An Analysis Of Email Disclaimers

Limit this crap to four lines... by garcia · 2004-06-02 03:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

I consider a 100+ word message at the bottom of an email spam. Most emails are a sentence or two. What the hell do I need another 100+ words tacked on the end for? Shouldn't we have some sort of mandate similar to Usenet signatures? That said...

It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s).

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message.

Now, while the lawyer notes that they are only asking you to do these things I see another flaw... If the document wasn't intended for the use by the addressee the rest of the notice is moot. It's up to the sender to guarantee that the message is delivered to the correct John.Doe@yahoo.com. I don't see how I would have to follow any of that if a) I didn't sign it and b) I am not the person they intended anyway.

No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient.

If I am sent it incorrectly I am not allowed to look at it anyway. It doesn't make sense.

Then again IANAL :)

Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Jesrad · 2004-06-02 03:34 · Score: 2, Funny

There's finely a use for the "Burn before reading" Top Secret classification !

--
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

I guess its just like illegal to open someone else's 1040 delivered to your mailbox - though USPS made a mistake - you have a moral, legal(?) obligation to put it back in the send to box.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by mccalli · 2004-06-02 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Shouldn't we have some sort of mandate similar to Usenet signatures? That said...
Far back in the mists of time, or about 1994 as the more prosaic prefer to call it, I was part of my then employer's Internet Special Interest Group. Amongst other things, we decided the final version of the disclaimer which would be attached to our emails.
We had a rule that anything more than four lines was absolutely unnacceptable. It annoyed the recipients, was too long for most people to read and had only questionable enforcement value anyway. It was a fairly common rule of thumb at the time, but as you say it appears to have been abandoned.
I work at one of the banks in London, and a friend of mine works at a different bank nearby. An email from me sent via my personal account starts 'Fancy lunch?'. The mail from him usually says "Yep - 12ish?" followed by about fifteen lines of utter, unenforcable gibberish. No-one reads it, and if they did there'd be no legal basis for it anyway.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Nobody+You+Know · 2004-06-02 03:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, if you aren't the intended recipient, the notice itself prohibits you from doing what it requests.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that...the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited.
It then tells you:
If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message.
Wouldn't notifying the sender be taking an action based on the information contained therein, and thus be expressly prohibited?
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-06-02 03:41 · Score: 4, Funny

You bankers, and your "fancy lunches". Will you be having it on my money, then?

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by garcia · 2004-06-02 03:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's also a federal law that protects the US mail from being tampered with. There is no federal law that governs email.

The stupid disclaimer at the bottom will certainly not work if the person messes up and sends it to another country... Just because my email address is .com/.net/.org doesn't necessarily mean that I (or my mail server) has to be under the same law as the originator's.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by haystor · 2004-06-02 03:43 · Score: 5, Funny

I like the ones that tell you to delete all copies of the message. Is that implicit permission to access their mail servers for deletion?

--
t
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by beatleadam · 2004-06-02 03:43 · Score: 3, Informative

At the company that I work for (A company that is Hyper-Specific about their legal/patent/information sharing policies) this is remedied in a somewhat simplistic manner, though the goal and outcome is still the same. Basically, in a normal email there are settings ala low, medium or high importance but there is also a very specific (read: the Legal Button) check box of "Company Confidential" which is to be used in all the same legal respects as the original posters legal .sig type file.

--
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by gbjbaanb · 2004-06-02 03:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,

Its another example of nonsense int he real world.. of course I *am* the intended recipient of every email I get, otherwise the sender would have sent it to someone else. Of course, you could say that you accidentally sent it to me instead of who you meant to send it to.. but how am I supposed to know that? I don't read minds.

I can guess, but that's hardly going to stand up in court, now is it?

Once I worked at a company that had email addresses that were firstname+last initial. Mine was AndrewB. One of the directors was AndyB.

Yes, you guessd right - I received an email once saying "Andy, do you want this quarters bonus of (several thousand pounds) paid as salary or into your pension?". I was overjoyed.. several thousand pounds in addition to my salary, yes please. I only wondered why they hadn't announced this wonderful new bonus scheme to us in some corporate communication......

I never got the cash, but it was addressed to me, had my name at the top, everything.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by CGP314 · 2004-06-02 03:49 · Score: 1

I consider a 100+ word message at the bottom of an email spam. Most emails are a sentence or two. What the hell do I need another 100+ words tacked on the end for?

Even more annoying is one I've seen that's html based. It has a pretty little gif border, pointers, and big company logo attached. So when my friend send me an email saying, `are you coming to the party on Saturday?' the whole email is 10k in size.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Gr8Apes · 2004-06-02 03:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Email is basically a post card. If you get a post card in the mail, you can legally read it, if it's even legible, as you're not tampering with it.

If, however, you receive something incorrectly addressed in an envelope, you may not legally open it (in the US anyways). This would be akin to an encrypted (the envelope) email. The mis-addressed recipient would not be able to read it easily, or even practically. The envelope (encryption) is a much stronger enforcement of the "authorized person only may open this mail".

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Mr_Silver · 2004-06-02 03:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Shouldn't we have some sort of mandate similar to Usenet signatures?
There is no mandate on Usenet signatures. Same as there is no mandate on top-posting and quoting.
It's all voluntary. If the poster doesn't follow the guidelines (which is what they are) the worst that can happen is that they don't potentially get all the possible responses they could (or they get a couple of extra rude ones they didn't expect).
In short, newsgroup etiquette on signatures, quoting and top-posting doesn't work and it wouldn't work with disclaimers either. If one company decides to ignore it (and it'll be more than one) then there isn't much people can do about it.
There are far bigger problems to worry about than an overly zealous disclaimer on an email which is generally legally unenforcable anyway.

--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

What happens when this conflicts with various mail retention policies and laws?

[FX type, deep male voice] "Next on Fox, When Lawyers Collide!"
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by NanoGator · 2004-06-02 03:59 · Score: 4, Funny

"We had a rule that anything more than four lines was absolutely unnacceptable. It annoyed the recipients, was too long for most people to read and had only questionable enforcement value anyway. It was a fairly common rule of thumb at the time, but as you say it appears to have been abandoned. "

Heh. Not totally related to what you've said, but it reminded me of it. At my previous job, somebody sent an email to my office mate. It was meant for me. He tapped my shoulder and said "Well I think this email was supposed to be for you, but the disclaimer says I cannot show it to anybody that it's not intended for." So I read his disclaimer, and he was right. By forwarding it to me, he'd violate those terms. Heh we had a chuckle at that.

So how'd it end? Not very excitingly, really. We just used a little common sense, assumed he wouldn't care, and forwarded the message to me anyway.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Wylfing · 2004-06-02 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

I guess its just like illegal to open someone else's 1040 delivered to your mailbox - though USPS made a mistake - you have a moral, legal(?) obligation to put it back in the send to box.
Quite wrong, actually. The United States Postal Service has special laws protecting its operations. One of them is that it is a felony to interfere with the delivery of mail once it has entered the postal system, which is in effect until a letter or parcel arrives at its intended recipient or is returned to the sender. This is, however, not the case with email. A communication by email has roughly the same legal protection as shouting across a room.
As the author of TFA points out, a business that actually wants to protect its communications ought to use encryption and digital signatures.

--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:23 · Score: 0

So how'd it end? Not very excitingly, really

Boy, that is the truth.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:29 · Score: 0

Just because my email address is .com/.net/.org doesn't necessarily mean that I (or my mail server) has to be under the same law as the originator's.

Similarly, there's no reason the late goatse.cx had to be in Christmas Island....
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by gcaseye6677 · 2004-06-02 04:33 · Score: 4, Informative

I asked my lawyer friend about this, and he said the only legal purpose that these disclaimers can really serve is to prevent the sender from accidentally waiving any rights they may hold. For example, attorney client privilege is a very big deal to lawyers. They must be able to communicate in secret with their client. If an email is misdirected and falls into the wrong hands, any information could not be admitted into court as if it were publicly disclosed. Legally, attorney client privilege is still in effect. Of course the accidental recipient would still see it and there wouldn't be much you could do about that, so if something is really confidential, encrypt it. The same thing could apply to trade secrets or any other form of private communication. However, it would be very difficult to take any action against an accidental recipient, regardless of what your disclaimer said, unless you could prove that they acted with malicious intent after receiving the email.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by shayne321 · 2004-06-02 04:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Its another example of nonsense int he real world.. of course I *am* the intended recipient of every email I get, otherwise the sender would have sent it to someone else. Of course, you could say that you accidentally sent it to me instead of who you meant to send it to.. but how am I supposed to know that? I don't read minds.
I can guess, but that's hardly going to stand up in court, now is it?
Well, here's what I normally see.. Some moron at a bank or law office or whatever forwards a lame joke to like 20 of their buddies, with full legal disclaimer attached. The 20 recipients then go on to forward it to 1000 aol accounts and everyone else in their address books, and somewhere down the line a "friend" that I haven't talked to in 4 years but has me in his address book forwards it along to me and everyone else in his address book. I now have a lame joke about 6 generations removed from the original sender but the full disclaimer about how I'm not supposed to read the email still attached. Funny thing is, the disclaimer is at the BOTTOM of the email.. Tell me how I am supposed to UNREAD the lame joke after I see the disclaimer...

--
Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by shic · 2004-06-02 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

I beg to differ - those messages are perfectly clear. Let me elucidate:
... may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s).

The purpose of the message is to "use" the people to whom it has been sent. This clearly shows the solicitation of services, and as such gives permission to bill the sender for my time spent reading it.

No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient.

I may do whatever I like with the message as long as I act in a role not associated with any of the addresses in the "To" and "CC" lines.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by zx75 · 2004-06-02 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, email has fewer legal protections than shouting across a room. Hate slogans, racial slurs, sexual comments if shouted can constitute verbal assault and/or sexual harrasment. Doing so in a private email could get you fired from your job, but it won't get you hauled off to a police station.

--
This is not a sig.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Brandybuck · 2004-06-02 04:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Unless of course that letter was addressed to *you*. You are then allowed to open it. If you subsequently discover that the sender stuffed the wrong letter into your envelope, you are under no obligation to turn yourself in to the police.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by tsg · 2004-06-02 04:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

>If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message.

Wouldn't notifying the sender be taking an action based on the information contained therein, and thus be expressly prohibited?

I get a laugh out of them making it my responsiblity to make sure the sender didn't type the wrong address. If I'm not the intended recipient, then how did I get it? If the To: header isn't necessarily the intended recipient, then how am I supposed to know who is and that it isn't me? If it's so important, why aren't you being more careful who you send it to?

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:53 · Score: 0

My company wants our signatures to be something like that. No border or pointers, though - contact info, a 12k gif plugging the latest version of our software and a 4 line "legal" disclaimer. Even more asinine is the gif they want in the sig isn't embedded in the e-mail, but linked from the corporate web site.

Since I block Internet images from e-mails at home, I didn't see the graphic until I started with the company (thanks Outlook). I set up my sig with the contact info and disclaimer, and not as much formatting. Haven't heard any complaints ... yet.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by DavidTC · 2004-06-02 05:24 · Score: 1

That's crap.
I don't know about attorney-client priviledges, the courts have circumstances where they will ignore evidence if taken improperly, and even acidental spying on a converstation with a lawyer might fall under those rules, but trade secrets are not like copyrights or patents...if you violate no laws in discovering them, you are free to use them however you want.
You can be standing on a toilet in a bathroom stall delibrately spying over the top at two company executives who thinking they're alone talking about the trade secret, you can bring super-zoom lens along on the offical tour, you can find people in bars and delibrately get them really drunk hoping they'll talk. As long as you do not violate any law or contractual obligation, you're free and clear to use whatever you get in any way you want.
An NDA will stop this behavior, but you haven't magically signed an NDA because of a disclaimer at the end of a mail message.
Actually, and I'm not sure exactly how this works, but companies can lose their trade secret even if you violated the law but you can show they didn't protect it enough. For example, they have the trade secret posted on the wall in an employee break room with a 'employees only' sign on the door, and you run in, learn the secret, and they rightfully claim you were trespassing. That may be so, but an unlocked unguarded door that just asked people not to come in was probably not enough to protect the trade secret, and so while you can still be charged with trespassing, you might be free to use the trade secret anyway.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by afidel · 2004-06-02 05:29 · Score: 2, Informative

That's the same reason a number of my clients include large legaleese signatures to all outgoing email. As healthcare providers they have very specific regulations they must follow and including such signatures is a requirement of HIPAA.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:44 · Score: 0

You broke the imaginary laws of some overpaid corporate lawyers. So I reported you to the FBI as a terrorist. Think of the children!
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by SiggyRadiation · 2004-06-02 05:45 · Score: 1

I just used "(unintended) recipients of this message are respectfully reminded of applicable law and netiquette" until TODAY when my company decided to start using a disclamer. Thank you slashdot for providing me with amunition against that nonsense.

--
This unique sig is intended to make this user more recognisable.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by rixstep · 2004-06-02 05:50 · Score: 2, Funny

I consider a 100+ word message at the bottom of an email spam.

More correctly I think it's a 'dag-tag'.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:51 · Score: 0

"Tell me how I am supposed to UNREAD the lame joke after I see the disclaimer..."

Confronted in such a situation, you shall commit sepuku, it's the law!

Are you questioning your govmint authority?
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by oberondarksoul · 2004-06-02 05:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm more enclined to perceive an encrypted email as a letter or parcel sent by recorded delivery. If one, for instance, receives an email that's been misaddressed but sent via PGP, it is impossible for them to read it without the key. Likewise, without the correct signiture, one cannot receive a parcel or letter that requires it.

--
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by dgatwood · 2004-06-02 06:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

Even better, the disclaimer is in the footer of a document. By reading the document, you are therefore in material breach of a contract that you haven't even read yet.
Of course, that makes the contract null and void, I think, but....

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 06:29 · Score: 0

Hate slogans, racial slurs, sexual comments if shouted can constitute verbal assault and/or sexual harrasment. Doing so in a private email could get you fired from your job, but it won't get you hauled off to a police station.
Well, no. People have been prosecuted for malicious e-mail-- as an example, the troubled post-Columbine teens who threatened fellow students or their schools. Sending threatening e-mails to your ex. will get you a rstraining order. Sending a hateful message to a politician will get you a visit from the Secret Service. If you threaten someone verbally (and it's not recorded, and there were numerous credible witnesses) then it's your word against theirs-- but e-mail leaves an easily tracked record.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by tsg · 2004-06-02 06:41 · Score: 1

By reading the document, you are therefore in material breach of a contract that you haven't even read yet.

"By reading this contract, you are agreeing to its terms..."

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by whoever57 · 2004-06-02 06:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

f, however, you receive something incorrectly addressed in an envelope, you may not legally open it
What if the street address is correct, but the name is not? Can one legally open it?
Also, is it legal to discard mail that is addressed to people not resident at that address (for example: former residents at that address) without reading it?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by swv3752 · 2004-06-02 06:58 · Score: 1

Actually, yes you can get arrested for the contents of an email. It is both easier and harder to get arrested for an email. It is easier because like a letter, there is a "written" record. It is harder because, it is easy to castreasonable doubt on whther person a actually wrote a given piece of email. If someone receives a death threat, a lot of logs will need to be shown to be able to prove that a given person wrote that.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by KjetilK · 2004-06-02 07:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't know... There was a case in Norway some years ago, where a moron lawyer sent a whole lot of big powerpoint files to a typo-squatter. The typo-squatter warned him several times that he was sending to a wrong address, still it persisted, and after the lawyer sent the squatter a message worth billions, the lawyer called the police and got the squatter arrested for extortion.
It was a rather weird case, and it bounced between the courts for a while, but I think the final verdict was that the squatter was acquitted on all accounts, and the verdict explicitly stated that if you did not encrypt the communications, you would not have any protection.
I hoped for a while that the verdict would serve as a reminder top lawyers to spend a couple of hours learning howto encrypt messages, but they wear a thick layer of clue-repellent.

--
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by timeOday · 2004-06-02 08:14 · Score: 1

We had a rule that anything more than four lines was absolutely unnacceptable. It annoyed the recipients, was too long for most people to read and had only questionable enforcement value anyway.
Isn't that what small-print legalese is all about? You don't want anybody to read it or understand it. You just want it there, discreetely hidden away until you have to whip it out and hit somebody over the head with it.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 08:40 · Score: 1, Funny

Email is basically a post card.
Nonsense. I look on the back of every e-mail I receive, and I have never once seen a tacky picture of a popular tourist destination.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Gr8Apes · 2004-06-02 09:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I believe it is illegal for anyone to open mail not addressed to them. There are power of attorney type exceptions, in cases of invalids or those that are dead. Technically, I believe even your spouse cannot open mail addressed to you and vice-versa, if for some reason that is not desired. Note that conditions apply, such as for the purpose of interfering in delivery or prying into the affiars of another. No exclusions are made.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by joshki · 2004-06-02 09:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

If a lawyer is sending unencrypted, privileged information in an email, I would think that would be grounds for a malpractice suit, wouldn't it? Email is not even close to being suitable for that kind of stuff -- it would be like talking on a party line and expecting your information to remain private.

