Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:35:17 -0500 | From | Craig Van Tassle <> | Subject | Re: [OT] Vacation message heckling (Was: Re: Richard Dent - Annual Leave) |
| |
-----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-----
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |