Richard Dent - Annual Leave

Richard Dent - Annual Leave

[Dent Richard]

I am now out of the office until Monday 24th July.  If your email is of an urgent nature then please contact Jackie Thompson (my PA) on QEII 4930 otherwise I will respond to you upon my return.

Dr Richard Dent

***************************************************************************
This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or
distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its
contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
for your co-operation.
***************************************************************************

[OT] Vacation message heckling (Was: Re: Richard Dent - Annual Leave)

[Thomas Tuttle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1183 bytes --]

On July 18 at 04:06 EDT, Dent Richard hastily scribbled:
> I am now out of the office until Monday 24th July.  If your email is of an urgent nature then please contact Jackie Thompson (my PA) on QEII 4930 otherwise I will respond to you upon my return.

LKML wishes you a happy vacation.

> ***************************************************************************
> This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or
> distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its
> contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
> inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
> for your co-operation.
> ***************************************************************************

Funny.  Has anyone figured out if license agreements on email messages work?

-- 
Thomas Tuttle (thinkinginbinary@gmail.com)
Get Firefox: Web browsing redefined. mozilla.org/products/firefox
aim/y!m:thinkinginbinary; icq:198113263; jabber:thinkinginbinary@jabber.org
msn: thinkinginbinary@hotmail.com; pgp: 0xAF5112C6

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Vacation message heckling (Was: Re: Richard Dent - Annual Leave)

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1677 bytes --]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:27:04 EDT, Thomas Tuttle said:

> > This e-mail is confidential and privileged. 
> Funny.  Has anyone figured out if license agreements on email messages work?

The little case law that exists tends towards the view that if your site
is claiming that an out-of-clue message sent to 30K people is confidential,
you don't have a f**king *clue* what's actually confidential.  This has a
number of interesting potential outcomes:

1) If you're a publicly traded company, a shareholder's lawsuit against the
CIO for mismanaging corporate sensitive data.

2) The possibility that "overwarning" (especially at the *end* of the message
where you've already looked at the contents) will negate any benefit of the
warning. (Basically, the legal variant of "the boy who cried wolf").

3) At least one lawyer has speculated that an opposing legal team could
try the following strategy:  (a) show that *this* disclaimer must be a bogus
one the company attaches to *non* sensitive mail, (b) imply that actual
sensitive mail must therefor have a different disclaimer, and then (c)
subpoena all the e-mail with this disclaimer, since it's obviously not
considered *really* privileged by the company.  Of course, if you're actually
using a one-size-fits-none disclaimer, you're in trouble then... :)

> contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
> inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
> for your co-operation.

Let's all inform him his message went astray - obviously it was intended for
a recipient that lives in a universe where posting an e-mail to 30K people you
don't know is still confidential.... :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Vacation message heckling (Was: Re: Richard Dent - Annual Leave)

[Hans-Peter Jansen]

Hi Valdis,

Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2006 16:43 schrieb Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:27:04 EDT, Thomas Tuttle said:
> > > This e-mail is confidential and privileged.
> >
> > Funny.  Has anyone figured out if license agreements on email
> > messages work?
>
> The little case law that exists tends towards the view that if your
> site is claiming that an out-of-clue message sent to 30K people is
> confidential, you don't have a f**king *clue* what's actually
> confidential.  This has a number of interesting potential outcomes:

Thanks for listing the serious outcomes of such a brain damaged 
procedure. Let me add one:

Disclaimer: reading following site can seriously damage your health, 
especially make sure to keep sitting on your chair, and your ability to 
control machines or driving vehicles with tears filled eyes is strongly 
reduced..

4) http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

Re: [OT] Vacation message heckling (Was: Re: Richard Dent - Annual Leave)

[Jesper Juhl]

On 18/07/06, Thomas Tuttle <thinkinginbinary@gmail.com> wrote:
> On July 18 at 04:06 EDT, Dent Richard hastily scribbled:
> > I am now out of the office until Monday 24th July.  If your email is of an urgent nature then please contact Jackie Thompson (my PA) on QEII 4930 otherwise I will respond to you upon my return.
>
> LKML wishes you a happy vacation.
>
> > ***************************************************************************
> > This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended
> > recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or
> > distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its
> > contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
> > inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
> > for your co-operation.
> > ***************************************************************************
>
> Funny.  Has anyone figured out if license agreements on email messages work?
>

Claiming anything send by email is confidential seems completely
rediculous to me.

Perhaps if the email was encrypted I could attach some weight to a
disclaimer like that, but sending unencrypted email is like writing on
the back of a postcard - it can be read by a huge number of people in
transit - admins managing the mail servers where it is stored along
the way, people sniffing traffic on the lines it passes through,
people sticking their noses in your computers mbox file while you are
on the toilet etc etc etc...
And when you on top of that send the mail to a public mailing list,
well, it's hardly confidential any more by anyones standards...

Complete and utter nonsense if you ask me.


-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: [OT] Vacation message heckling (Was: Re: Richard Dent - Annual Leave)

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1893 bytes --]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:30:04 +0200, Jesper Juhl said:

> Claiming anything send by email is confidential seems completely
> rediculous to me.

There actually *is* a valid usage case for these disclaimers in *some* cases.

If there *is* in fact material covered by lawyer-client or similar privilege,
having the disclaimer on *those items alone* can do some good when the other
side's legal eagles subpoena all e-mails with the phrase 'Project Wombat'
in them - it puts the other side on notice that they shouldn't be looking
at that item and it should be returned.