--
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by mindstrm · 2004-06-02 10:37 · Score: 1

You are in no way obligated to follow it.. that is true.

However, should a situation arise where the composer of the email or his organisation wants to sue you for doing something dodgy.. the presence of the disclaimer makes it difficult for you to claim you didn't know it wasn't for you, and things like that.

It's not that you would get in trouble for not following the instructions in the disclaimer.. you wouldn't.. but it would be fairly hard for you to claim ignorance.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by cranesan · 2004-06-02 11:52 · Score: 1

We're talking about England here. Fancy Lunch means "Do you want to get lunch?". Go watch 'Harry Potter' or something.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by 1u3hr · 2004-06-02 14:02 · Score: 1

Even better, the disclaimer is in the footer of a document. By reading the document, you are therefore in material breach of a contract that you haven't even read yet.
Don't complain about that. A friend a a legal firm's emails all have the fucking disclaimer, PREPENDED to his message. At least it's relatively brief:
Please note: This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. Please notify us immediately if you are not the intended recipient. You should not copy it, forward it or use it for any purpose or disclose the contents to any person.
Which I've just violated, of course.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by LC+Gundo · 2004-06-02 15:12 · Score: 1

Any ideas on how I might pare down standard disclaimer to four lines?
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that the path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil men. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. For, blessed is he, who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost communication. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger, those who attempt to forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce my message, and you will know my name is The Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

--
I'm time traveling, right now
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by zx75 · 2004-06-02 18:27 · Score: 1

True, I exaggerated slightly, but any such communication would put you in just as tight of a spot if it were communicated verbally.

However, sending hate based email to a friend of like-mind is clearly not on the same level as shouting the same message across a crowded room.

--
This is not a sig.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Ohreally_factor · 2004-06-02 20:57 · Score: 1

Are you some sort of fag?

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by .nuno · 2004-06-02 22:58 · Score: 1

Yup, like in "Fancy a fag", which will mean something *really* different anywhere else...

--
.sig
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 23:15 · Score: 0

Do you have a fag I could use one right now?
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 23:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

The fact that this Slashdot story has generated so much interest and misinformed commentary (which has, as of this moment, received enough misinformed mod points to be rated "5, Interesting") indicates that these disclaimers are not only *not* superfluous, but rather continue to be necessary and perhaps even need to be *strengthened.*

The warning that something may be legally privileged and/or confidential is intended for the recipient, not someone who intercepts the message. If the content is legally privileged or confidential, that privilege or confidentiality may be considered as being *waived* in many jurisdictions if the intended receipient shares the message with others, perhaps even including other family members.

As far as someone reading the message not being the intended recipient, there are laws such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 that make the unauthorized interception of many electronic communications by individuals and/or the disseminiation of information gained by such interception a criminal act. These laws do not seem to be well-known to readers of Slashdot. The notice that use or disseminiation of the information in an email that you intercepted is prohibited is not intended to warn someone to whom the message has been forwarded. Rather, it is a clear warning to anyone who intercepts such a message without authorization, including nosy ISP sysadmins, of possible liability and the intent to pursue such liability on the part of the sender.

Finally, the request that the recipient notify the sender and delete the message if the message was received in error is merely a request that the recipient engage in common courtesy. If you intended to send a message to someone and put the wrong email address on it by mistake, wouldn't you want the actual recipient to do this as a favor to you? How else would you know it didn't get to the intended recipient until it was too late?
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by hearingaid · 2004-06-03 00:57 · Score: 1

It should.
The problem is that lawyers are used to telephone networks, where you just grab the device and begin to speak; all you have to do is say stuff like "Are you alone?" to establish privilege. And even there - you'd be amazed how many lawyers deal with confidential information over unencrypted cellphones. That's beginning to improve, but I don't know of any cases where a lawyer's been successfully prosecuted for failure to protect solicitor-client privilege.

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by dejaffa · 2004-06-03 01:28 · Score: 1

I have personal experience with the spouse opening mail issue, and was advised by an attorney that that's a state-by-state thing. In Indiana, it was legal, and she could even sign my name to contracts and credit card slips.

--
There is no 'i' in team, but there is in fiasco...
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by Ohreally_factor · 2004-06-03 16:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'd be happy to give you a fag. In fact, I brought some Cuban fags home with me from vacation.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Limit this crap to four lines... by CaptainZapp · 2004-06-10 21:59 · Score: 1

Which reminds me of Jamie - a Brit I met in Boston - who told me the following story:
He and his brother where in the US travelling from Chicago south in a car.
Upon checking into a motel they where asked if they want a smoking - or non-smoking room.
Jamie: Well, give us a smoking room. You know, I love to bum a fag before going to bed.
The lady was not amused.

--
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk

Mail User License Agreement by Clinoti · 2004-06-02 03:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

There is also the fine line between culpability and fair use once the message is out in the fields, unless the sending method is sent by a secured source to a trusted source, the email is free and wild. With the amount of sniffing and man in the middle attacks primed and waiting in the background on the internet it would be foolish to think otherwise.

One of the reasons a lot of companies automatically put the disclaimers / nonsense on the bottom of the email is that it provides them with somewhat of a means of liability protection from information that was sent or processed from their systems, lets not also forget the confidentiality or rather the breaches of, that email allow to happen so frequently and readily.

Lastly, later if heaven forbid (!) a scandal hits the office involving a lower or sometimes high level employee, emails (which like any segment of a well defined network) may be called up from archives for an investigation internally or externally in a court of law. Stating the MULA on the bottom of correspondence, while generally accepted in people_to_people terms as fodder, is actually a wise move for a corporation to show its partners, employees, and potential revenue sources the fact that they place internal memos and all communications in the same manner that they would (as any entity with a sense of self preservation) deem a legal document.

--

Let's keep in mind that patents are in place to keep lawyers employed and keep them litigating. -CatGrep

Re:Mail User License Agreement by Croaker-bg · 2004-06-02 03:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

"...unless the sending method is sent by a secured source to a trusted source, the email is free and wild."

The funny part about all this is that the most prevelant abuse you will see with one of these happy disclaimers at the bottom is an email that an employee has sent to themselves at their AO-hel-L address to work on at home and then forward back to work once it is complete. You can pretty much guaruntee it will be an HR person and it is going to have HIPAA or SarbanesOxley information in it and that no number of disclaimers is going to stop the impending lawsuit if it ends up posted to the web or in some Phishers hands.
Re:Mail User License Agreement by clamantis · 2004-06-02 04:49 · Score: 5, Informative

As one who negotiates NDAs for a major corporation, I have advised clients that these "disclaimers" are inappropriate in negotiation. You can't dictate the terms of a confidentiality agreement in an e-mail sig, but only in an agreement duly signed by both parties. Even click-and-accept agreements like EULAs are not recognized in some countries, and so we have to insist on signed paper in those cases. (eg: http://articles.corporate.findlaw.com/articles/fil e/00051/005095/title/Subject/topic/Intellectual%20 Property%20Law_Licensing/filename/intellectualprop ertylaw_1_239 ) We do not use disclaimers like this on e-mails, although attorneys advise that their messages should be considered atty-client privilege if marked confidential. And in those cases, they should never be forwarded outside the company. Point is if you're really serious about electronic data getting into the wrong hands, don't use unencrypted e-mail. If you're concerned about improper use by the intended recipient, don't send the info without a non-disclosure agreement.
Re:Mail User License Agreement by sapped · 2004-06-02 05:39 · Score: 2, Funny

This should be renamed to the Mail User Agreement License.

You hereby agree to the MAUL imposed with this message. If you do not agree to this MAULing and continue reading then we will send somebody around for a Better Educated Assessment Test (BEATing).
Re:Mail User License Agreement by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 06:52 · Score: 1, Funny

This should be renamed to the Mail User Agreement License. You hereby agree to the MAUL imposed with this message.
That'd be MUAL, not MAUL, and thus your joke falls on its face.

Dumbest disclaimer? by BabyDave · 2004-06-02 03:28 · Score: 5, Funny

"If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message unread"

Of course, it was at the bottom of the e-mail.

Re:Dumbest disclaimer? by LostCluster · 2004-06-02 03:40 · Score: 1

That's a boiler plate in the financial world in other forms of communications. Basically, the litteral meaning is an request that to the reader to forget you ever saw a document you weren't supposed to see in the first place, since tacking action based on information you didn't legally obtain is usually a path that leads to legal trouble for the sender. Of course, such a request will always be honored by moral players, and always be ignored by immoral players. Such is life...
Re:Dumbest disclaimer? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:41 · Score: 0

there is one in the debian-users maillist archive that says something to the affect of
'don't post this to the web'
and
'if your not the intented recipient, please return this email'
Re:Dumbest disclaimer? by MSZ · 2004-06-02 04:02 · Score: 1

You see, this depends on the actual law in the recipient's jurisdiction.

Where I live, anything that is sent to me, having my name/address in headers makes me legal recipient. As such I have all rights to the correspondence, including publishing it on the web or street corner. The sender may *kindly* ask me to refrain from doing so, but I'm not required to. The only way it might hold would be if the email contained state secrets, maybe.

So these disclaimers really lack Void where prohibited at the end :-)

--
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
Re:Dumbest disclaimer? by mallardtheduck · 2004-06-02 04:07 · Score: 2, Informative

They dont need "Void where prohibited" to be voided. The courts, if it got that far would just declare it void. The only reason agreements sometimes have similar clauses is to say something like, "the prohibited bits of the agreement are void, but the rest still stands", because otherwise the complete agreement would be voided on one prohibited clause, and if it is a long and complicated agreement, that would be quite possible.

Interesting. by jwthompson2 · 2004-06-02 03:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good article, Stupid Companies...

You would think with the big bucks that companies shell out for attorneys they would have come up with something more workable or just not bother if it doesn't actually protect them. But then again, spreading FUD can be effective too I guess...

--
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

Re:Interesting. by lukewarmfusion · 2004-06-02 03:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

The interesting thing is that the email comes to you generally unsolicited. If the sender accidentally delivers it to the wrong address, then it's unsolicited. You can't force people to agree to a contract - especially by sending them an email with legal crap tacked onto the end.

If you have any reason to protect the contents of the email, use encryption (for the eavesdropper), use some verification (for the unintended recipient), and make your intended recipient sign an NDA before you send them emails with sensitive info in them.

I'll be forwarding this article to my boss, who has recently added a similar statement to his sig.
Re:Interesting. by potus98 · 2004-06-02 03:46 · Score: 1

Obviously, you've never had to deal directly with those "big buck attorneys". It's just this kind of crap that helps them justify their very existence.

Now, I am not condeming all business-focused lawyers. I base my opinions on the actions of all the lawyers I have used in my own companies. They don't try to be long-winded in an effort to protect me, they just are.

--
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.

from the i cant spell department.. by j4y · 2004-06-02 03:31 · Score: 0

"Recently more amd more organisations" ..are requiring speel check

Re:from the i cant spell department.. by jwthompson2 · 2004-06-02 03:36 · Score: 1

It may not be 100% wrong...just not used in typical American English...

--
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
Re:from the i cant spell department.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:40 · Score: 1, Funny

Yeah? Well "can't" and "cant" are two different words so there! Oh, and you forgot to start a sentence with a capital letter, and you forgot to capitalise the "i".
Sometimes you get your ass bitten if you're a pedantic bastard.
Re:from the i cant spell department.. by j4y · 2004-06-02 03:42 · Score: 1

you took it too far mannnnnn
Re:from the i cant spell department.. by Malc · 2004-06-02 03:46 · Score: 0

What's wrong with the spelling in your quote? It looks fine to me. IMHO, it could do with a comma after recently - but that's grammar instead.
Re:from the i cant spell department.. by mcmonkey · 2004-06-02 03:50 · Score: 1

It may not be 100% wrong...but I don't think it's quite what the original poster meant
Re:from the i cant spell department.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:52 · Score: 0

"amd" or "and"
Re:from the i cant spell department.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:04 · Score: 0

Sometimes you get your ass bitten if you're a pedantic bastard.

And sometimes it cost you $15(US) extra to get your ass bitten...
Re:from the i cant spell department.. by jwthompson2 · 2004-06-02 04:05 · Score: 1

missed that one...but given the placement of keys, not a difficult typo to make...

--
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

If you have received this message in error... by ebh · 2004-06-02 03:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

...then I will consider it an unsolicited gift from you, with which I will do whatever I want.

IOW, tacking a too-bad-if-you-looked legal threat to the end of your email does not establish any sort of contract between us.

Re:If you have received this message in error... by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2004-06-02 03:41 · Score: 1

Funny how that doesn't really translate to the real world.

If you opened a paper mail (or package!) meant for your neighbors, but accidentally shipped to your box instead, you would be committing a federal crime in the US, the exception being certain authorities when they have established probable cause or have a warrant.

I don't know how other countries handle it but I imagine that it is common.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by the+pickle · 2004-06-02 03:43 · Score: 4, Informative

There's already precedent for this in the postal system, at least here in the United States.

If you receive something unsolicited in the US Mail (which includes something addressed to you by accident, but not addressed to someone else and simply left in the wrong mailbox), you are free to do with it as you wish. The sender cannot compel you to obey any license agreement or follow any restrictions they might wish to place on its use, within the bounds of the law. (That is, you can't go out and beat someone up with a billy club someone sends you in the mail, because that would otherwise violate the law, but you're free to use it as a billy club even if the company who sent it to you says it's a sex toy for cows.)

There was a great deal of discussion about this back when DigitalConvergence (remember them?) was sending unsolicited CueCats to people and then suing them for taking them apart and hacking them.

Some info on that situation:

http://www.beau.lib.la.us/~jmorris/linux/cuecat/
http://air-soldier.com/~cuecat/
http://www.xmission.com/~rebling/pub/cuecat.html
http://www.logorrhea.com/cuecat/mirrors.html

More on Google; search for "CueCat."

p

--
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
Re:If you have received this message in error... by LostCluster · 2004-06-02 03:44 · Score: 1

On the first mis-transmitted message, I'm inclined to agree with you.

However, if you continue to get e-mails that you're not supposed to get and you don't take a pro-active action to stop them, then you are accepting the information that you're being given... and in financial land if that's insider information and you take action on it, that's insider trading.

I think that's the real point of such disclaimers. If you're not the person this e-mail was supposed to go to, you've intercepted it and if you continue to keep catching that information, you're on notice that the company isn't responsible for what happens with what you do with that info.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:00 · Score: 1, Funny

That is, you can't go out and beat someone up with a billy club someone sends you in the mail, because that would otherwise violate the law, but you're free to use it as a billy club even if the company who sent it to you says it's a sex toy for cows.

Dude, how the hell did you get on a mailing list that sends out stuff like *that*?!?
Re:If you have received this message in error... by ViolentGreen · 2004-06-02 04:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

However, if you continue to get e-mails that you're not supposed to get and you don't take a pro-active action to stop them, then you are accepting the information that you're being given...

I don't know that I completely agree with that. I get hundreds of messages a day that are filtered to my spam folder. I may or may not ever read or even look at the subjects.

--
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by jdavidb · 2004-06-02 04:08 · Score: 1

I see a loophole here for software shrink wrap agreements. I receive several pieces of unsolicited software in the mail from AOL, regularly. Does this mean that I have agreed to nothing and may do anything I wish with them, including disassembly, reverse engineering, duplication, modification, and distribution?

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by mallardtheduck · 2004-06-02 04:15 · Score: 1

Yes, but they would have to establish and intent to open your neighbour's mail.
Therefore you would have to know it was meant for them, easy with paper mail, just look at the address. With email, it is not usually possible to see if the message is meant for you until you read it as the "To:" address is arbituary (cf BeOS mailer, spam messges often have incorrect "To:" addresses).
Re:If you have received this message in error... by DonGar · 2004-06-02 04:16 · Score: 4, Informative

The original purpose of the law was to nix an old scam. Shady companies would ship merchandise to people at random, and them send them a bill.

Originally, people had the legal obligation to return the goods or to pay for them. The companies would make it so hard to return the goods that it was easier to just pay the bill.

In response, Congress came up with a reasonable law that just made the problem go away. Amazing.

--
plus-good, double-plus-good
Re:If you have received this message in error... by GreyyGuy · 2004-06-02 04:22 · Score: 1

I hate stretching analogies like that.

If it was addressed to you, and the envelope had your name on it, and it was delivered to your mail box, and it isn't until you open it up that you discover it was meant for your neighbor, then you have not broken any laws.

That is what opening a mis-addressed email is like.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by LiquidCoooled · 2004-06-02 04:26 · Score: 1

Of course that would be an offense - it was not addressed to you.

The email only comes into your box when its addressed to you.

If somebody mailed me 1000.00 "by mistake" then I would go out and spend it, it was addressed to me, it has my name on it, its mine.

If I opened my neighbours' mail and spent HIS money that would be wrong however.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:If you have received this message in error... by swb · 2004-06-02 04:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Now they just send the bill without any goods, and remarkably people pay them.

I've been trying to convince a friend that we need to start a business providing a legitimate (ie, you'd actually be able to use it) service that nobody needs or wants and just "sign people up" for it and send them bills. Those that paid the bill got their accounts left active, and those who didn't pay the first two bills we'd cancel until we tried them again.

The business we thought we'd set up was "internet service" -- buy a PRI and a dial access router, a 768K DSL line, throw up a couple of BSD boxes for email and web hosting in our garage and we'd have a real, plausable service in case someone complained.

The "service" overhead would be trivial, like maybe $2k a month, and the rest of our costs would be in direct mailing our bills to customers. I'm not sure where you as an individual can buy business mailing lists, but if we did the mailings ourselves, we could possibly only have $5-8K a month in gross overhead costs.

If you get only a 15% return rate for $24.95 per month on 120,000 bills sent, it's not hard to see a gross income of $500,000 per year.

I'm not even sure it's illegal, either.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:54 · Score: 1, Informative

Does this mean that I have agreed to nothing and may do anything I wish with them, including disassembly, reverse engineering, duplication, modification, and distribution?

Yeah, you may do all that to the original physical CD, so long as it doesn't violate any other law. One of those laws, however, is copyright law. So, if any of those things involves making a copy of the data on the CD, such as by reading the data off it and into your computer's memory (each of them most certainly would involve this), then you'd need a license from AOL to make that copy. That's what the shrinkwrap license is. If you don't agree to that license, you don't have the right to make any copies (i.e. read the CD).

That's how the argument goes, I think (IANAL, of course). Think about it -- if someone sent you a book in the mail, you wouldn't be allowed to start up your own printing press. The same goes for CDs. The only problem is that it's very hard to read a CD with the naked eye, so they send along a license that will let you do something with it other than look at it or use it to decorate your house.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:04 · Score: 0

I'm not even sure it's illegal, either.

Your local prosecutor is sure that it is illegal. The judge is sure, too. So is the jury.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:16 · Score: 0

You, and people like you, are scum.

Legal? Probably not. Ethical? Hell no.

Go to hell, jerk.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by DavidTC · 2004-06-02 05:36 · Score: 1

No.
Copying computer software enough to use it is already an exemption under copyright law. You haven't needed a license for that since the mid-80s.
As you cannot run it from the CD, you must copy it to your hard drive.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:If you have received this message in error... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:38 · Score: 0

It is illegal at least in most jurisdictions. Even SCO have so far stopped short of sending actual invoices, precisely because this would get them in more trouble than even they want to deal with.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:53 · Score: 0

A few years ago I got an unsolicited $5 check in the mail from some outfit. The idea was that I was supposed to write all my credit card numbers on the back of the check and cash it - which then entitled me to their "credit protection" service for only 79 cents per month for the rest of my life. Of course, I cashed the check without writing any credit card numbers on it - and it cleared! The company kept sending me letters all year asking for my credit card numbers. I declined, but thanked them nicely for the $5 gift. Even so, they sent the same promotion the following year, and I cashed it again. I figured I had an annuity! I wonder how many people fell for it, though.

I thought this was a scam fit only for flybynight outfits, but after that I got the same damn $5 check from American Express offering some other useless service. I didn't cash that one though, because they already had my credit card number.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by Daniel_Staal · 2004-06-02 06:17 · Score: 1

I see a fair number of replies saying this is illegal, but I'm not so sure.

Of course, signing them up without asking and demanding they pay you would be illegal. But that's not really what you are talking about...

You are talking about something I've seen two pieces of mail doing this week: sending a sign-up contract that looks like a bill, and when they pay it providing the service. If they don't pay, well you were only offering. If they do, you have a customer...

(Of course, I'd like to add this if you ever try it: DIE SCUM!)

--
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by shayne321 · 2004-06-02 06:45 · Score: 1

You are talking about something I've seen two pieces of mail doing this week: sending a sign-up contract that looks like a bill, and when they pay it providing the service. If they don't pay, well you were only offering. If they do, you have a customer...
The big long distance players (well, some of them at least) use a variation on this. They send you a check for some small but meaningful amount ($2 to $10 US) and tell you it is a gift/rebate/etc. In the fine print on the back of the check just below where you endorse it you see that the act of endorsing and cashing that check signs you up for brand X long distance at a minimum rate of $14.95 per month or some such.
I frequently get legitimate random checks from my insurance companies, cell phone provider, etc for over payment, class action lawsuits and so on, so I'm used to signing and cashing without reading the fine print. I wonder how many people that don't pay attention get taken in by this?

--
Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
Re:If you have received this message in error... by swb · 2004-06-02 07:27 · Score: 1

OK, to appease all the slashbots who assume I'm an asshat, I'm only TALKING about doing this, not actually doing it.

I'm not talking about "demanding" that any recipient of a bill pay me, just asking that they pay. There would be no threat, actual or implied, that any action would be taken if they didn't pay, other than cancellation of their service.

The reason a friend and I discussed this at all, was it seems that it's exactly the kind of business ethics that our corporate overlords seem to use, so I figured why can't *I* take advantage of this?

It's hard to see how it would be actually illegal, since there really would be a basic ISP service available. The only thing about it would be the ethics of taking money from people who don't pay attention.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 09:04 · Score: 0

So in other words, because some corporations (with dubious intentions and few ethics) do it, and there doesn't seem to be a law against it, it's ok?

Hey, there's no law against going door-to-door and selling enormously overpriced goods to senior citizens who don't know any better! Taking advantage of the ignorant and monied is fun!

You're still scum. Talking about doing it? How about organizing to prevent it! Scumbag!
Re:If you have received this message in error... by arkanes · 2004-06-02 12:24 · Score: 1

The idea that every little bit of copying is a copyright violation is nonsense and needs to stop. Especially in this case, as sufficent rights to actually use software that you have legal title to (such as the software that AOL sends you in the mail) is explicitly granted.
If someone sent you a book you have every right in the world to set up your own printing press (or bulk copier) and run off a bajillion copies of it. Maybe you want to use them to lay a foundation for your house or something. If someone sends you a CD, you can do whatever you want with that CD, including reading the bits off of it and manipulating them in whatever way you desire. The amount of legal force in an EULA (in a non-UCITA state, anyway) is barely any more than an email disclaimer, and even then only because it requires affirmation that you've seen it. Bypass the installer and there's no legal weight at all
You do not need a special license to use softare. Period. There's no law anywhere in the US that says you do, not even UCITA. There's no case law supporting the idea that you do. There are some very tenuous cases where clicking "I Agree" to a shrinkwrap will constitute a real contract, but you don't have to agree to that contract, and can use your legally obtained software anyway.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by SlartibartfastJunior · 2004-06-02 16:31 · Score: 1

Newspapers do this frequently - send you a free paper, then send you a "bill" for your subscription. I've had to call a few times to double-check they won't ruin my credit by me not paying for a paper I never wanted - especially since it's so easy to answer "yes" to a telemarketer trying to sell you one, and then you are bound by contract.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by hearingaid · 2004-06-03 01:26 · Score: 1

I believe you need to reconsider your position.
Suppose an author sends a manuscript to O'Reilly. Does that give O'Reilly the unfettered right to produce ten thousand copies of that book without any contract with the author?
I'm pretty sure O'Reilly itself would say "no," and they'd be right. ;)

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Re:If you have received this message in error... by hearingaid · 2004-06-03 01:29 · Score: 1

In that case, they don't care about you. :) They only want to disclaim against people who've actually read the email. Unless you have some automatic-forwarding script set up, you evil bastard.

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Re:If you have received this message in error... by swb · 2004-06-03 01:37 · Score: 1

The big long distance players (well, some of them at least) use a variation on this. They send you a check for some small but meaningful amount ($2 to $10 US) and tell you it is a gift/rebate/etc. In the fine print on the back of the check just below where you endorse it you see that the act of endorsing and cashing that check signs you up for brand X long distance at a minimum rate of $14.95 per month or some such.

This was largely my inspiration after chasing down these kinds of surcharges on our phone bill at work. As it happens, someone in our finance department deposited a few of these checks. The perp in each case was "yp.net", and the "services" we signed up for were internet service and, most uselessly, a "listing" on "yellowpages.net".

As much as I admit its a pretty slimy thing to do, I have to give them a certain amount of credit -- you only get signed up if you're not paying attention. Their customer service was actually quite good, promptly cancelling our "accounts" and even faxing a cancelled check when asked for it.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by arkanes · 2004-06-03 02:48 · Score: 1

Thats a good point and you're probably right. On the other hand, reprinting or even re-mailing a letter that was sent to you is not a violation of copyright, so I'm not sure where the line is.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by hearingaid · 2004-06-03 03:42 · Score: 1

Right on one.
Reprinting the letter is a violation of copyright: You're copying the letter.
Re-mailing the letter is not a copyright violation. Assuming you re-mail the original letter, you can stuff it back in the envelope and give it to whomever.
In some circumstances, reprinting the letter might be allowed under fair use. For example, journalists sometimes publish letters written between private parties. It's allowed by fair use, but not copyright.

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Re:If you have received this message in error... by Grrr · 2004-06-03 05:41 · Score: 1

Yup, you're only talking about it - so far.
What's the precursor to evil behavior?

(cp. "If all the other spammers jump off a bridge, are you going to want to do it too?")

<grrr>
Re:If you have received this message in error... by swb · 2004-06-03 06:31 · Score: 1

Well, since I don't have the $20K it would take to start a venture like that, I think it will remain just talk, just as if I'd been talking about raising a people's army and seizing control of the state.
Re:If you have received this message in error... by Grrr · 2004-06-03 10:55 · Score: 1

Alright! Your current good intentions will have to be reassuring enough, then... until you do come across an extra twenty grand.
Good thing neither of us is that wealthy, today.

<grrr>

There is a much older Ressource ... by Sweetshark · 2004-06-02 03:32 · Score: 5, Informative

about this here. And it also has a collection of stupid disclaimers ..

oh no by millahtime · 2004-06-02 03:33 · Score: 1

so, when i send out jokes on my company email with the disclaimer it could get misused. oh the horror.

--
Evolution or ID?

Its All Mine! by Shmooze · 2004-06-02 03:34 · Score: 3, Informative

In the UK received mail is the property of the receiver, to do with what they like...

Therefore you can forward emailed confidential information as much as you like!

Note of course that true email goes through SMTP across the net, not just through some companies mail server.

Re:Its All Mine! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:05 · Score: 0

not if you open someone elses mail, its called "tampering with her majestys mail" (as the Royal Mail are responsible) and is actually a serious offence, pre 1900 you could be sentenced to death for it and its prison if you open it to use it fraduently
Re:Its All Mine! by BarryNorton · 2004-06-02 04:19 · Score: 1

Nonsense, the petty ramblings of some American lawyer aside (and they do that in court too), the Law of Confidence in the UK applies if information is communicated in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence... which is exactly what this tries to do.

Not that I'm a fan of this rubbish being attached to the bottom of every mail, but I'm far from convinced by that article that it's not effective here.
Re:Its All Mine! by gstoddart · 2004-06-02 05:40 · Score: 1

Note of course that true email goes through SMTP across the net, not just through some companies mail server.

What the heck are you talking about? It's e-mail if it goes across the office or across the world.

It's still a phone call if it only goes through the companies PBX to someone else in the company.

It's still air if it only goes through the corporate ventilation system.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Its All Mine! by hearingaid · 2004-06-03 01:32 · Score: 1

When will people learn to separate copyright from property?
Received mail is the property of the receiver. However, forwarding email produces a copy of that email. You need a copyright license to copy something that somebody else holds the copyright to.
And yes, you can own something and yet not have the copyright. I just bought "Sethra Lavode" by Steven Brust; I own it. However, I have no right to copy it. Duh.

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

stupid disclaimers by colinleroy · 2004-06-02 03:35 · Score: 5, Funny

IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorised (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although the yorkshire terrier next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft: However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites and place it in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Whisk briefly and let it stand for 2 hours before icing.
(Lifted from http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/)

--
blah

Re:stupid disclaimers by frodo+from+middle+ea · 2004-06-02 05:57 · Score: 1

By far the most funniest thing I have read in quite some time. I wish I had mod points. +1 Too Fucking funny Mod point to you.

--
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Re:stupid disclaimers by Jell · 2004-06-02 08:17 · Score: 1

"This mail was intended for someone who may, or may not, have been you. If it was not you, then you are instructed to read this section of the email (which has been conveniently placed at the bottom of the text after everything else) first. If, by some bizarre occurrence you read the rest of the email first and so have absorbed some probably trivial but maybe highly embarrassing, information, then you are to forget everything you have read (except for this disclaimer) and send the email back to the person who sent it to you asking them to do the same. Any other copies of the email are to be destroyed and if you have divulged information from this email to others then they are to be eliminated. If, however, you were the intended addressee, then you don't need to read this disclaimer at all. We apologise for this inconvenience."

HIPAA by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've seen this mostly as a way to comply with HIPAA. HIPAA, governing confidentiality of medical information, doesn't mean you actually have to be secure, just that you have to take reasonable security measures. Many nonprofits have taken this to mean they can send whatever they want via e-mail as long as they tack a disclaimer onto the end. Of course, it's completely ridiculous, but everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we jump off that cliff too?

Re:HIPAA by Gr8Apes · 2004-06-02 03:44 · Score: 1

Ah, the lemming arguement. Gotta love that one.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:HIPAA by jmrobinson · 2004-06-02 03:51 · Score: 0

HIPAA disclaimer: This document may contain information covered under the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552(a), and/or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (PL 104-191) and its various implementing regulations and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Healthcare information is personal and sensitive and must be treated accordingly. If this correspondence contains healthcare information it is being provided to you after appropriate authorization from the patient or under circumstances that don't require patient authorization. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Redisclosure without additional patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality subjects you to application of appropriate sanction. If you have received this correspondence in error, please notify the sender at once and destroy any copies you have made. Yes, thats right...Probably the only thing protecting your genital warts secret is this disclaimer...
Re:HIPAA by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:25 · Score: 0

Speaking of HIPAA disclaimers, here's ours:

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PROFESSIONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S). This email message and/or any attachments thereto may be confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding or copying of this email message and/or attachments or taking of any action in reliance on the contents therein is strictly prohibited. Please notify [insert employer's name here] immediately by reply email or telephone, and delete the original message and all attachments from your system. Thank you.

Talk about lame...
Re:HIPAA by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:49 · Score: 0

We had many useless discussions about FOIPPA (Freedom of information and privacy protection act) at my institution and then shortly after some folks started to attach nonsense disclaimers to their emails. They had not been instructed to from our legal advisors; my theory is they just thought it made their emails look more official or important. Sadly, I think they are being used here as some sort of sick status symbol.
Re:HIPAA by Larry+Lightbulb · 2004-06-02 05:44 · Score: 1

Pretty similar to ours - though we only have a suggested version, and can make whatever changes we see fit. Still doesn't stop people adding it to one-line internal messages with no confidential data. I would have thought HIPAA itself would have a standard version.

This message and any attached files might contain confidential information protected by federal and state law. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities originally named as addressees. The improper disclosure of such information may be subject to civil or criminal penalties. If this message reached you in error, please contact the sender and destroy this message. Disclosing, copying, forwarding, or distributing the information by unauthorized individuals or entities is strictly prohibited by law.
Re:HIPAA by gnu-generation-one · 2004-06-02 06:16 · Score: 1

"I've seen this mostly as a way to comply with HIPAA"

Oh, the stupid disclaimers were in use long before HIPPO, and are still used by loads of people with nothing to do with medical stuff, and loads of people not in HIPPY's country.

By reading this email, you agree to bomb a building.
Re:HIPAA by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 06:18 · Score: 0

If one disagrees with the HIPAA are they HIPAA critical?
Re:HIPAA by flink · 2004-06-02 07:26 · Score: 1

I work for a HIPAA covered entity, but IANAL and I don't speak for my employer.

Our lawyers have told us that the security clause means that the information must be encrypted while it is in transit over a public network.

So any of the following are fine as methods of transmitting PHI: SFTP, HTTPS, email /w PGP, any unencrypted protocol over a properly secured intranet or VPN with a trused party.

emailing a plain text attachment with a disclaimer, however, is right out.

That said, it is my understanding that the government has yet to allocate dollar one for HIPAA enforcement, and yes, our emails do include a stupid HIPAA disclaimer.

It's not only email disclaimers by wiggys · 2004-06-02 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not only email disclaimers which are annoying and stupid (not to mention a waste of bandwidth) - what about those messages which say "This email has been certified virus free by xxxxx"?

I wouldnt trust that message any more than I would trust an executable attachment because for all I know a virus could email itself to me with a message saying "This email is virus free" in the hopes I unplug my brain before running the attachment.

BTW, returning to the topic for a minute, email disclaimers piss me off when they tell me what I can and can't do with an email I received. Er... excuse me but if someone sends an email to me by mistake I will do whatever the fuck I like with it, thank you very much! :P

--

Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.

