In most cases, the kinds of emails you are talking about -- where someone says something that can be mischaracterized or otherwise damaging to the company in the future -- are a result of poor judgment. And that's where I think Stripe's policy has a distinct advantage. When people know they're sending things to a broader group of recipients they tend to be more thoughtful in how they communicate and just avoid saying many of the imprudent things that would be troublesome in future discovery.
So everyone puts these signatures/disclaimers on their e-mail now which say (paraphrasing):
> This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.
Or similar. Do these things actually have a legal purpose/meaning? I mean can you really enforce a contract the other person hasn't agreed to? Can you really demand what THEY do with an e-mail YOU sent them?
A few years ago I thought this stuff was silly but now a lot of big companies are doing it and I can only assume these companies have a legal department...
PS - If you were to reply I wouldn't assume it was legal advice, I am asking you as a person who just happens to be a lawyer, not as a lawyer. :)
My experience is people add these signatures because they see other people doing it and they assume it's a good practice or seemingly professional. It may be some inexperienced lawyers recommend it so they have something to say about email policy. It's not hurting anyone beyond eating up mail quotas, right?
“You have no obligation to obey the disclaimer if you decide to read a misdirected email, send it to your friends, or send it to a Wired reporter,” says Susan Lyon, a privacy and data security attorney for Perkins Coie. “You don’t have to worry about that.”
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/pr_burningquestion_leg...
"This is not an offer to buy or sell securities."
"This is not legal advice."
These are legally useful because rather than enforcing a contract, they explicitly disclaim one.
Although explicitly making everything public is a novel way to keep bad behavior at bay.
If you want to talk about something sensitive or private you would probably pick up the phone or walk over to the person, knowing an email is shared with the entire company.
Full disclosure: I've worked on eDiscovery products and may be biased. This is a net good thing, I think, for a company to reduce its dependence on arbitrary communication that is written and backed up forever.
Mind you, the dishonesty was rife there. The boss had me scan in his cellphone bills and edit to remove all records of calls to his mistress, so he could print them out (as 'photocopies') and prove to his wife that he wasn't cheating on her.
Kind of regret all that now, but payment alleviates conscience.
"Every person who, knowing that any book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, is about to be produced in evidence upon any trial, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized by law, willfully destroys or conceals the same, with intent thereby to prevent it from being produced, is guilty of a misdemeanor." (Cal. Pen. Code. S. 135)
What if the paperwork in question isn't being used in an investigation, but rather as a way of proving residence in a particular area for the purpose of receiving services provided in that area?
If the person committing the fraud is poor however or very young, the will to prosecute the fraud is often absent, but you cannot count on that.
For example, someone was prosecuted here in California for helping a friend without health insurance obtain medical care by trying to get the hospital to believe that his friend was him.
IANAL though.
That's disgusting.
I agree. This was years ago - I wouldn't do it now as I have financial freedom and (probably) a higher standard of morals. But back then, keeping my employers satisfied so my sole source of income was safe, was a large motivator.