Lawrence Lessig, The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach, STAN. TECH. L. REV. (visited Dec. 10, 1998) <http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Working_Papers/97_Lessig_1/index.htm>.

 [148] For example, MIT's student web site uses freely-distributed web certificates available only to authorized MIT users. See MIT WebSIS - Student Information System (visited Dec. 9, 1998) <http://student.mit.edu>.

 [149] PICS, or Platform for Independent Content Selection, is a labeling technology of the World Wide Web Consortium. Details can be found at http://www.w3.org/PICS/.

 [150] The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was a bill that passed in 1996, forbidding "obscene material" on the Internet. The public's reaction to the CDA was extremely negative. Numerous commercial web pages, including Netscape's, changed their background to a black color in expressing their disagreement with the bill. The Supreme Court eventually overturned some sections of the Act, holding that it violated the First Amendment. See Electronic Privacy Information Center (visited Dec. 9, 1998) <http://www.epic.org/CDA/>.

 [151] See Countries Follow U.S. on Crypto (Dec. 3, 1998) <http://news.com/News/Item/0,4,29526,00.html>.

 [152] See Hal Abelson, Ross Anderson, Steven Bellovin, Josh Benaloh, Matt Blaze, Whitfield Diffie, John Gilmore, Peter Neumann, Ronald Rivest, Jeffrey Schiller, & Bruce Schneier, The Risks of Key Recovery, Key Escrow, and Trusted Third-Party Encryption, 2 WORLD WIDE WEB JOURNAL at 241-57 (1997).

 [153] The Linux Project is a very good example of the large amount of time that Internet users are willing to devote to a project that was built to help the world at large. The very purpose of Linux is to make Linux Information available all over the Internet, with no central repository.

 [154] See supra Section 12.2.