Timex's Journal: What is "private"?

I was reading this response to a cease-and-desist letter. The lawyer who wrote up the "C&D" tried to quell public discussion by warning against public posting of the letter on grounds that it would violate copyright law. The author of the response apparently doesn't think they have a leg to stand on. It's a good read.

I immediately remembered several emails I saw (some when I worked at a bank) where the "signature" block cautioned that the email communication was protected by privacy law. I don't know if there is any accuracy to those claims (I wouldn't be surprised if there is, to some extent), but it's not something I really care about.

My general impression is that if it lands in my Inbox, then it's fair game. Before any of you think that there's cause to worry, don't: I actually understand that some things just are not meant for Public Consumption, and I wouldn't betray that. By the same token, nothing I have been told in confidentiality is the sort of stuff I would write about anyway. In short, I know when to keep my mouth shut.

My beef lies squarely with companies who require "Do not duplicate this email under penalty of law!" sorts of signatures. I think they're stupid, pompous, and inane. How many times have I gotten messages (even jokes!) with these sorts of signatures in the message still embedded? I couldn't begin to count that high. Often, the "private, confidential material" was nothing important anyway.

If the subject of an email, especially "official business" needs to be kept private, then the author should be able to say so without a boilerplate block in at the bottom of the message. Standardized signatures are not the way to do it.

Like "Art".

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I don't know what "private" means, but I know it when I smell it. :-)

Re:

[tomhudson]

Of course, if you forge a pointer, you can expose the private data :-)

Enforceable? Seems unlikely.

[johndiii]

If you are using a work email account, you could probably be disciplined for disclosing company information. But from the legal sense, I think that once you send someone an email they can do whatever they want with it. All those signature blocks are just silly. And applying them to everything that is sent out contributes to their worthlessness.

Re:

[Red Warrior]

For the record, any e-mail content that makes it to MY screen ,without my affirmative agreement to the contrary, is mine to do with as I will. I didn't agree to your disclaimer. The end.

If someone wants to enforce PRIVATE communication with me, that agreement (not statement, either, AGREEMENT) must be made PRIOR to said private communication. Otherwise, you are at the mercy of my better nature. Sucker.

Re:

[pudge]

For the record, any e-mail content that makes it to MY screen ,without my affirmative agreement to the contrary, is mine to do with as I will. I didn't agree to your disclaimer. The end.

Yep. That is absolutely correct. All nondisclosure agreements fall under contract law, which requires your prior consent.

Otherwise, you are at the mercy of my better nature. Sucker.

I frankly don't even find it to be, generally speaking, "bad etiquette" to reprint the contents of emails without permission. If it is potentially sensitive information, sure. And giving out NAMES of people is questionable. But the contents? Psh.

Minimization

[Shadow Wrought]

I think more than anything else the disclaimers are meant to minimize the sender's damage. When it comes back to bite them in the arse because they sent it to the wrong address, they can fall back and whine about the disclaimer. Once its sent to you though, I don't they have any ability to actual enforce a paragraph at the end of the email.

When Iw as a paralegal in the Bay Area a few years back one of the firms we were litigating against had a 3 paragraph dsiclaimer of dense legalease! Ours was bad enough at four lines, but theirs was just silly.