|
From: | David Bateman |
Subject: | Re: sprank |
Date: | Sat, 10 Apr 2010 22:41:31 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090706) |
Judd Storrs wrote:
I used to be obliged to have a a footer that said if a message was confidential or not, but thankfully no longer have to. The reasoning was simple. NDAs and contracts that we signed had clauses in them that information we communicated to a partner had to be clearly marked as confidential if the confidentiality clauses of the contract or NDA were to be respected. The language in this boilerplate seems to be a cut and paste from a standard template NDA, and dissemination would mean to someone else than those that already had access to the information. The bolierplate looses its sense when sent to a publically archived mailing list as the information contained in the mail is no longer confidential in anyway. With out an NDA between me and RAFAEL such a contractual clause can't be imposed on me in such an arbitrary manner. either I have no fear or legal reprisal in responding in such a case.On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:29 PM, David Bateman <address@hidden> wrote:Unfortunately some companies legal policy require such guff, so please note that by doing such a thing you're probably punishing the victimAm I expected to submit these things to my employer's legal council before replying? Isn't that punishing the receiver, too? The legal boilerplate in the original message is 80% of the text. I guess one could take the probably risky approach of just ignoring them. I am not a lawyer and I have no idea how Israeli law about defense contractors works or interacts with local/state/national/international laws where I live. That's why I asked him to clarify if I'm allowed to send a reply to the content of the message. I figure the legal boilerplate isn't part of the content, so asking about the boilerplate should be ok. Then again maybe I'm wrong. Companies aren't going to change their policies if they don't get feedback.
He's still a victim though as it looks to me that this boilerplate was added by the outgoing mail server.. You should be attacking his sysadmin and there management for being so stupid about the manner in which they treat confidentiality. I doubt an individual employee would have any chance of getting a company to be less stupid about the boilerplate, though so if you can't respond for whatever reason to a mail with a footer like this the best thing to do is probably ignore it.
D.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |