UK organisation desperate to control email
someone | 26.02.2004 13:57 | Repression
At least one UK organisation (a popular science publisher)
is participating in a desperate attempt to stop "leaks"
of information by email. I received a tag in a private email about a
perfectly non-secret subject which has extremely threatening
language. Suggested antidote: respond publicly without quoting the content.
is participating in a desperate attempt to stop "leaks"
of information by email. I received a tag in a private email about a
perfectly non-secret subject which has extremely threatening
language. Suggested antidote: respond publicly without quoting the content.
I just got this today in an email from a science publisher, at the end
of an email which is certainly not about anything terribly confidential:
[message removed]
> ============================ DISCLAIMER =============================
> This message is intended only for the use of the person(s)
> (\"Intended Recipient\") to whom it is addressed. It may contain
> information, which is privileged and confidential. Accordingly
> any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this
> message or any of its content by any person other than the Intended
> Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is
> strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, please
> contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Reed Business Information Ltd. and its subsidiary companies
> Tel: +44 (0)20 8652 3500
>
> =======================================================================
Thought it might be interesting for people who analyse this sort of Orwellian
stuff.
My own strategy is to respond on a publicly archived list (like most indymedia
lists), but without quoting the content. If the original sender doesn't want
to switch to a public list, tough. If you want to keep up the conversation,
it's possible to keep replying publicly to each private reply, but without quoting
the "secret" content. If readers are going to "reverse engineer" your public
replies to guess what the secret replies were, that's not your responsibility.
Sometimes the corresponder asks not to send to the list - just ignore them and
continue (if you think the theme is public) - as long as you don't quote the content
and as long as the organisation has no particular wish to get into heavy legal proceedings,
there should be very little legal danger.
of an email which is certainly not about anything terribly confidential:
[message removed]
> ============================ DISCLAIMER =============================
> This message is intended only for the use of the person(s)
> (\"Intended Recipient\") to whom it is addressed. It may contain
> information, which is privileged and confidential. Accordingly
> any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this
> message or any of its content by any person other than the Intended
> Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is
> strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, please
> contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Reed Business Information Ltd. and its subsidiary companies
> Tel: +44 (0)20 8652 3500
>
> =======================================================================
Thought it might be interesting for people who analyse this sort of Orwellian
stuff.
My own strategy is to respond on a publicly archived list (like most indymedia
lists), but without quoting the content. If the original sender doesn't want
to switch to a public list, tough. If you want to keep up the conversation,
it's possible to keep replying publicly to each private reply, but without quoting
the "secret" content. If readers are going to "reverse engineer" your public
replies to guess what the secret replies were, that's not your responsibility.
Sometimes the corresponder asks not to send to the list - just ignore them and
continue (if you think the theme is public) - as long as you don't quote the content
and as long as the organisation has no particular wish to get into heavy legal proceedings,
there should be very little legal danger.
someone
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Under what powers?
26.02.2004 15:15
These disclaimers are very common, most big companies append them to all outgoing e-mails.
Anyone know exactly what laws you would be breaking by distributing the e-mails? Are there any examples of anyone being sucessfully prosecuted for distributing such e-mails? I've not heard of any.
The only law I can think of that apply would be copyright laws. If that's true, under the fair use exemptions, you could legally publish extracts from the e-mail. (The same reason that Paul Burrell could publish extracts of letters from Princess Di.)
And, of course you could paraphrase the contents.
(NOTE: I'm not a soliciter, I'm not saying this is fact, just speculating.)
Jynx
It's not as sinister as it seems
26.02.2004 15:41
It's partly because emails are legally recognised documents in the same way as letters - i.e. can form a contract, threats sent by email may still count as assault etc.
It's also partly to do with the company confidentiality rules (which are likely to be in your contract) and are a reminder of that, because it's easy for people to copy others in on an email they need to see but it is also easy to copy people in on an entire email thread which includes confidential things they shouldn't see as well as the bits they should see.
Basically, it's just a long-winded corporate waffle way of stating something instead of just stamping it 'Confidential'.
Afinkawan
Afinkawan...
26.02.2004 16:59
Jynx
I know
26.02.2004 17:08
And other things of that nature. they're just stating their right to some sort of legal protection, same as you'd be likely to have if someone stol your diary and printed it's comments in a newspaper without your permission.
I don't know of anyone done under this but they're just covering themselves in case.
Afinkawan