OT: Legal "disclaimers" and e-mail

[Fairlight]

Y'all catch dis heeyah?  Kenneth Brody been jivin' 'bout like:
> Quoting Jean-Pierre A. Radley (Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:13:37 -0400):
> 
> > Mark Luljak propounded (on Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 05:02:38PM -0400):
> > |
> > | Unless it contained something actually confidential, I think I might just
> > | redistribute it out of spite.  :)
> >
> > Setting aside your inclinations towards spitefulness, how would you
> > determine its confidenciality?

I wouldn't.  I'd determine its confidentiality.  (I actually checked a
dictionary to make sure there wasn't a variant you knew about that I didn't
before popping this one loose.  Payback's a bitch.  You prolly shouldn't
have harped on other people's spelling for the last 14 years, huh?)

As for what you meant to ask...

Well, that's mostly common sense.  If it contains identifying information,
sensitive data like financial or other such things, business transaction
information...that's all just within common sense that you wouldn't
redistribute something along those lines.  Anything that would lead to
actual legal exposure if divulged and misused (like someone's CC#, SSN,
information about a public company merger that the SEC would take issue
with if someone used it for inside trading and then come after you for
aiding and abetting)...  You know, someone would have to be an idiot to
retransmit something like that in the first place.

I'd tend to also avoid retransmitting anything that would cause someone
personal issues, like...discussion about personal health issues,
relationships, etc.

Basically though, anything that doesn't potentially put me at legal risk
and isn't unethical or actually harmful to someone for me to retransmit is
probably fair game if they tick me off enough.  2.5 screens of boilerplate
starts edging into that territory.  You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

> Well, most of the ones I've seen usually say that they contain confidential
> information, so the notice itself is making the claim.  This one, however
> says "MAY contain confidential, protected and legally privileged information".
> So, I guess I, as the (intended or not) recipient, can make that decision.
> And, if I have repeatedly informed the sender that I am not the intended
> recipient[1], and they continue sending it, I guess by their own actions,
> they have demonstrated that the information is not "confidential, protected
> and legally privileged", and that I am free to do with it as I wish.

You're actually (IANAL, but from every discussion I've ever had on the
subject, I believe this to be true) free to do whatever the heck you want
with anything that hits your mailbox, no matter what boilerplate says,
unless it is covered under some kind of NDA or other contract to which you
previously willfully bound yourself.  It's just like receiving unsolicited
USPS, from what I've gathered.

They can strap on all the pretentious BS they like, but to my
understanding, unless there's an actual prior agreement by both parties,
there's no contract; you haven't accepted the terms, you can't be bound
to it unless it's part of the legal code.  You don't necessarily agree to
everything in the tax code, for example, but you're still bound to it by
law.  This, OTOH, is attempting to unilaterally force a contract on you
without not only prior consent but prior knowledge.  I'd be amazed if a
court ever upheld any such thing all the way through the appeals process.
It doesn't even have the weight of a sneakware license, because it could be
argued that in buying software in this day and age you have a reasonable
expectation that there -will- be a license included to which you presumably
will agree.  You have -zero- foreknowledge with something like this, and
certainly haven't agreed to it--and you have to read the email to even know
what you'd be agreeing to in the first place.  So in essence, it's entirely
worthless TTBOMK.

And frankly, if it wasn't solicited and you weren't even consulted, you
don't really owe them anything.  There are, of course, certain things that
it would likely be unwise to dink with even if it was just going to be a
PITA legal battle that you could win, strictly because it's not worth it.

And for as flippant as I am about the matter, I've been remarkably
restrained.  I semi-regularly get traffic intended for fairlite.com.au
(Fairlight Plastics, PTY, in Australia), complete with spreadsheets, order
information, etc.  I'm actually fairly nice in that I -usually- inform
them that it's been mis-sent, and tell them where to send it.  Last half
year or so I've stopped doing even that, however.  I figure that enabling
their lack of diligence is really silly--let them figure out themselves by
delays in their order processing or costings or whathaveyou that they've
screwed up.  I don't have the patience, nor do I have the responsibility to
redirect fouled email.  If they want the service, they can damned well pay
me to do it.  Apparently my advancing years combined with repetition are
making me grumpier about it than I used to be.

I don't suffer fools lightly.  Anyone that can't address a frakkin' email
(especially on a regular basis) correctly probably shouldn't be using the
medium.  I'm not saying I've never misaddressed something, but damn, maybe
twice in 18 years?  And even in those cases, it's my problem, not the
recipient's.  Perhaps I just refuse to buy into the "I'm a victim, even
though I caused the problem" mentality that seems to permeate society these
days.

That said, companies would be better served taking the money they pay
the idiots that come up with BS CYA verbiage that probably folds faster
than a bad poker hand, and spending it on people to train their employees
and make changes to the company policy in which they outline exactly the
repercussions for screwing up with company email.  Which really addresses
the problem at the culpable source, instead of trying to foist it upon
complete strangers, who are innocent and unwilling victims in cases like
this.

mark->
-- 
The latest synth mixdown...
http://media.fairlite.com/Isolation_Voiceless_Cry_Mix.mp3