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

Craig Van Tassle
2006-07-21T03:34:40Z

-----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-----