It's the same legal theory as subpoenaing all the paper documents, and finding
in the 53 boxes, a sheet stamped 'Privileged and Confidential' that
accidentally got into box 27 - there's strict rules about what happens then.

Of course, paper documents are stamped on the TOP so you stop reading, and
not all of them are stamped... :)

(And I actually did at one time have dealings with a lawyer who Actually Got
It. E-mails re: scheduling and other administrivia didn't have a disclaimer,
stuff that was actually sensitive had a very short one at the *top*...)

> Perhaps if the email was encrypted I could attach some weight to a
> disclaimer like thatt, but sending unencrypted email is like writing on
> the back of a postcard - it can be read by a huge number of people in
> transit - admins managing the mail servers where it is stored along
> the way, people sniffing traffic on the lines it passes through,

At least in the US, the law says otherwise.  18 USC 2511 basically says
that the admins aren't allowed to blab, and the traffic sniffers are
committing a crime already.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html

And if you catch them at it, 18 USC 2520 says you can sue them for damages:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002520----000-.html



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: [OT] Vacation message heckling (Was: Re: Richard Dent - Annual Leave)

[Jan Engelhardt]

> And when you on top of that send the mail to a public mailing list,
> well, it's hardly confidential any more by anyones standards...
>
> Complete and utter nonsense if you ask me.
>
Just too lazy to turn it off for 'that one' mail to a public place.

The following note spans every "welcome" mail for some lists I run...

"Please make sure, should you be away, that *NO* auto-response messages
(like "I'm out of office until ...") appear on the list. Failure to do
so will get you removed from the mailing list."

Either nobody's gone on vacation anymore or they stick to it. :)



Jan Engelhardt
-- 

Re: [OT] Vacation message heckling (Was: Re: Richard Dent - Annual Leave)

[Erik Mouw]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:04:26AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> The following note spans every "welcome" mail for some lists I run...
> 
> "Please make sure, should you be away, that *NO* auto-response messages
> (like "I'm out of office until ...") appear on the list. Failure to do
> so will get you removed from the mailing list."

Same on the linux-arm-* mailing lists, see
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php#e11 .

Silly disclaimers always claim that the email shouldn't be
redistributed and that it is only for the "intended recipient". Because
the lists are publically archived beyond our control, messages are
redistributed. And with mailing lists, the "intended recipient" is very
vague: it apparently is "linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk" cause
that's what the "To:" header says, but OTOH it turns up in *my*
mailbox.

I usually protect people with such silly disclaimers against their own
company policy by switching their list subscription to "moderated":
they can still receive all messages from the list, but every message
they send must be OK'ed by the list admins. That turns out to work very
well: either they remove the disclaimer, or they use a webmail account
instead.

BTW: as an interesting side note: silly disclaimers are usually added
by top posting people. How are they ever to notice the disclaimer with
such a ridiculous reply style?


Erik
[linux-arm-*-owner #2]

-- 
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands

Re: [OT] Vacation message heckling (Was: Re: Richard Dent - Annual Leave)

[Craig Van Tassle]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wow relax. I've seen in may placed of employment that ALL emails send out have
the disclaimer on them and he may not be able to help it.

What I really think is bad is that he actually left his out-of-office agent
running for LKML.

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:30:04 +0200, Jesper Juhl said:
> 
>> Claiming anything send by email is confidential seems completely
>> rediculous to me.
> 
> There actually *is* a valid usage case for these disclaimers in *some* cases.
> 
> If there *is* in fact material covered by lawyer-client or similar privilege,
> having the disclaimer on *those items alone* can do some good when the other
> side's legal eagles subpoena all e-mails with the phrase 'Project Wombat'
> in them - it puts the other side on notice that they shouldn't be looking
> at that item and it should be returned.
> 
> It's the same legal theory as subpoenaing all the paper documents, and finding
> in the 53 boxes, a sheet stamped 'Privileged and Confidential' that
> accidentally got into box 27 - there's strict rules about what happens then.
> 
> Of course, paper documents are stamped on the TOP so you stop reading, and
> not all of them are stamped... :)
> 
> (And I actually did at one time have dealings with a lawyer who Actually Got
> It. E-mails re: scheduling and other administrivia didn't have a disclaimer,
> stuff that was actually sensitive had a very short one at the *top*...)
> 
>> Perhaps if the email was encrypted I could attach some weight to a
>> disclaimer like thatt, but sending unencrypted email is like writing on
>> the back of a postcard - it can be read by a huge number of people in
>> transit - admins managing the mail servers where it is stored along
>> the way, people sniffing traffic on the lines it passes through,
> 
> At least in the US, the law says otherwise.  18 USC 2511 basically says
> that the admins aren't allowed to blab, and the traffic sniffers are
> committing a crime already.
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html
> 
> And if you catch them at it, 18 USC 2520 says you can sue them for damages:
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002520----000-.html
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEwEtuAOTIJ89W4sIRAqeGAJ4zI/kIbei66bOAHglhrEsD06YBTQCgxGf+
8NoBLMHK1wTVebcH+Nb7Wmc=
=DrJq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [OT] Vacation message heckling (Was: Re: Richard Dent - Annual Leave)

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 269 bytes --]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:35:17 CDT, Craig Van Tassle said:
> Wow relax. I've seen in may placed of employment that ALL emails send out have
> the disclaimer on them and he may not be able to help it.

That's exactly the point - sticking it on *all* emails is suboptimal.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]