Re:It's not only email disclaimers by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:40 · Score: 0

Actually there's a host of viruses that do that now - something about "+++scanned by McAfee+++" or something like that.
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by wiggys · 2004-06-02 03:52 · Score: 1

>Actually there's a host of viruses that do that now - something about "+++scanned by McAfee+++" or something like that
That reminds me of another piece of social engineering which, for some reason, women seem to fall for more than men:
Every so often I receive either a joke email, or a sentimental vomit-inducing friendship-type, with a message at the end saying "Send this to 5 people in your address book and a love heart will appear on your screen" or "If you send this to 7 people in the next 7 hours your dream will come true, if not your goldfish will die".
I get so pissed off when I receive these, some people are just so superstitious/retarded its insane.

--
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by Liselle · 2004-06-02 04:00 · Score: 1

It's not only email disclaimers which are annoying and stupid (not to mention a waste of bandwidth) - what about those messages which say "This email has been certified virus free by xxxxx"?
I've always assumed that was just advertising for the virus-scanner more than anything else. You know, to get people to use their product to certify THEIR outgoing email.

--
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by red+floyd · 2004-06-02 04:45 · Score: 1

Yeah. We have a relative who's always forwarding internet chain mail/urban myth letters.

I finally got pissed off and told her, that I wouldn't mind if she directed it to me specifically and asked, "Is this for real?", but if I got them as part of a chain, my wife and I would be very pissed off at her.

It seems to be working... I've gotten three "is this real?" emails in the past two weeks. I let her know if it's bogus or true, often with a Snopes reference (warning -- popups), or a reference to CIAC.

Sometimes just telling someone to check their facts first works (yeah, I know, about the weather report in Hell).

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by julesh · 2004-06-02 04:53 · Score: 1

On the subject of chain mail, I've noticed a chain advert in my local newspapers. I just googled for a bit of the text of it, and here it is:

Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary
(Never known to fail)

Oh most beautiful flower of Mt. Carmel, fruitful vine, splendor of heaven, Blessed Mother of the Son of God, Immaculate Virgin, assist me in this necessity. Oh star of the sea, help me and show me herein, you are my mother. Oh holy Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Earth, I humbly beseech thee from the bottom of my heart to succor me in this my necessity (make request) There are none that can withstand your power. Oh show me here that you are my Mother. Oh Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee (3 times) Holy Mary, I place this cause in your hands (3 times) Thank you for your mercy on me and mine. Amen. (This prayer must be prayed for 3 consecutive days. Then publish this prayer and your request will be granted.

Yeah, right. Never known to fail because the person publishing it has never tried it before. I doubt anyone tries it twice, not at newspaper advert rates.
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by Gadzinka · 2004-06-02 04:57 · Score: 1

Er... excuse me but if someone sends an email to me by mistake I will do whatever the fuck I like with it, thank you very much! :P

Even more so. In some countries (at least in Poland) letter (as in paper mail) belongs to recipient, copyright or not.

Robert

--
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by julesh · 2004-06-02 04:58 · Score: 1

Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary
(Never known to fail) [...]

Actually, what's worst is that the results of my search came up with 73 sites where this has been published (presumably by people hoping it works), and not one taking the piss out of it, or even complaining that it didn't work when they prayed for a huge lottery prize. [Yeah, I know that one. "Meet me halfway, buy a ticket."]

My faith in the Internet has been wrecked.
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by julesh · 2004-06-02 05:02 · Score: 1

Replying to myself again. This one's amusing:

http://www.laguna.net/board_dir/viewboard.cgi?ca t= personal&brn=LI

This is a collection of prayers to St. Jude, who is of course the patron saint of hopeless causes. And computer programmers.
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by stanmann · 2004-06-02 05:16 · Score: 1

That means that the person sending the message hasn't trimmed that footer... since I only see that message on inbound messages from MY virus checker...

IOW blame the sender, not the software.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by Daniel_Staal · 2004-06-02 06:22 · Score: 1

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of my standard disclaimer:

This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law.

--
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 06:51 · Score: 0

Am I the only one who suddently remembers "No Virus on Bootblock"-"virus" for Amiga...
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by Fjord · 2004-06-02 07:57 · Score: 1

It may be a dick thing to do, but I email every person received the email, all the way back up the chain. Anyone and everyone in any header gets a message linking to how it's fake and an giving an explaination on how they can research these themselves.

It has seriously cut down on the number of the urban legends I get. People who send these things on will have to think twice because even if they are not sending it to me, it might make it to me, so they should double check.

--
-no broken link
Re:It's not only email disclaimers by mbrinkm · 2004-06-02 08:03 · Score: 1

I too have gotten fed up with these e-mails in the past. Here is a link that I send in reply to those e-mails Soapbox - Humorous way to make your point.

The funny thing, I haven't received nearly as many of those e-mails since I started sending this in response.

--
"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." --Howard Aike

CRUNCHOMATIC .SIG COMPACTOR by calebb · 2004-06-02 03:36 · Score: 1

This article reminds me of my old usenet signature - and an alt.fan.warlord post (Subject: Makes my teeth itch) that JCEvans made in February 1997.

You'll have to follow the link to see the signature crunching in all its glory...

Just for a laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:36 · Score: 0

I fired up word to see if it could proofread this post. To my surprise i found 2 spelling mistakes.

Now what does this show? Slashdot editors don't proofread or even spell check posts? Or do they simply not read them, but use a system of skimming or some kind of automated process to post news.

larger slashdot sig by dnotj · 2004-06-02 03:36 · Score: 1

I need a much bigger slashdot sig to carry my slashdot posting disclaimer...

--
No more Micro$oft bashing from me. Its like bashing at the special olympics.

Legal != Sensible by drdanny_orig · 2004-06-02 03:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

The author makes one unfortunate assumption, IMO. Whether or not such disclaimers make sense is immaterial. If a court finds them binding, they are binding. And remember, judges are just lawyers with state-approved uniforms.

--
.nosig

Re:Legal != Sensible by millahtime · 2004-06-02 03:41 · Score: 1

Also, don't forget that even though judges are supposed to be unbiased they all have their own agendas. If you take that to enough courts/appeals they can find one judge to support it.

--
Evolution or ID?
Re:Legal != Sensible by FuzzyBad-Mofo · 2004-06-02 05:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
I'm currently taking a course in business law. These disclaimers are theoretically a contract, so let's examine them to see if they are valid:

Contracts have four requirements to be valid:
- Agreement
- Consideration
- Capacity
- Legality
Agreement: Even if you have a previous business relationship with the sender, this "disclaimer" would constiture new terms, and thus be considered terms for a new contract. The recipient is under no obligation to accept.
Consideration: The sender is offering nothing of value in return for acceptance. Courts usually don't look fondly upon one-sided contracts.
Capacity: The recipient may have contractual capacity (age, mental competance, etc), or they may not. In the case of an email transmission, capacity of both parties is unknown.
Legality: The terms of the contract must be legal. Courts usually frown on contracts that reduce the constitutional rights of the offeree, especially if the offeror wields an undue amount of power.

Summary: Take this "contract" before a Judge and it will be laughed out of court.
Disclaimer: IANAL

Is this article broken for anybody else? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-06-02 03:38 · Score: 1

May just be my employer's advertising blocking software, but this was the hardest to read article I've seen in a long time. Text on top of text for 3/4ths of the article (the length of the left side menu bar) in IE 6.0 (look, I don't have a choice at work, ok?).

Still, interesting article. Looks like this is about as enforcible as those stupid non-disclosure agreements all the .coms used to make us sign.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Is this article broken for anybody else? by Mr_Dyqik · 2004-06-02 04:06 · Score: 1

That's particularly silly for an article on MSN.

I'd suspect the ad blocking, as Microsoft are surely not _that_ dumb. Unless you failed to get a stylesheet due to ye olde Slafhdote effecte.

Lazy quoting and lack of snippage by Malc · 2004-06-02 03:40 · Score: 1

The problem with these things is when one gets added on to an existing email thread that has bounced back and forth between other people for a while. At that point half the message or more is just repeated quotes of the signature. Email cliens like Outlook with their default quoting mechansim are only partly to blame for this. Now I understand that in a corporate environment that it is important to keep everything for legal purposes, but it's still annoying. I really really don't need it in personal correspondence.

These are foolish by phunster · 2004-06-02 03:41 · Score: 3, Informative

Because these warnings are sent with every e-mail and annoyingly to many mailing lists they are legally untenable. In order for these warnings to have real meaning they should only be used on mail that is actually private and meant for one individual or organization. When you send an e-mail to a mailing list, for instance, you should know that most of them are archived and certainly your e-mail will have a long life in the google archives.

I don't imagine that you will have a good outcome in court when you ask the judge to sanction one reader who violated the warning. Your honor, here are ten e-mails that the same person sent to mailing lists with the same warning, how can I take the warning seriously when the sender doesn't?

Re:These are foolish by surprise_audit · 2004-06-02 04:04 · Score: 1

Your honor, here are ten e-mails that the same person sent to mailing lists with the same warning, how can I take the warning seriously when the sender doesn't?

I suspect the reply would be something along the lines of:
We're not here to guess the intentions of the sender. We're here to decide if you violated the Terms of Use of this one email, which you did. Guilty as charged! Next case?"

No, it doesn't have to make sense to the mythical "man in the street", just so long as it makes sense to the lawyers...

spam too by mabu · 2004-06-02 03:41 · Score: 4, Funny

I just got a spam message that had this at the bottom:

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, you are hereby notified that we do not consent to any reading, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the transmitted information.

Of course, all the header info is forged, so now I'm freaking out since I can't get in touch with them to let them know that this sensitive penis creme enlargement trade secret information may have fallen into the wrong hands!

Re:spam too by LostCluster · 2004-06-02 03:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Spammers are likely including that paragraph because mimics one that is likely to appear in messages that a lot of people are marking non-spam in their bayesian filters. Whenever any line of text becomes too popular in e-mail, I'm sure we'll see spammers there to capitalize.
Re:spam too by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:46 · Score: 0

Of course, all the header info is forged, so now I'm freaking out since I can't get in touch with them to let them know that this sensitive penis creme enlargement trade secret information may have fallen into the wrong hands!

Wash your hands.
Re:spam too by fizbin · 2004-06-02 05:18 · Score: 1

This could actually be a consequence of the hijacked machine doing the spam sending being on some corporate network that adds those disclaimers to every piece of outgoing email. If you track back the Received: headers as far as you trust them, you'll probably find that it went through some big corporation's outbound email server. They might even not mind a notice that one of their machines is sending spam. (Probably, they'll ignore it, unless you happen to contact the properly bearded network guru they have hidden in a basement somewhere)

Favorite disclaimer: by Henrik+S.+Hansen · 2004-06-02 03:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Favorite disclaimer:

The goatse.cx lawyer has informed us that we need a warning! So.. if you are under the age of 18 or find this photograph offensive, please don't look at it. Thank you!

Re:Favorite disclaimer: by Lehk228 · 2004-06-02 04:16 · Score: 1

favorite as in you look at it alot?

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

I fail to see the humor in this Thread by notestein · 2004-06-02 03:42 · Score: 1

I fail to see the humor in this thread.

This message is the property of Notestein or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of this thread(s). No thread reader should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this post in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a reader of this thread. If the reader of this post is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the poster and delete this post.

--

www.bannination.com Two things float to the top he

My new sig by fungus · 2004-06-02 03:42 · Score: 1, Redundant

This slashdot comment and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient named in the original comment to which this message was attached. Any review, copying, or distribution of this comment (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please return this slashdot comment to the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this comment and any attachments thereto.

Re:don't know about most email for others by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:43 · Score: 0

They have wild pigs running through them? Please explain...

They are a waste of space by color+of+static · 2004-06-02 03:44 · Score: 2

Think about it. No one can make you legally bound for something they just send to you. A legal status such as copyright can be infered, but not much else. This is a typical legal tactic of bullying without much more then impressive verbage to stand behind.

Anyone ever estimate how much space these things are wasting on servers all over the US (I'm assuming this is unique to the US)?

Re:They are a waste of space by peggus · 2004-06-02 04:18 · Score: 1, Informative

Sadly it is not unique to the US. I have a friend who works for a large telecom company in Sweden. I regularly recieve forwarded email jokes from him with some ridicoulus legalese at the bottom. Ofcourse I take great pleasure in forwarding it to all my friends.

Unsolicited goods by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:44 · Score: 0

If someone sends you unsolicited goods, you have no obligation to them.

I have developed a click-thru license to read email and have published it under the gnu. (This is prior art in case someone tries to patent that idea.) Imagine having to have an NDA to read your spam.

At the bottom of my faxes: by The-Bus · 2004-06-02 03:47 · Score: 1

This facsimile transmission is intended only for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination, or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at the telephone number listed above and destroy the material you received.

What's funny is I just copied it from an attorney's fax cover sheet (who probably had it in there from their Microsoft Works fax wizard).

--

Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

What is the legal basis? by brunes69 · 2004-06-02 03:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Putting a disclaimer at the bottom of a message is utterly ridiculous. It is like posting a biuig notice on the side of a building, then at the bottom adding "This message is (c) Foobar, anyone reading it agress to pay me 5 million dollars". You have to stipulate terms of a license *before* the licensed product, not after.

To realy get them, why not add the following reply to your SMTP HELO response on your mailserver: "Any email sent to this system is considered the personal property of Foobar, and all rights and copyrights associated with said email are automatically assigned to Foobar. Your use of this system constitutes acceptance of this agreement."

It would be just as ridiculous as the email signatures.

Re:What is the legal basis? by tilleyrw · 2004-06-02 04:02 · Score: 1

You have to stipulate terms of a license *before* the licensed product, not after.
Excuse me, what planet are you from?
Is the phrase Shrink-Wrapped-EULA's familiar to you?

--
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Re:What is the legal basis? by pavon · 2004-06-02 04:13 · Score: 1

No it isn't like that at all. Both of the examples that you stated involve would require a contract to be valid, and since you are never signed a contract then those claims are not enforceable. However, they do have copyright on the documents that they send you so stating that you have no right to redistribute the document is an enforcable claim. They don't need your permission to enforce the rights that they already have, just additional ones.
Re:What is the legal basis? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:50 · Score: 0

Regarding the SMTP HELO response with rights assigned to Foobar: if you are Foobar, wouldn't this set you up as a target in a lawsuit if there was anything damaging? Wasn't Microsoft or some ISP sued not long ago because they, for a short time, claimed copyright for postings?
Best to cast them into the Public Domain.

Email to govt in Texas becomes public record. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Here in Texas whenever you send an email to a state or local government official, it automatically constitutes a public record, regardless of any disclaimers attached, and is subject to the state's open records availablility and record retention laws.

Even with no disclaimer... by DaHat · 2004-06-02 03:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

... one can still gripe about the 'confidentiality' of an e-mail and have a case (albeit limited).

Not too long ago I was having a bit of an e-mail battle with a professor and as many of what he said was flat out wrong, I put up a small webpage with the unabridged text of the e-mails for other students in the class to read so they would be aware of the problems I had raised which concerned them all.

The professor later threatened to sue me for "libel, slander and defamation" because of the "publication of our confidential and private e-mail conversations", even though there was no disclaimer or even an assumption of privacy.

Thankfully, given a number of illegal things he had done in the e-mails (IE blowing off FERPA), any such case would have been thrown out quite quickly.

When I told this story to my father, he told me a quote he heard long ago:

"Never put something in a letter that you don't want the other guy's lawyer holding up in court"

The moral of this story: Disclaimer or not, don't write anything in an e-mail, letter, diary, word document that you don't want getting out.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Re:Even with no disclaimer... by Ixitar · 2004-06-02 04:01 · Score: 1

I remember being told to treat sending an e-mail as if I were sending a postcard. There is absolutely no expectation of privacy. If I want absolute privacy, I have a face to face conversation. Other than that, the two parties need to agree to use encryption for the e-mail message. Even that is not a perfect solution.
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by DaHat · 2004-06-02 04:09 · Score: 1

Exactly, and for the longest time, the only place you can truly be confident of the security of a document is within your own head... that is until the Thought Police from the Ministry of Love are unleashed... I can only imagine the kinds of Thought Crimes I have committed! Down with Big Brother... er... oh crap.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by pjt33 · 2004-06-02 04:42 · Score: 1

The professor later threatened to sue me for "libel, slander and defamation" because of the "publication of our confidential and private e-mail conversations", even though there was no disclaimer or even an assumption of privacy.
Even had there been such a disclaimer, or, to take it to extremes, a contract stipulating privacy, you haven't committed libel, slander or defamation by quoting someone in context. (He'd have been able to sue for breach of contract in the extreme case, but breach of contract isn't defamation).
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by DaHat · 2004-06-02 05:04 · Score: 1

Libel/Slander can exist if the intent of the quote was to cause harm. That is to say, if I quoted something that painted someone in a very bad light and my intent of quoting it was to cause them to loose a job, money, etc then yes, I could held liable (although in the US, Libel/Slander are very very very difficult things to sell in court).

