Stupid disclaimers

[Eric Dunbar]

On 1/18/06, Derek Broughton <news at pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > what's your point? It's there authomatically, and who cares if it's there?
>
> Point 1: It's annoying
> Point 2: One reason such things tend to be "there automatically" is because
> the companies doing it _know_ it's annoying and don't actually want their
> employees using their accounts for Usenet & listservs.
>
> Obviously quite a few of us care if it's there.  Besides the fact that such
> a disclaimer is unlikely to be considered valid in any jurisdiction (beyond
> the fact that the content of an email is owned by the sender, just like
> regular mail) if everybody did it it would add considerably to the costs
> for those who have to pay to download their email.

I must agree that it's bloody annoying, but as for legality... it's
_possibly_ better than nothing at all. The contents of the e-mail are
essentially public domain. Your e-mail rarely has the kind of
protection regular post has (will vary from jurisdication to
jurisdiction and pseudo-democracy to totalitarian regime).

E-mail providers have every legal right to view the contents of your
e-mails. Some may promise not to and they would be violating contract
law (if they spell that out in the TOS) but they wouldn't be violating
criminal or civil laws -- anyone who forwards your mail for you along
the way at some point or another can read your e-mail if desired.

But, the primary reason companies do this is so their mistakes or
coverups don't get uncovered. For that reason alone these little
disclaimers should be rendered invalid. Corps already destory internal
communications as a rule to prevent their shennanighans from being
discovered. Society shouldn't make it any easier for them to thwart
the rules through further legal loopholes.

Eric.