[olug] Project seeking Linux security GURU

[Christopher Cashell]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Brian Roberson <roberson at olug.org> wrote:
> I read your disclaimer and deleted your email, I suggest everyone else on
> the list follow suit.

I would have to agree.  I despise those stupid things.

Without even getting into the question of their *very* dubious
enforceability, most of them are written in a weak attempt at legalese
that provides no benefit or worth.  I know any time I see one, it
immediately gives me a negative impression towards the sender.  It's
bad enough when it's attached to an e-mail sent individually and
directly to me, but when it's sent to a mailing list (where most of
it's provisions are not just worthless, but asinine) it really hits a
pet peeve.

For a few moments of amusement, let's take a closer look at the one we
have here:

"The documents accompanying this electronic transmission, or this
transmission itself, may contain Protected Information."

It "may" contain Protected Information?  How am I supposed to know if
it does or not?  Since it only says "may", can I just assume that it
doesn't, since it doesn't clearly state otherwise?  Ambiguity, while
often fun, is not a good idea in legal statements.

"This information belongs to the sender and is legally privileged."

Under what law exactly is this information "privileged"?  And in what
way?  Trademarks don't come into play in this case, patented
information is already disclosed and it's their implementation that is
(potentially) protected, not the information about them.  Copyright
only protects the exact expression of information, so that wouldn't do
anything except stop me from copying this e-mail verbatim (and there's
a strong argument that by sending it to me, you are giving me implied
consent to copy it).  Which leaves trade secret. . . but, since I
haven't signed an NDA, and you sent the information to me, is pretty
much a lost cause.  Your legal privilege here is looking pretty weak.

"The information is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above."

Uh, oh.  There was no individual or entity named above.  Does that
mean that no one can read this e-mail?  Or, since the e-mail itself
was addressed to the mailing list, which is archived publicly, does
that mean that you've explicitly made it available to everyone?

"If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
you may not disclose, copy, distribute or take action on the
information in these documents. All such activities are strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, delete the
e-mail immediately and empty your deleted items folder or take any
steps necessary to ensure permanent deletion."

Depending on how you read this, you could consider this an outright
contradiction.  If I'm not allowed to "take action on the information
in these documents", and the disclaimer is considered part of the
information in the document, then doesn't that mean that I'm
prohibited from taking action on the disclaimer's demand that I
immediately delete the e-mail?  And I thought things were silly
before.  Now it's really dumb.

Yay for really lame (and worthless) disclaimers.

-- 
Christopher