Thus when ever you quote the opposition, it is important not to mean it in a "hahaha, I'm going to get you way" but instead a more dignified "here is the truth, nothing more" manor.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:29 · Score: 0

You can be held accnountable for what you think or feel. Ever hear of a "Hate Crime"?
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by pjt33 · 2004-06-02 05:39 · Score: 1

Libel and slander are both defamation, and defamation requires the statement made to be false. Glossary of legal terms courtesy of a U.S. Circuit Court.
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by Luminari · 2004-06-02 06:03 · Score: 2, Informative

The professor later threatened to sue me for "libel, slander and defamation" because of the "publication of our confidential and private e-mail conversations", even though there was no disclaimer or even an assumption of privacy.
Let's take a look at this:

1. Libel - The act of posting a false publication (hmm this doesn't work, hes posting an email the person actually sent)

2. Slander - A false or misleading statement (This doesn't work either, again, he just posted a verbatum email sent to him)

3. defamation - The acting of injuring someone by slanderous communication (This applies to statements a person made, not statements that someone else made that you printed)

Fact is, unless you sign something ahead of time, such as a Non-Disclosure agreement, stating that all emails you recieve are confidential, you have every legal right to post anything either mail or email (or phone call, or smoke signal) that someone sends you. By sending information to someone, your essentially giving them the rights to that information. It doesn't matter what kind of disclaimer they put on it, because you didn't sign anything ahead of time.
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by DaHat · 2004-06-02 06:05 · Score: 1

You are not being held accountable solely for what you think or feel, but how you express such feelings.

If a racists runs around screaming "I hate *insert race here*'s" there is nothing legally wrong with that. However if our same racist goes off and kills a *insert race here* man while screaming "I hate *insert race here*s", then it is no longer just them saying how they feel but acting upon how the feel and in an illegal manor.

While we do have the freedom of speech, expression of it can be curtailed. Advocating violence against an individual or group does tend to be illegal, it is the difference between simply saying "I hate *insert race here*'s" and "I think someone should kill *insert race here*'s".

Hence this is part of the logic behind it being illegal to advocate violence against the president. No matter how much you don't like him or dislike him, do not say that someone should harm him in any physical way... doing so can get the Feds on your rear.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by Maxwell'sSilverLART · 2004-06-02 06:19 · Score: 1

You are not being held accountable solely for what you think or feel, but how you express such feelings.
True, to a point. "Hate crime" laws prescribe an additional penalty for an action based upon the victim's membership in a protected class. Ergo, if I go out and beat the stuffing out of a white guy, I go to prison for a year; if I go beat up a black guy in exactly the same way, I go to prison for a year, plus another year for the "hate crime." Such laws criminalize thought; they add an additional penalty not based on the damage actually inflicted upon the victim, but based on the thoughts and feelings of the aggressor toward the victim. In that way, they actually discriminate against those not in the protected classes, depriving them of their right to "equal protection of the laws" (14th Amendment); in this case, they are less protected that the "victim" classes.
In reality, such equal protection is even further eroded by the fact that white-on-black (or other minority) violence is usually prosecuted with the additional "hate crime" charge, but minority-on-white violence is rarely prosecuted that way, even when the aggressor minority demonstrates his "hateful" intent. Equal protection indeed. In any case, these laws amount to little more than thoughtcrime; punish the act, not the thought.

--
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by DaHat · 2004-06-02 06:44 · Score: 1

"Such laws criminalize thought; they add an additional penalty not based on the damage actually inflicted upon the victim, but based on the thoughts and feelings of the aggressor toward the victim."

Not necessarily. In most cases, to prove a "Hate Crime" you must prove that the person committed the crime because of some racial/cultural difference and hatred.

You seem to be going with the same logic of many of our lawmakers, that if someone hates a member of a minority group, that they are hated because they are a member of that group.

Personally speaking, I am an equally opportunity hater, my hatred is not bound by race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, spoken language, political affiliation, weight, height, natural hair color or any other easily categorized term related to something someone has little if any choice related to.

If I hate someone, I hate because of stupidity, ignorance or other areas which one does have control over.

I do agree that such "Hate Crime" laws are rather pointless, like the death penalty, they do little to deter crime. I can't say I've ever heard a person say: "I want to kill someone, better not make it a black guy, otherwise I might go to jail for even longer."

Such craziness is not limited however to written law. It also plays a big part in perception, for example:

If a large and small dog get into a fight, and the little dog is the aggressor. We would most likely see the small dog come away dead or fairly injured. This makes perfect sense as the large dog by it's size would be stronger and able to do more harm to the small dog... does that mean it is fully responsible for what happened?

If a large person (height and weight) were to get into a fight with a smaller person, no matter the outcome, the larger person would be vilified because they should have known better and have a responsibility not to harm those smaller then them... regardless of what threat they may pose.

The difference is that the human has some choice. The little dog does not know that it might/will get hurt, the small person may know that, but they think they can beat the larger person. But no matter how it turns out, the larger person will be to blame for harming someone who they can harm, while the smaller person was just 'defending themselves against a bully'.

Similar craziness.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 08:21 · Score: 0

"Hate crime" laws prescribe an additional penalty for an action based upon the victim's membership in a protected class.
Not at all. It is all about the perpetrator's motives.
Picture a man who commits a crime because he hates one particular person. Now picture a second man who commits the same crime because he hates an entire class of people, of which the victim happens to be a member. Who is the greater danger to society? Who is more likely to commit similar crimes against other people in the future?
Re:Even with no disclaimer... by quisph · 2004-06-02 08:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

The professor later threatened to sue me for "libel, slander and defamation" because of the "publication of our confidential and private e-mail conversations", even though there was no disclaimer or even an assumption of privacy.
Libel, slander, and defamation? No. Maybe if you made false, damaging statements on the same webpage, but not for merely publishing the contents of the e-mails.
However, there is a tort known as "public disclosure of private facts." And he might have had a case here, if the e-mails contained embarrassing or damaging information that was not of "public concern."
There is also, in some states, a "false light" tort which applies if the information you publish is true, but you deliberately use it to create a false or misleading impression.

From a law firm.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:48 · Score: 0

Our law firm automatically attaches the below to every piece of mail that leaves the firm.

The contents of this message may be privileged
and confidential. Therefore, if this message has
been received in error, please delete it without
reading it. Your receipt of this message is not
intended to waive any applicable privilege.
Please do not disseminate this message without
the permission of the author.

Re:From a law firm.. by azadrozny · 2004-06-02 04:15 · Score: 1

Several people around my company have an email sig similar to this regarding proprietary info, but this practice have been highly discouraged. The problem with doing this is that people become lazy and just think that this is all you need to do to protect a document. To me "may be privileged" makes me think the sender did not take the time or care to find out if it really IS privileged. I would be pretty upset if someone publically released the wrong copy of a document that contained redacted information.
It's for this reason that I don't think these disclaimers hold any weight. If I am sending information via email, then the onus is on me to make sure it is properly marked, secured and addressed. Too bad for me if it mistakenly goes to the Washington Post and is published for all to see.

Who reads them by PktLoss · 2004-06-02 03:50 · Score: 1

Working support, I love it when people send emails asking for help to completely the wrong email address. ie rather than emailing support@ they email partners@or advertising@. According to the 'contract' in their email the recpiant can't even forward it to anyone else.

I ignore these just like I ignore flashing ad banners, George Bush, and non-residential speed limits. :)

--
paul reinheimer

Mission Impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:51 · Score: 4, Funny

DISCLAIMER:

This email will self destruct your computer in 5 seconds!

5...
4...
3...
2...
1...
If not using Outlook, Please click on attachment "EvilVirus.vbs"

Disclaimers in mailing list archives by AnuradhaRatnaweera · 2004-06-02 03:52 · Score: 1

How about adding an option `Remove email disclaimers' to your favourite mailing list (or just mail) archiving program?

Did You Catch the Subtle Marketing? by geomon · 2004-06-02 03:54 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"If Time Inc. wants to keep its communications safe, it should invest in some sort of encryption software that allows privileged readers to open the mail but prevents them from forwarding, printing, or otherwise duplicating it. Microsoft, which publishes Slate, even makes a product for such occasions."

Oh they're good.... they're really good.....

--
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"

Re:Did You Catch the Subtle Marketing? by GPLDAN · 2004-06-02 06:07 · Score: 1

Microsoft is pushing PKI again. I think somebody realized it's the key to enterprise lock-in.

BTW, I think you misspelled telecom in your sig. There is a great article on the giant swindle that was the 1996 Telecom Act here: http://www.consumersunion.org/telecom/lessondc201. htm
Re:Did You Catch the Subtle Marketing? by dprovine · 2004-06-02 06:37 · Score: 1

I was wondering if the writer actually believes that anybody should trust a security product from Microsoft, or if Slate has an editorial rule that people have to pretend Microsoft products are secure and reliable, even though everybody knows they aren't.
As someone sending e-mail, I'd believe the security of Microsoft's "no copy or print" software about as much as I'd believe Outlook has a perfect security record.
Re:Did You Catch the Subtle Marketing? by geomon · 2004-06-02 07:14 · Score: 1

Thanks for catching the misspell, and the link.

--
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"

A mailing list I am on has a disclaimer. by Shivetya · 2004-06-02 03:54 · Score: 1

***
Article copyright (c) IBMWR and the author(s). All rights reserved.
Unsubscribe directions at http://www.ibmwr.org/faq-files/mail.shtml#SUB
***

This was done because a company was repackaging the e-mail messages of this mail list. If anything the disclaimer can be used to stop unlawful reproduction.

It would be akin to receiving the secret formulae to Coke with a disclaimer/legalese at the bottom and posting it. The results would be interesting.

Do these disclaimers have more weight if the e-mail is resent from another businesses domain?

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Re:A mailing list I am on has a disclaimer. by DavidTC · 2004-06-02 05:53 · Score: 1

The results would not be interesting, at all. Coke would be laughed out of court.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Brainless by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 03:57 · Score: 0

No, I don't agree, unsend this email immediately!!

What next disclaimers on slahshot messages by ad0gg · 2004-06-02 03:58 · Score: 1, Funny

----

This message is property of ad0gg or his affiliates. No moderator should mod down this message in any form or manner. No poster should use in whole or in part this message, if poster intent is to slander the owner of the message.

--

Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

Whatever. by Gannoc · 2004-06-02 03:59 · Score: 3, Funny

ATTENTION: If your name is not John P. Smith, by reading this message you agree to shove a pen in your eye.

Re:Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:16 · Score: 0

You had better get yourself a good lawyer because my insurance company say that they are going to sue you for the half-blind compensation that they have just pay me.

Disclaimers instead of crypto by chrysalis · 2004-06-02 04:00 · Score: 1

This is plenty silly. While not just PGP sign the mails instead of adding a disclaimer saying "this mail is not signed, integrity is not verifiable"?

--
{{.sig}}

Official Celebrity Disclaimers by platypibri · 2004-06-02 04:02 · Score: 5, Funny

Britany Spears-"Opps, I sent it again."
Michael Jackson-"This message is inteneded for receipients 12 and under. Otherwise please disregard without reading."
George W. Bush -"Any email from Iraq will be considered a WMD, weapon of mass dissemination, and will be immediately acted upon with extreme prejudice"
Tony Blair-"Whatever George said."
James Earl Jones-"Will do any film for $9999.95."
George Lucas-"Any message sent from this server can be freely used as a plot device in an upcoming special effects driven feature without any additional payment. Besides, it may make Episode III better." Bill Clinton-"I never said that." Bill Gates -"Cross us an we will crush you, unless it gets press, which nets you an X-Box for the crushing."

--
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.

Re:Official Celebrity Disclaimers by Rude+Turnip · 2004-06-02 04:44 · Score: 1

"James Earl Jones-"Will do any film for $9999.95.""

That would be Earl Shive...you're welcome :)

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Re:Official Celebrity Disclaimers by platypibri · 2004-06-02 04:52 · Score: 1

No, Earl Shive will paint any car for 99.95. James Earl Jones will do any film for 9999.95. (i.e. The Sand Lot)

--
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.

longest disclaimer by sentientbeing · 2004-06-02 04:03 · Score: 2, Informative

I remember a while back the register presenting articles similar to this:

longest email disclaimer

Most incomprehensible

Original article

(All obligingly and typically repeated in full..!)

--

------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master

"for the use of the"... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:03 · Score: 0

The term "use" may differ in different coutries (in Nigeria for example!).

Seriously, the legal issues with different disclaimers may differ in different countries. Any ideas on which international organization can issue a standard disclaimer which different contries abide by (I hope it will have better success than the Geneva Treaty!)

Extreme example by entrager · 2004-06-02 04:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Here is a disclaimer for all e-mail that my company sends out:

NOTICE: This communication and any files transmitted with it ("communication") may contain privileged or other confidential information. This communication is intended solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use this communication. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then delete this communication and any copies. Thank you.

And for some reason our admins are complaining about the amount of space that our e-mail servers consume....

Re:Extreme example by dizco · 2004-06-02 05:08 · Score: 0, Redundant

That actually seems quite reasonable, compared to most. It doesn't demand anything, threaten you with legal crap, and says "please" and "thank you"

Meeting of the Minds by Above · 2004-06-02 04:05 · Score: 1

Isn't the first requirement for a contract of any kind that there be a "Meeting of the Minds"? Wouldn't a one way contract you don't see until after you perform the possibly restricted act automatically fail that test?

Re:Meeting of the Minds by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:16 · Score: 0

just like a EULA or the GPL or Website Terms & Conditions ?

because if what you say is true then none of the above are valid legal things, its just text on a screen
Re:Meeting of the Minds by Lehk228 · 2004-06-02 04:21 · Score: 1

actually with the GPL you indicate your acceptance by carrying out an act (distributing) which you are legally prohibited from doing by default. the rest of those are indeed unenforcable except as far as terminating your access (banned from website)

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Meeting of the Minds by pjt33 · 2004-06-02 04:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Under British, a contract requires offer, acceptance, intent to create legal relations, and consideration. An e-mail disclaimer meets none of those.
Re:Meeting of the Minds by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:40 · Score: 0

actually with the GPL you indicate your acceptance...

No. Once again, the GPL is a license, not a contract. Like all licenses, the GPL is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. A contract is completely different: an agreement that each side will do something they otherwise wouldn't have to do. What part of this don't you understand?
Re:Meeting of the Minds by Lehk228 · 2004-06-02 05:49 · Score: 1

did I say it was a contract? No I did not. I also did state that the GPL allows what would be normally prohibited.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Informative ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:05 · Score: 0

How i'd like to moderate the moderator -1 stupid...

What if I don't read the entire message? by delcielo · 2004-06-02 04:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Without even reading it, I generally know that the italicized last paragraph is some nonsense regarding either an opt-out list, or privacy statement, or this type of goofy disclaimer junk. So am I bound to the terms if I just don't read the bottom italicized paragraph? Even though I know it may contain a disclaimer?

I would think that I would have to not only read something binding; but agree to it as well before I could actually be bound by it.

--
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!

Re:What if I don't read the entire message? by julesh · 2004-06-02 04:47 · Score: 1

That's the general understanding of contract law, yes.

Note that copyright law may also apply here, and some actions (e.g. forwarding a message, printing it) create an additional copy and therefore aren't actually permitted by default.

You could argue that there is an implicit license in the fact that you were sent the message. But if there was a legal statement on it that you claimed not to have read, you'd be on dodgy grounds.
Re:What if I don't read the entire message? by hazem · 2004-06-02 04:56 · Score: 1

It seems the phrase "known or should have known" shows up when a little guy is going to get screwed. Of course, it doesn't work on people like Kenneth Lay.
Re:What if I don't read the entire message? by Bwerf · 2004-06-02 05:41 · Score: 1

So you're saying that if I send out spam and write it in the form of an contract people that start reading it have to read the whole thing since it contains info all over the place about the legality of reading it?

And if they don't read the whole thing I can sue them? wow!

--
If noone rtfa, then what's the slashdot effect?
Re:What if I don't read the entire message? by madcow_ucsb · 2004-06-02 10:06 · Score: 1

IANAL, but a contract isn't a contract if both parties don't have an agreement. Blindly mailing stuff out with a disclaimer out there isn't a contract, it's a request that the recipient is in no way required to honor.

This is why when I need access to another company's source code or schematics they fax me an NDA that I need to sign and fax back before sending any information. They sure as hell don't email me the source code with a little disclaimer that says "by the way, please don't disclose this information".

Hell, even in some work-related but non-specific situations, I'll get an email from someone in a thread on a mailing list who says "hey, my company does related work and might be interested in xxxx. But I'd prefer to keep a low profile and don't want this mentioned on the list. Let me know and I'll send more info." Then I don't get any more info until I ackowledge that things are to be kept private. Never ever exchange goods (physical or otherwise) without having an agreement first. You're just asking to get screwed.
Re:What if I don't read the entire message? by hearingaid · 2004-06-03 01:20 · Score: 1

It's not a contract, and you're partially right, but not for the right reason.
In order for a contract to exist, both parties have to get something from it. For example, one party gets paid, while the other party has its garbage-cans emptied.
With an email transmission, this is not necessarily the case. To make it a contract, you'd have to argue that the email itself constituted payment of a kind, which would be tough except in exceptional circumstances.
So what is it? It's a license agreement. Like the GPL. In order to do things that require copyright permission (like forwarding the email), you need to get permission from the holder of the copyright. This is where the Samoan lawyer is completely wrong. People forward and print emails all the time, so you can conclude that there's an implied license allowing people to do it, because it's normal behaviour. However, implied licenses are always trumped by written notice. If I send a manuscript to a publisher, and the publisher's interested in it, the publisher will probably copy it and send it around to editors to see what they think of it. It's easier than showing them the original manuscript, one at a time. Publishers do this all the time; they have an implied license to do it. However, if I put in my submission that the publisher can't do this, then the publisher can't. (Of course, they are free to laugh in my face. :)
So the "disclaimer" is actually written notice of the originator's claim to copyright.

