Email transparency

Re:Email transparency by UnoriginalGuy on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @02:15PM (#5208786)

Random question relating to both e-mail and the law...

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. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Email transparency by jzieger2 on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @02:25PM (#5208848)

I think people do these things mainly to deal with inadvertent disclosure (e.g., an incorrectly addressed email) or further downstream distribution of an email. The idea is to have some indicator that the original sender meant the communication to remain in confidence (which may be required to maintain, for example, attorney client privilege, or to preserve trade secret protection). When they are affixed automatically to every email (as they are by many firms), I really doubt they work. I'm not aware of any case where the existence of this kind of disclaimer has been a factor, and I suspect most people put this in the "it couldn't hurt" category, rather than really thinking it'll be effective. Would be interested to hear if anyone is aware of evidence to the contrary.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Email transparency by yajoe on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @02:37PM (#5208940)

They are effectively worthless if it can be shown they are added automatically to every mail. Privileged communication requires something explicit or genuine intent, i.e. the sender writing 'privileged' at the top. It actually can be quite bad if it's shown that the privileged communication was abused (either in terms of piercing all veils or censure).

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Email transparency by rsingel on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @07:41PM (#5210594)

Hey John, that's pretty much what I found when I did an explainer for Wired about them:

“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...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Email transparency by yummyfajitas on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:19PM (#5211167)

Do these things actually have a legal purpose/meaning?

"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.

[ Parent | on HN ]