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

addressing by SuperBanana · 2004-06-02 04:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

I guess its just like illegal to open someone else's 1040 delivered to your mailbox - though USPS made a mistake - you have a moral, legal(?) obligation to put it back in the send to box.

That's if it wasn't addressed to you, and you open it. If it has your name and address on it, you're perfectly correct to open it; it is legally -your- mail. Email MUST be addressed to you to get to you, unless something gets REALLY screwed up, and you're not going to notice until you open the email, because unlike postal mail, you don't usually see the To: address until you open it.

Furthermore, email isn't like a physical letter; it doesn't remain sealed, you can't tell if it has been read, etc. People with the same street number and similar sounding roads get their mail delivered to me all the time; I toss it back in my mailbox. They probably can't even tell it was misdelivered, unless they were expecting it on a specific date.

Everyone has known for years the disclaimers are unenforceable; you can't enforce something you haven't agreed to or signed, period. What's to stop me from putting "You will give me $500 if you read this email" at the bottom of every email? We're talking basic contractual law here, folks.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:addressing by klaricmn · 2004-06-02 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

you don't usually see the To: address until you open it.

Get a better email client then
Re:addressing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:48 · Score: 0

Why? I don't see the need to waste space on the screen listing the To: field for every message in my inbox when the fact that it is in my inbox means that I'm surely somewhere on that list.
Re:addressing by tkg · 2004-06-02 04:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

Seeing what address is in the To: field before hand really isn't necessary. If my address isn't in either the To:, Cc:, or Bcc: field, then how did it get in my inbox? I know that some SPAM has that 'undisclosed recipients' crap, but it seems my address had to be in there somewhere in order for it to get routed to me.

I'm not an expert at hiding information, by the way, so I'm probably missing something that's obvious to someone that is.
Re:addressing by cortana · 2004-06-02 05:20 · Score: 1

FYI, the contents of the To, Cc, etc fields are window-dressing only. They can be compared to the letterhead on a physical letter you recieve.

The actual destination of an email is determined by the contents of the message "envelope", which is not a part of the RFC[2]882 message itself--just as a physical envelope that you recieve, containing a letter, is not a part of that letter.

Of course, the analogy breaks down when you consider physical envelopes with windows in them that allow the letterhead to "show through", instead of having the destination address printed on them. :)

The (grand?)parent is still correct though--email disclaimers are the useless invention of (suprise!) overpaid lawyers. As such, they mean approximatly fsck all.
Re:addressing by shotfeel · 2004-06-02 06:11 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm thinking if his email client is opening mail that doesn't have him as one of the recipients, he does have a better email client!
Re:addressing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 09:28 · Score: 0

Get a better email client then Insightful? More like smartass.

They do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:09 · Score: 0

so that they can at least make a half-assed argument that any privilages were not waived. Nobody actually believes the notices are enforceable against a third party; but if the email is used as evidence, it's easier to make the argument that it is still privilaged with the disclaimer then it is without. Another commonly-used tactict is to put "PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION" in the subject headings. It's pulled directly from the Federal Rules of Evidence, (which most state's own evidence codes are based on) and in certain circuits will keep the email out.

Bottom line, all this is just more CYA by lawyers who are being overly-cautious.

Counterproductive at best... by igrp · 2004-06-02 04:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

In my opinion, email disclaimers are counterproductive at best. As the article notes, the legality of these email disclaimers is questionable at best (there are, however, some circumstances when these disclaimers can be legally binding).

This is especially true considering the enforceability of these disclaimers, or rather lack thereof, when the recipient is subject to a different jurisdiction.

A few weeks ago I had to personally deal with email disclaimers. An acquaintance of mine had sent an email containing his company's email footer to multiple recipients at the same site (a big company) which neither of them ever received. Turns out, the spam filter caught the email and dropped it because of its low content-to-repetition (read garbage) ratio.

You win! (was Re:Disclaimers instead of crypto) by happyfrogcow · 2004-06-02 04:13 · Score: 1

No kidding. I was scrolling through to see if anyone posted this before I went ahead and ranted about it.

Widespread corporate use of PGP and the GNU variants would make this discussion pointless.

Mods, do you duty. Mod parent up please.

I think they need a longer disclaimer than that... by artemis67 · 2004-06-02 04:14 · Score: 0

"By viewing this image, you agree not to hold the website operators or the holding company, Goatse.cx International, liable for bleeding from the eyes, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or other similar ailments. You further agree that Goatse.cx International is not liable for anyone gouging out their own eyes or for supergluing their own butt cheeks together."

Laywers and Disclaimers by Toadpipe · 2004-06-02 04:15 · Score: 1

The law firm I work for has had one of these on all the emails we send out for years.

In fact, here it is.

This is message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the e-mail address or telephone number above and delete this e-mail from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege. Thank you.

I'd be very interested to find out if this disclamer can actually do, in a legal arena, what it says it does.

--
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

My old smart-ass posting sig... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:15 · Score: 0

I ripped this off from somebody. I used to use it on my more incindiary political posts:

The contents of this post constitute free speech in accordance with Amendment I of the United States Constitution, and is afforded all of the rights and protections guaranteed therein.

Ow!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:16 · Score: 0

Hey! Wait a sec...my name IS John P. Smith.

Software worked, article is advert. by twitter · 2004-06-02 04:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

You complain:

May just be my employer's advertising blocking software, but this was the hardest to read article I've seen in a long time. Text on top of text for 3/4ths of the article (the length of the left side menu bar) in IE 6.0 ...

But your software is correct to make things difficult, it was an advert. This is more of M$'s attack on email and an attempt to push their new and improved versions. This statement is key:

If Time Inc. wants to keep its communications safe, it should invest in some sort of encryption software that allows privileged readers to open the mail but prevents them from forwarding, printing, or otherwise duplicating it. Microsoft, which publishes Slate, even makes a product for such occasions.

Let's look at all the stones thrown:

Time, a competitor, is the example. Surely, M$ has their own set of dumb disclaimers.
Email is, gasp, "uncontrolled". God only knows what unintended recipients will do with anything not written in DRM invisible ink!
Email is easy to intercept.
Blah, blah, blah.

The answer, of course, is to buy some new spiffy new M$ junk to replace your old spiffy M$ junk and forgo traditional email. Some solution.

You have to love an end to end M$ solution. Served on IIS/5.0 by a M$ owned company and read by someone using IE. I had no trouble reading the article using KDE 3.2, despite blocking 25% of the obvious adverts. I don't think I'd have a problem printing or redistributing it either. I'm sorry to hear that your employer's choice of browser won't even render the junk. Billy Gates promises to make sure you can't print or share it either, even if you could read it. So the clueless inflict suffering.

Next time, just ssh into your home box and use lynx or links. Lynx rendered just fine and I know that lynx does better. Beware your employer's keyloggers and those installed by trojans, however, and use a disposable box with different passwords than normal.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Re:Software worked, article is advert. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:59 · Score: 0

Moderators: Please note that "twitter" is a known fanatical psycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft bashing. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, twitter is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.
I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider twitter and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Knoppix or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.
If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than twitter. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.
For example, in this recent post twitter not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "GNU". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +4) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.
More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own.
More? Bad spelling in astounding conspiracy theories, more offtopic FUD and uninformed "I'm right, look at me" rants, promptly proven wrong. Worse even, twitter wants to be RMS, apparently (that first one is a winner). I mean, really. You think?
FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD, offtopic FUD, and more FUD. This guy is like the Monty Python SPAM skit, but with FUD and more FUD instead of canned meat. Amazed
Re:Software worked, article is advert. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 11:50 · Score: 0

thanks twit, i'll add this jewel to the collection.
Re:Software worked, article is advert. by whitis · 2004-06-02 12:28 · Score: 1

Well, I don't know about twitter's track record but his/her complaint against slate is a valid point; I, too, saw the article as being partially a shameless plug for a (horrible sounding) Microsoft product. At least they did mention their affiliation to keep themselves out of hot water. Even there, though, the wording of the disclosure bordered on advertising. Consider the difference between "But Microsoft owns Slate so you might want to take what I say with a grain of salt" vs. "LockIn(tm) is brought to you by Microsoft, the makers of Slate". A reputable journalist might have said something that resembled: "A number of companies and non-profit projects, including Microsoft (conflict of interest warning: Microsoft owns Slate), Computer Associates, and gpg.org, sell or distribute software that purports to provide protection for data in transit or to prevent the user from actually using the data they received." A criticism of the journalistic integrity of the article in question is certainly not offtopic. Nor did twitter call any slashdot poster a troll or liar in his post as you claim is the case for all of twitters posts. Nor did a sampling of twitters other posts reveal such tendancies. On the other hand, your anonymous coward post looks suspiciously like Microsoft Brand Atroturf.

Now, I will point out that like twitter, I despise all things Microsoft. This distrust is based on 20 years of experience with their irresponsible and often criminal activity.

This is one of the problems with news media being owned by huge corporations whose own actions
are often newsworthy events. Channel zero did an expose on GE's abuse of ownership of NBC a while back:
http://www.archive.org/download/nbc_1_/nbc_1_.mov http://www.archive.org/download/nbc_2/nbc_2.mov

According to these videos, not only did GE supress negative press about themselves, they also demanded that their lightbulbs be mentioned (advertised) on the news. GE and Microsoft are co-owners of MSNBC, Microsoft owns MSN (including Slate), and GE owns NBC.
Re:Software worked, article is advert. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 13:22 · Score: 0

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
thanks for sharing. didn't call anyone a troll? heh. did you read through the links? noooo, i wouldn't expect that.
oh, and the analysis about the trail that ends in redmond? fantastic. i mean, that's some serious detective work. of course this is all a microsoft conspiracy, i mean, you guys are so smart!
twitter is a pathetic, obnoxious extremist zealot whose greatest aspiration is to be a defective version of RMS on crack. read through his posts. take in his worthless hyperbolic prose. i have to prove jack shit, it's all there if you're smart enough to see it.
now, as far as "microsoft astroturf", I suggest you have your head checked. if you think for a moment that this is some sort of "m$" conspiracy (like dear twitter does) you need to seek professional help. you have no idea, no idea at all.
have a great life.
Re:Software worked, article is advert. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 13:33 · Score: 0

keep it up, idiot. I like it when you waste your time and Bill Gates' money. Whatever he pays you is too much.
Re:Software worked, article is advert. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 13:49 · Score: 0

still delusional? well of course i'm employed by the evil empire. i am a "windoze secret agent" twit!! "m$" has quite an interest in you, twit. they figure that by following you around and posting your history every time you make another stupid offtopic comment that they'll bring down open source and free software. because, as we all know, you are the pillar that holds everything together. hahahahahaha!!!!!
i mean, hahahahahaha!!!!!
i suppose that's the only way you have of explaining why someone would want to see you disappear and never return again to "help" with the open source movement. you're dishonest and evil, twit.
Re:Software worked, article is advert. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 13:52 · Score: 0

Oh, look. Troll. I'm so surprised. Shocked, even.
Re:Software worked, article is advert. by msim · 2004-06-09 07:59 · Score: 1

If you think he has an obsession with hating all things Microsoft, why aren't you content to leave him in his little world, and just ignore him. Why not go walk away from the computer and go outside and observe something called "the real world".

For God sake there's surely has got to be better things you can do with your time.

I don't give a damned if there is a bit of trollbait danging above my head or not....

--

Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
Re:Software worked, article is advert. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-09 14:41 · Score: 0

That I would do - if he was also ignored by everyone else instead of being modded up by the other retards.
Wanna know why I do this? Because in mid-2003 a co-worker of mine pointed me to two or three of his crack-laden posts to prove that Microsoft was doing something-or-other evil, and then he continued to use that stupid argument again and again during an internal process that would have let me introduce Linux into the company as a server platform. Yes, that's right, stupid little twitter actually caused Linux not to be adopted by a company. My coworker (may he rot in unemployment hell) came across in such a way that it turned management off completely from the whole idea. My plan was to nudge them slowly, but this asshole wanted the entire fucking IT infrastructure replaced because "Microsoft was evil" (he actually started using 'M$' and 'Windoze' in emails). Unfortunately he was my senior at the time. So scratch that and back to fucking square 1 and patching Windows boxes all day.
Now, of course it wasn't just twitter's wisdom emanating from Slashdot that caused this whole thing, but it was a factor. It's hard to explain - you would have had to be there and hear this otherwise normal human being turn into a foaming rabid blobbering idiot whenever the whole Linux-vs-Windows thing came up. And then I'd come back to twitter's posting history and read the same bogus arguments and hysterical FUD. Almost to the letter. Holy fucking shit, you have no idea how this pissed me off. In fact, he had a Slashot account and he's still in twitter's 'fans' list.
Pounding on the keyboard would not convey how frustrated I felt at the whole thing, but I couldn't do anything except try to talk some sense into him, which obviously didn't work.
If my little 'troll' posts convince at least one person to not use that type of stupid logic to justify using free software then I'll feel good about myself. A lot of people read this site using the defaults, and if pathetic little twitter was modded up, he's right there for the world to see. He's not the only one, but he's one of the worst.
It takes me just a couple of minutes a day. It's a good trade.
So there, now you know. FWIW.

Er... by brunes69 · 2004-06-02 04:19 · Score: 1

A shrink-wrapped EULA has exactly that. When you go to install the software, it presents an EULA. If you don't accept the EULA you cannot use the software.

It's the exact same as what I said. Carrying the analogy to this email, it would be like going through the whole installation procedure, allowing you to run the app, then only after *exiting* the app for the first time presenting the EULA.. which would mean that if you don't accepted you have *already* violated it. It's retarded.

Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:28 · Score: 0

uhm but i have already purchased it from the shop, i dont agree to non negotiable contracts after purchase a product

unless you can show me specific laws (internationally binding) that says shrink wraps are legally binding ?

the industry is so full of shit it hurts
Re:Er... by ArsenneLupin · 2004-06-02 04:42 · Score: 1

uhm but i have already purchased it from the shop, i dont agree to non negotiable contracts after purchase a product
unless you can show me specific laws (internationally binding) that says shrink wraps are legally binding ?
That's why most EULA's give you the opportunity to bring back the "product" to the shop for a refund, in the event that you don't agree with the license. Companies don't put in those sentences to give us great "windows refund" fun, no, they do it to make their EULAs enforceable. Although I do wonder what their persistant refusal to honor these refund clauses does to the enfoceability of the EULA...
Re:Er... by Scott+Wood · 2004-06-02 05:03 · Score: 1

So what if they let you take it back? You've already bought it at that point. It's yours. As long as you don't violate copyright (or other specific laws), what obligates you to accept their additional terms before using your software?

Raoul Duck? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:19 · Score: 0

forwarded it to my 175-pound Samoan attorney for his opinion, and he convinced me that Time Inc. has much more to fear from me than I have to fear from Time Inc. In fine Socratic fashion, my counsel walked me through the disclaimer, sentence by sentence, encouraging me to add my own thinking to our exercise. Here are my notes.

What, does this guy think he's Hunter Thompson? Not even close. Puh-leeze!

I need to get me one of those... by nuttyprofessor · 2004-06-02 04:19 · Score: 1

..175-pound Samoan attorneys.

what was that all about anyway?

--w

Re:I need to get me one of those... by redwoodtree · 2004-06-02 04:32 · Score: 1

Apparently you never read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Re:I need to get me one of those... by parcel · 2004-06-02 04:37 · Score: 1

I believe it was a reference to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but it's been years since I've seen that movie, and I've never read the book, so I could be wrong.
Re:I need to get me one of those... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:53 · Score: 0

Think HST, ala
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Re:I need to get me one of those... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 09:45 · Score: 0

This was definitely not funny after the first 3 uses. Besides, I've never met a Samoan attorney that weighed less than 220.

I suspect by BCW2 · 2004-06-02 04:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

That if one ever goes to court, it will be as good as a waiver of responsibility, (ie, amusment park, ride at your own risk). All lawyers want you to have them and NOT A SINGLE ONE has ever stood up in court in the US. They are a great supply of emergency toilet paper, but completely useless otherwise.

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.

Partially correct by brunes69 · 2004-06-02 04:23 · Score: 1

Both of the examples that you stated involve would require a contract to be valid, and since you are never signed a contract then those claims are not enforceable.

You could say the exact same about the email disclaimer.

However, they do have copyright on the documents that they send you so stating that you have no right to redistribute the document is an enforcable claim.

This is true. It is also true that I have copyright on my bulliten board notice, and saying you have no right to distribute it is encforceable.

However, an email disclaimer saying you have no right to read the email you already read before you read the disclaimer is total hogwash. This is the exact same as the bulliten board notice saying that if you read it you owe me money.

sure its legal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:24 · Score: 0

just like MS EULA's are legally binding or the GPL is ?

haha its just text on a screen, what the words say mean nothing legally

i think the words "you wish" spring to mind for click wrap agreements

If you really cared about privacy by mios · 2004-06-02 04:24 · Score: 1

I mean .. let's say someone 'accidentaly receives' your email, in a most un-kosher way because they want to see what you are saying, do you think they are going to care about the 'legally binding' disclaimer at the bottom? Why not encrypt all the dang emails and be done w/ it ... if someone else 'accidentally gets it' ... good for them, let them figure out what to do w/ it .. those disclaimers at the bottom are pretty useless if you axe me.

A Law Student's Take by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

In reading the above comments, I'm somewhat surprised that so few people understand why the text is there at the bottom of the e-mail, let alone that it may actually have some significance or importance.

The disclaimer in the e-mail, the one on a fax, the EULA or ToS or whatever other contractual language you see is all there because of prospective lawyering. It's defensive. The idea is that if the e-mail or fax contains sensitive information and gets to a party who might otherwise misuse it, the originator has notified the party of the proper procedures for disposing of the document. If the party does not, the originator may be able to sustain a legal claim based on the disclaimer. Yes, the party never consented to it BUT the party was put on notice of what they should do. So long as it's not overly burdensome or crazy, it should hold.

I do agree, some of the language gets out of control and some people take it to an absurd end BUT the disclaimer can be important in the right circumstances.

And for good measure, my favorite lawyer joke:

Q: What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
A: A good start!

Freedom Disclaimer seen recently by Seth+Cohn · 2004-06-02 04:29 · Score: 1, Offtopic

If you, the receipient of this email/post, believe in freedom and self-responsibility, and live in the United States, you are obligated to consider that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and that voting for Badnarik is not a wasted vote, but the only way to vote for good. Remember: Bad(narik) is good!
You are further obligated to seriously consider joining the Free State Project, because moving to New Hampshire is a small price to pay for Liberty.
Offer and restrictions void outside the United States, your rights may vary, but you are encouraged to consider joining the Free State Project anyway.

--
Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org

Create a Slashdot disclaimer by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:32 · Score: 0

I actually have work to do, so while I might be able to spare a minute or two to read a posting here and there, I can't give the following suggestion my full, creative attention.

The suggestion is this: Why don't we craft our own disclaimer, incorporating lines such as those suggested by parent, which we can send back to companies or individuals who spam us with their annoying, bloated, unenforceable, legalese crap? A parody which points out how annonying the practice is, how it's too late to spring it on us once we have reached the end of the email, and so on? I'm sure there are some budding lawyers/writers out there who could do this justice.

And as we are the only one's who understand and find the hoary old Slashdot chestnuts amusing, it shouldn't include references to Natalie Portman, grits, Soviet Russia, Business plans for Underpant Gnomes, etc, etc.

Legal agreements have to be just that - agreements by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:37 · Score: 0

You cannot send an email to someone and then claim they have some contract with you.

The only binding law would be the copyright, and that does not even need a disclamer. It is automatic.

If the sender should have this disclamer he needs to give you the option to agree before you get the contents/email. It is not retroactively binding.

So. Just do what you want with these emails (with the respect to the copyright laws).

The disclaimer is long enough... by ArsenneLupin · 2004-06-02 04:37 · Score: 1

... because they use such an ungodly large font. That makes it more than bulky enough to push the protrait out of view on most reasonable window sizes. But anyways, you can still get nice catch if you just post the link that goes directly to the jpg.

Liability Insurance for the Company by bastion_xx · 2004-06-02 04:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Although most email disclaimers are annoying at the best of times, they can provide assurances to shareholders, management and such.

Most internal correspondence dealing with company secrets and assests have similar disclaimers ranging from the simple "confidential" to multi-line legalese. Consider finding a document with truly important information in a dumpster.

Legally the document could be read by anyone as it's in a public place. If there is no disclaimer the information could be redistributed as the recipient has no idea if the information is confidential or not.

However, if the document was labeled confidential, copyrighted , whatnot, could taint anyone who redistrbutes or uses it, such as competitors.

The same analogy could be applied to email messages with disclaimers. Would it hold up in court or lessen the damage to the company that accidently sent it to the wrong party? Probably not. But it does show that the company does have some inkling, no matter how small, of classifying information assets.

Re:Liability Insurance for the Company by Todd+Knarr · 2004-06-02 06:30 · Score: 1

I don't think the disclaimer and warnings would last 5 minutes in court. There's one critical thing needed to make those "confidential" warnings effective: I must have a duty not to disclose that confidential information. If I'm an employee of the company then I signed a contract stating that I had such a duty. If I'm visiting the company I've probably been told not to take any confidential material and a judge would consider my continuing the visit implicit agreement to that. If I'm J. Random Person Off The Street and I find the documents blowing out of the unsecured dumpster, I've agreed to nothing explicitly or implicitly and I've no duty not to disclose. The company can come down on whoever put the documents in the trash going to the dumpster instead of into the shredder, but all they can do is growl threateningly at me from the end of their legal leash.

Anyone sending e-mails should follow the same rules as someone sending physical documents. If you need the contents to be kept confidential or anything, get an agreement about that before sending them.

The disclaimer is enforcable, against employees by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 04:40 · Score: 0

Both the article and the comments here are overlooking an important point. Requiring that disclaimer as part of an e-mail security policy *can* create enforcable obligations on the employee sending the message.

Unless the recipient has already signed some agreement with the sender, the recipient should be able to do anything with the e-mail message that he could do if it were a printed letter. Because he is not the copyright holder, he can't publish it. But, he can show the copy he recieved to anyone he wants to. He can reveal the information contained in the message in its entirety if he paraphrases. And he can certainly quote it.

cat .signature by brassman · 2004-06-02 04:42 · Score: 2, Funny

The author of this email states that any "disclaimer" that appears below this sentence was added without his consent.

--
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."

My disclaimer by T3kno · 2004-06-02 04:45 · Score: 5, Funny

This is an email. It is the electronic equivalent of a POSTCARD. It has been split up into hundreds or thousands packets and blasted throughout the globe. Logged, scanned, filtered, parsed, grepped and heuristically analyzed by countless computers as well as humans. I wear a shirt that says "I read your email." If you for one moment think, believe, hold notion, or otherwise have the slightest inclination that anything you send via email is confidential you are an idiot. If you for one moment think, believe, hold notion, or otherwise have the slightest inclination that anything you send via email is only being read by the intended reciepients you are an idiot. If you have read this far you are an idiot.

--
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)

Re:My disclaimer by teroman · 2004-06-02 05:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Much simpler...
DISCLAIMER : You just read it, you can't unread it!
Re:My disclaimer by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 06:57 · Score: 0

Great disclaimer!

Could you release it under the GPL for us all, or will you use a ridiculous EULA for it ;-)
Re:My disclaimer by scaryjohn · 2004-06-02 13:10 · Score: 2, Funny

If that were shorter, I'd have a new .signature file.

--
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.

What happened to "3. Profit?" by blueZ3 · 2004-06-02 04:45 · Score: 1

Oh, never mind :-)

--
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com

Probably not binding [Was:Legal != Sensible] by Charles+Dodgeson · 2004-06-02 04:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Whether or not such disclaimers make sense is immaterial. If a court finds them binding, they are binding.

You are, of course, correct about that.

But I doubt that these would hold up in court, and have even argued that they may make you more vulnerable legally.

--
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky

Not at my work. by FU_Fish · 2004-06-02 04:48 · Score: 3, Funny

Thankfully, we're not required to put such a disclaimer on e-mails at my work.

* This comment is own by FU_Fish and is intended only to be read by Slashdot users. If you do not have a slashdot account, you must forget that you ever read the above comment or face actions to swift and ruthless to name. *

** The above disclaimer is also owned by FU_Fish. By reading the above disclaimer you have agreed to its Terms Of Use, which does not allow reproduction in any way, including quoting, printing, or modding. **

Three Letters.... by glomph · 2004-06-02 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

PGP
(ok, six, with GPG)

You want to be almost absolutely sure your intended recipient is the only one who sees your message?

This legal shit reminds me of a package of peanuts I got yesterday at the supermarket:
"This product was processed in a facility that processes peanuts".

This proves we need lawyers like female fish need bicycles....

Full-Disclosure, Etc. by p00p+at+instable.net · 2004-06-02 05:00 · Score: 0

I used to get annoyed with long signatures on mailing lists like Full-Disclosure. But then I showed them! I replied with full quotes! Ha! Looks like their copyright is moot now!

Self-Defense Disclaimer by magefile · 2004-06-02 05:10 · Score: 1

I wish I still had a copy of it ... a guy in my high school's computer club was a security buff, and prefaced all his "questionable" emails with a disclaimer that went something like this:

By reading beyond the italicized section and/or decrypting the ROT13 encoded content below, you agree that you are not an administrator or tech-help employee at [school name], nor will you forward this email to said persons or otherwise inform them of its content except with my explicit written permission. You further acknowledge that while the use of this knowledge may be illegal or against school rules, such use is not my responsibility, and the dissemination of this knowledge is an exercise of my First Amendment rights.

He then put the rest in ROT13. What made it even funnier was that he signed his name in his non-ROT13'd email and on IRC as ROT13(his_name), so his full legal name showed up in plaintext in the email.

A related story by gedeco · 2004-06-02 05:14 · Score: 1

This is a somehow related story, about misdirected e-mails containg disclaimers

Since 5 years, I was happy with my e-mail address deliverd by my ISP.
I profile myself as a typical home user.
Until a year ago, my ISP had subscribed someone who's name is pronounced exactly as mine. Writting both names down, you should only see a difference of one space.
So this confused many of the correspondends mailing my e-mail ego.
Besides, he had a commercial profile.
I'll receveid threats, porn and commercial offers which should be sent to him.
Started to forward the trash and demanded explicitly to create a alias for his activities, which didn't interfer with my profile.

Never got any reply.

I was getting tired of it, until I received a business proposition with 25 % discount on common cdrom players.
The proposition had a disclaimer, you should not distribute it blah, blah, blah.

Instead, I handled it like spam and published the entire message on the abuse forums of my provider, asking for advice how to solve this.
I also wrote down, I already received threats, unwanted porn and other e-mails.(I definitly wan't give up my proper e-mail)
Next mailed the originator of the mail back, writting him this was unwanted, and included a link to the posting on the forum. I also provided the correct e-mail address.

Never heard a word of it again, except it did solve my problem

Bah... only 114 words ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:16 · Score: 0

Time clearly arent accountants... I once contracted for PriceWaterhouseCoopers and here was mine... 147 words

This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, print or rely on this e-mail.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England with registered number OC303525. The registered office of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is 1 Embankment Place, London WC2N 6RH. All partners in PricewaterhouseCoopers UK Associates A are authorised to conduct business as agents of, and all contracts for services to clients are with, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority for designated investment business.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By replying to this e-mail you give your consent to such monitoring.

Samoan Attorney? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:19 · Score: 0

This guy makes an effort to make sure we understand his attorney is Samoan. Why? What relevance does this have to the subject matter? If I were the attorney, I might be offended.

Consider if he had said my white attorney, jewish attorney, or my black attorney. How about my Korean attorney. To me there is no difference.

Does this lend more credibility to the attorney, or less? What is the motivation?

other issues by curator_thew · 2004-06-02 05:23 · Score: 2, Informative

Most of the commentary has ignored a few important points:

(a) if there were ever legal action over an email (say, for example, that you described something important in the email, and the person used it elsewhere), the fact that you have a disclaimer makes it _stronger_ evidence in the court, that would make damages and remedies much easier: the defendent would not be able to claim "d'oh, I did not know" or argue some other implied license, etc. Often the disclaimer is just explictly stating what is already implicit: because what's implicit to me is not always considered that by you: which is why we have written contracts to make all the details clear.

(b) on the issue of confidentiality: it _is_ true that there is no confidentiality in unsolicited messages, thus the "disclosure" disclaimer is junk, _however_ there is always copyright in your email, so while the recipient may be able to generally disclose what they obtained, that may not disclose the _actual detail_ of it without violating your copyright.

On point (b) is a good example: a lawyer sends you an unsolicited C&D with a disclaimer: you are actually free to run around and tell people about what happened, but if you actually _reproduce_ the entire C&D itself verbatim, you would probably be violating the copyright in the letter.

Personally, I use disclaimers: because frankly some people are quite free and easy with forwarding emails off to other people when I am addressing a specific question to them, not to a general audience. Of course, I don't write anything that would offend other people, but in some cases, material has been forwarded out of context. There's really not much I can do, but if there ever _was_ a nasty situation, then at least I know that I've bought myself a _little_ insurance with some explicit disclaimer.

Re:other issues by metamatic · 2004-06-02 09:19 · Score: 1

f there were ever legal action over an email (say, for example, that you described something important in the email, and the person used it elsewhere), the fact that you have a disclaimer makes it _stronger_ evidence in the court

And the fact that the disclaimer appeared on every single e-mail, even those for which it was patently inappropriate, would make it much _weaker_ evidence. I mean, why should I have paid attention to the disclaimer that one time, when I was clearly expected to ignore it hundreds of other times?

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:other issues by Sigma+7 · 2004-06-02 10:18 · Score: 1

a) if there were ever legal action over an email (say, for example, that you described something important in the email, and the person used it elsewhere), the fact that you have a disclaimer makes it _stronger_ evidence in the court, that would make damages and remedies much easier: the defendent would not be able to claim "d'oh, I did not know" or argue some other implied license, etc.

The disclaimer only qualifies as evidence if there is a violation of the terms of trade secret, contract or other thing. There are things that can override this disclaimer, such as this:

Hi! How are you?

I send you this file in order to have your advice

See you later. Thanks

This is both an announcement that an employee of the company using the disclaimer has forfeitted trade secret protection (or is very close to doing so), and is proof that the sender wishes the file to be distributed to the receipient, as well as many other users on the Internet. The fact that some Idiot employee opened the SirCam virus doesn't change either of these facts.

On point (b) is a good example: a lawyer sends you an unsolicited C&D with a disclaimer: you are actually free to run around and tell people about what happened, but if you actually _reproduce_ the entire C&D itself verbatim, you would probably be violating the copyright in the letter.
There are certain documents where the copyright won't apply - such as C&D letters. If you try to launch a lawsuit because another person breached copyright by redistributing it, then the defendant can easily claim that it would be moot since it would most likely be entered as evidence for a public record.
Re:other issues by curator_thew · 2004-06-04 10:34 · Score: 1

"I mean, why should I have paid attention to the disclaimer that one time, when I was clearly expected to ignore it hundreds of other times?"

Idiot. You probably also ignore the contents on the hundreds of consumer products you buy.
Re:other issues by curator_thew · 2004-06-04 10:43 · Score: 1

"There are certain documents where the copyright won't apply - such as C&D letters. If you try to launch a lawsuit because another person breached copyright by redistributing it, then the defendant can easily claim that it would be moot since it would most likely be entered as evidence for a public record."

Not true, it doesn't necessarily follow that a C&D letter means a court case: many matters are resolved prior to court, and often in these cases the parties want to keep the matter confidential for commercial reasons. These letters are no different to any other business letter.

Now, if you _were_ in pre-trial discovery, then it's probably a different matter. And in fact, in these cases, it's potentially more dangerous to release the material until after the trial has ended because of the possibility of prejudicing the action.

You should have added IANAL to your post.
Re:other issues by Sigma+7 · 2004-06-04 15:13 · Score: 1

Not true, it doesn't necessarily follow that a C&D letter means a court case: many matters are resolved prior to court, and often in these cases the parties want to keep the matter confidential for commercial reasons. These letters are no different to any other business letter.
If the matter is confidential for commercial reasons, then there is already an existing agreement or contract involving trade secrets or similar information. This is not related to copyright protection, but is something that does prevent C&D from being copied and distributed.

For C&D letters that are not considered confidential, there is generally no problem copying them verbatim. Examples would be the Mastercard and American Express incidents where C&D letters were used to quash jokes satiring their trademarks.
Re:other issues by curator_thew · 2004-06-04 20:07 · Score: 1

I work with IPR daily, and you are wrong. C&D letters are still protected by copyright like any other letters. The few examples you found doesn't make it right or justify your argument: I can find plenty of copyright infringements on the internet too - in some cases the owners know but don't care, it's not worth their while for time or PR reasons.

I am forced to do this.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 05:25 · Score: 0

At work, I must include crap like this in my email. The official signature has about 24 lines and is 1k in size.

No joking here. :(

Legal Disclaimers BAH by ryanh50 · 2004-06-02 05:45 · Score: 1

Legal Disclaimers can usually be described in two words "Scare Tactic"

Re:Legal Disclaimers Bah by ryanh50 · 2004-06-02 05:52 · Score: 1

Sorry about the double post got an error on the first one and didnt think it went through

O:-) by CGP314 · 2004-06-02 05:46 · Score: 1

By reading this slashdot post, you have agreed to send me $1 through paypay at CGP @ ColinGregoryPalmer . net

::twiddles thumbs and waits for riches::

Legal Disclaimers Bah by ryanh50 · 2004-06-02 05:47 · Score: 1

Legal Disclaimers can usually be described in two words. Scare Tactic.

Samoan Attorney? Fear and Loathing! by BlackFoliage · 2004-06-02 05:50 · Score: 1

I assume it is a reference to Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.. The attorney in the book is Samoan for those who have not had the pleasure.

The bit I like is: by mormop · 2004-06-02 05:57 · Score: 1

The oddest thing about the Time Inc. disclaimer isn't its dubious legal language, but its placement at the bottom of the e-mail message. It's one thing to ask a correspondent to agree to terms of confidentiality before they read the message, but to dictate the terms afterwards? Ridiculous!

Someone writing some sense on MSN (bought to you by the gods of shrink-wrapped licences. Whatever next?

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.

What you should have been sued for... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 06:04 · Score: 0

...is copyright infringement...

you'd have lost, by the way...

Re:What you should have been sued for... by DaHat · 2004-06-02 06:11 · Score: 1

Nay, wouldn't have gone anywhere as he owned no copyrights on what he said within the e-mails.

As a professor of the University, using a University provided PC, using a university provided e-mail account, acing as a professor of the University, he had no claim to material he may create while on the job. Any e-mails he would write to me or anyone else, are 'copyrighted' by the University and he has no claim to them.

This is similar to how a student can record a professors lectures and in most cases the professor cannot stop the student unless doing so is a disturbance. This is because the professor does not own the copyrights to the performance they give in the classroom, it is up to the U to decide such matters.

Now if the U wanted to sue me, then that would be a different story.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Lawyer?! by 6Yankee · 2004-06-02 06:12 · Score: 1

The goatse.cx lawyer

He was a lawyer?! I thought he was the client, bending over like that!

Best Buy lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 06:12 · Score: 0

When I sued Best Buy over a rebate (and won), I got emails from their lawyers stating this:

The information contained in this message and any attachment hereto is privileged, confidential and is for the sole use of the intended recipient.

But it begs the question, now that I got the email that was intended for me, can I use it any way I want?

In the UK by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2004-06-02 06:26 · Score: 1

IANAL, but I do follow this issue. The last professional opinion I heard on this subject, as it applies in the UK, is that the disclaimer is meaningless if it's just attached at the bottom of the mail. However, if a notice is placed at the top of the mail, then the terms may have some legal weight, as by continuing to read the message you're assumed to agree with the notice (or so the hypothetical but as yet untested legal argument goes). Perhaps this explains the annoying and rather offensive mails I've received from a couple of friends recently, roughly of the form:

*** This communication may contain privileged information and by reading further you are entering into an agreement with Ripoff Screwem and Jones as described at the end of this message. ***

Lunch at 12?

[20+ lines of legalese similar to that in the article go here.]

Of course, if it's a work e-mail account it's sent from, that's what you get for using it to send personal mail. OTOH, if I were a client or potential client of such a firm, I'd be rather offended to read that sort of rubbish, too. I wonder if it really covers them at all, and even if it does, whether it does more PR harm than legal protection good...

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.

Re:In the UK by BarryNorton · 2004-06-02 06:52 · Score: 1

Oh God, that actually makes sense... please don't tell anyone!
Re:In the UK by swv3752 · 2004-06-02 07:21 · Score: 1

5 years ago when the disclaimers few, it had a small effect of discouraging forwarding of emails. Now that the disclaimers are ubiquitous, they are pretty much ignored.

I find it actually kind pathetic to see these disclaimers. Some of my coworkers have started to add the disclaimers even though it is not company policy yet to have them for accounts that are not meant to send out email outside the building. I mean, really, if your communications contain sensitive info, then encrypt it and be done with it.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

Lawyers get paid by the word... by gillbates · 2004-06-02 06:26 · Score: 1

So of course they're going to insist on email disclaimers.

These have as much authority as someone posting a sign which says, "By reading this, you agree to pay me ten dollars."

It is similar to the EULA's in software. Since the user already owns the license by the time they click the "I agree" button, the vendor cannot simply impose arbitrary terms with any legal force.

Now, a IANAL, and one might tell you differently. But consider this: if EULA's were legally binding, a customer that altered the EULA text to state, "Vendor agrees that user now owns Vendor..." could legally take possession of Microsoft with a click of the mouse!

Since an agreement implies that both parties agree to something, a EULA cannot be an agreement unless both sides are free to change it.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

Automatic Disclaimers & Encryption/Authenticat by dinodrac · 2004-06-02 06:28 · Score: 1

The sad thing about such disclaimers is that they may potentially interfere with measures that are actually EFFECTIVE - such as encryption and authentication. When disclaimers are added on by mailservers after leaving the client, this violates the integrity of the message, and will cause some encryption packages to reject the message as having been tampered with.

So by trying to get by with only false security, these companies may be rejecting REAL security.

CueCats -- prior art for Anderer patent? by whoever57 · 2004-06-02 07:02 · Score: 1

Ineteresting... I read the description of the device -- isn't this exactly what Mr. Anderer was patenting (ref. SCO and the Anderer memo)?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Like that matters by EvilStein · 2004-06-02 07:14 · Score: 1

If I'm at home, and my ex-girlfriend opens all of my mail and hides it from me until she decides to give it back, there seems to be NOTHING that I can do about it.

Yes, it happened to me. Yes, I consulted with the police department and the US Postal Service.

Nothing that could be done.

However, if you're caught driving around with someone elses mail, *that* might be different.

Re:Like that matters by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 11:05 · Score: 0

I consulted with the police department and the US Postal Service.
You should have consulted a lawyer.
Re:Like that matters by hearingaid · 2004-06-03 00:48 · Score: 1

Where do you live?
Where I am, that's mail fraud, which is a criminal offense. I was under the impression in the U.S. that it was a federal offense. What she did was legally just the same as if she'd broken into the post office itself, and removed random letters found there.
My guess was that the USPS didn't believe you, and wanted you to go away.

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Re:Like that matters by EvilStein · 2004-06-03 03:28 · Score: 1

Near San Francisco, CA. I have the feeling that is exactly what happened - I have no absolute proof, and they didn't want to pursue it.
Sigh.

Oh well. Not much I can do about it now - but remain single. :-)

My reply by heikkile · 2004-06-02 07:22 · Score: 4, Funny

To whom it may concern,

I have received numerous email messages with your company standard disclaimer on the bottom. I hereby notify you that to my best knowledge, I have not signed any non-disclosure agreements with you. Therefore I am free to publish, disseminate, discuss, and use the information in said mails as I damn well please.

As a reasonable person, I am willing to find a compromise. If you compensate for my time and trouble, I am willing to send you copies of said emails. Let's say $100 a piece, or $20000 for the whole pile. After that you can make me an offer for a non-disclosure agreement, and if I find the terms agreeable, I may even sign it.

As a courtesy, I will remain relatively quiet about those mails and about this correspondance, for the next seven days. After that, I make no promises.

Yours sincerely

J.Random Luser

--

In Murphy We Turst

These opinions are mine ... by lildogie · 2004-06-02 07:23 · Score: 1

... and not those of my computer.

Earl Scheib by mgkimsal2 · 2004-06-02 08:00 · Score: 1

It's "earl scheib" not "earl shive"

--
creation science book

How about Gmail? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 08:50 · Score: 0

I wonder if G00GLE sought a legal opinion on this.

If I understand the Gmail thing correctly, they will have the right to read or at least electronically scan all users email.

Including all those with these stupid "shrink wrap" contracts attached...?

My disclaimer by Lulu+of+the+Lotus-Ea · 2004-06-02 10:32 · Score: 1

One message I've long put in my signatures is the following. This is one of several randomly selected ones:

The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...
Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!

--
Buy Text Processing in Python

IANAL, butt... by Pan+T.+Hose · 2004-06-02 11:44 · Score: 1

Personally I was always wondering whether those "iANAL, but..." disclaimers on Slashdot were legally binding. I consider it highly doubtful. But going back to email diclaimers, I always cannot help but laugh furiously when I read this on Perl 6 mailing lists:

"The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (330-668-5000), and destroy the original message. Thank you."

I think some day I will call them indeed... Oops! I have just copied the above "communication" which is strictly prohibited! But that is not a problem, since I hereby inform that by reading this paragraph you agree that prosecuting me on the grounds of copying the strictly prohibited communication is even strictlier prohibited!

Also, here's quite an Interesting link: Stupid Email Disclaimers by Jeffrey Goldberg. It's very Informative. In fact, it might be even better than the linked article.

--
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."

RTFA [was:Legal != Sensible] by TekGoNos · 2004-06-02 12:03 · Score: 1

The author of the article forwarded the disclaimer to his lawyer and asked him for legal advice.

His LAWYER said it had no legal meaning.

So this really IS legal advise and not only common sense.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.

This is completly different by TekGoNos · 2004-06-02 12:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

You say that a disclaimer may make it impossible for people to claim "I didnt know" in court.

But the main problem with these disclaimers is that they try to add restrictions on the way you may use the email.
And they cannot do this.
And when the disclaimer is essentially b*llsh*t, people CAN claim in court : "Well, there where these 41 unenforcable claims, how could I know that the 42th was enforcable?"

You may be right over point a), but this applies only to rights you already have over your email and the ONLY right you have over an (unsolicited) email is copyright (and then again, not necessarly in all countries), so the only disclaimer you can add is :
"Copyright 2004 by M.E., reproduction in whole or in part (including forwarding or quoting) of this message without permission is prohibited, unless the copyright laws of your country explicitly allow it."

Of course, if the email isnt unsolicited, stronger rights may exist (trade secrets, NDA, ...) but these result from real, signed contracts, NOT from some email-disclaimers.

IANAL; and you'll be foolish to use my disclaimer, it's just an illustration.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.

You insensitive clod! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 13:11 · Score: 0

I run Linux!

Same experience by $exyNerdie · 2004-06-02 14:11 · Score: 1

I had the same experience dealing with TW's magazine division employees whereby our business customers have the option of receiving free trial subscription of their magazines. Every email from their employees had that disclaimer. Even if the email text was 5 words, you still get that legal mumbo-jumbo. It seems that it is their corporate policy.
In the past, I have seen such messages in the Fax cover letters. Maybe they took it over to emails from there...

You get what you pay for . . . by werdna · 2004-06-02 15:04 · Score: 1

when you rely on free legal advice. These disclaimers ARE material, and important in appropriate circumstances, although not for any of the reasons considered i the article. I can think of two principal reasons for using disclaimers along the lines of "this is secret or privileged and may not be for you -- if it isn't don't read it and return it without reading further. thanks":

1) to PRESERVE (not to create) privilege in the case of inadvertent discovery; and

2) to PRESERVE (not to create) liability against subsequent use or disclosure of trade secret materials.

The problem is this: we send or copy e-mails to the wrong guy by accident, not with great frequency, but often enough. This isn't always avoidable, and may well be inadvertent. In such a case, there are two serious consequences: loss of ALL PRIVILEGES of attorney-client communications or work product material by waiver; and loss of trade secrecy in inadvertently disclosed matter.

The cases are clear enough: a reasonable notice or disclaimer, while not itself sufficient to survive an inadvertent discovery, is necessary to fix the problem. For one, a lawyer who knowingly reads the improper matter has committed an ethical breach, and whether or not knowingly, may expose himself to disqualification from representing his client in that matter or worse. Moreover, inadvertent discovery can save privilege, even when sent to opposing counsel, with an appropriate disclaimer.

As to trade secrets, the issue is less clear. While it is unlikely that the reading of the e-mail, even if willful, would itself constitute a misappropriation of a secret for acquiring by "wrongful means," the message would probably suffice to limit subsequent use or disclosure, since the reader would "know or should have known" about its secrecy. There would always be other issues, but the presence of a disclaimer would be a welcome fact in the instance of an excused or inadvertent disclosure.

Of course, putting the message AT THE END OF THE E-MAIL is insane. In our offices, the disclaimer is always at the beginning.

The Slashdot: In-effect-ive or No Effect? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-02 15:06 · Score: 0

Is slashdot a digital farce or can it really affect policy?
I want to know if anyone really reads tripe.
Call me at (937) 554-3256, or at my office at: (937) 431-2100

Matthew R Mcfarland

3600 Hackney Dr
Dayton, OH 45420-1032
Tel.: (937) 298-4068

But... the opinion is that of a journalist!? by GolfBoy · 2004-06-02 15:16 · Score: 1

Even though the press has been getting a lot of flack in recent times, I think think they still get way too much credit for their opinions. If the story had been 'This article analyzes Linux blah blah blah and finds it somewhat lacking.' the /. community would have been pissing on the author's grave.

However, since the enforcability of the sig is basically a legal issue, everyone gives the (journalist) author of the article a bunch of slack. Now, I (yes, former lawyer) happen to agree that the sig is just so much BS. But that's just the problem. The opinion expressed really - to be accurate - relies on a whole lot of technical legal analysis that the writer clearly does not have. Why does anyone give a rat's ass what this guy says?

[OT] Minor request by achurch · 2004-06-02 16:14 · Score: 1

Please link your URLs--Slashdot inserts spaces every 50 characters of an unbroken word.

Served its purpose by LordNyuknyuk · 2004-06-02 19:09 · Score: 1

Thats quite funny, and I love the quote. Unfortunately, and perhaps somewhere towards the heart of the matter... I skipped reading it at first .

--
My other .sig is a Mercedes | Your innocence is treasure your innocence is death your innocence is all

justified absquatulation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-03 00:37 · Score: 0

My adaptation from the original website (mentioned
within) was to reprhase it to pick words that naturally
line up without ANY extra inserted spaces [assuming
you put the normal two spaces after a period - which
I notice this submission form is destroying, sigh].

Why would if be worthwhile to have a naturally
justified .sig? I don't know, it just somehow feels
more official this way.
-john henning

IMPORTANT: This email is not a conscious entity, so it is unable to form a notion of intent. But if it were able, it would long to go to certain person(s) and not just wherever the internet happened to drop it. If it has fallen into your inbox via random or malicious circumstance, you are hereby informed and warned that any use by persons with low self-esteem will constitute an irritating faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been employed in its normal context somewhere other than this warning, it lacks any legal or grammatical meaning and you may ignore it. No animals were harmed while transmitting this email but the yorkshire terrier next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Any readers who harbor fear of the unknown should be gratified when they learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards. So you can just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft InSecurity. However, if you pour a complete and unbroken circle of salt around yourself and your computer, you will ensure that no harm can befall you or your pet. If you received this email in error, you should please immediately add some nutmeg and egg white and place it in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Whisk it briefly and let it stand for three hours before icing. Any resemblance or apparent derivation from the work of http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimer s/ is intended to be the most sincere form of flatulence.

My disclaimer by bjb · 2004-06-03 00:38 · Score: 1

I've been attaching a message to my emails and newsgroup posts for years from work:

My statements and opinions are my own, and are not of my employer.

Made more sense when I was posting things on newsgroups from work (long since disabled), but I'm wondering if it means much now. The original intent was that I could say something in an email, and it should protect my company from having my statement being perceived as theirs (in the legal, declarative sense).

Always wondered if it was actually worth while..

--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...

Spam has used similar restrictions by JuggleGeek · 2004-06-03 01:49 · Score: 1

I used to see spam that put similar restrictions in their email. Their claim, as I recall, was that their spam is copyrighted, and so it would be illegal to resend the email, post it to a website, etc. Essentially, they didn't want people to be able to report the spam.

Of course, nobody that reports spam is likely to worry about it. What's gonna happen - is the spammer going to quit hiding long enough to sue you for reporting their spam?

Now, just a moment... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-03 17:20 · Score: 0

This message is the property of Tyme, Inc. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and/or not, and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. You may be required ensure that all copies of this communication, including temporary cache, have been permanently deleted; if not, you may be required to format any and all partitions on your computer that could convceivably even transiently have held copied of all or fractions of this communication. You may also need to format and re-install any caching proxy servers under your control that were involved in the transmission of this communication. Finally, if you cannot guarantee to forget this communication, you may be required to undergo post-hypnotic suggestion treatment, at your own cost, to ensure that confidentiality of this communication is maintained. Thank you.

Press release had a disclaimer on it! by SomethingOrOther · 2004-06-04 01:54 · Score: 1

Sorry dude,
Undoubtedly the dumbest one ever was a publicity press release we receved, with a disclaimer saying "privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s)"

I sent it back with a note asking WTF they wanted us to do with it.

--
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.

Is it illegal to...? by HeavenlyWhistler · 2004-06-05 12:39 · Score: 1

Is it illegal to send the text message "FIRE!" if the recipient is in a crowded theater?

Slashdot Mirror

An Analysis Of Email Disclaimers

334 comments