[73386] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W Gilmore)
Fri Aug 20 11:03:03 2004
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408201422270.31264-100000@server2.tcw.telecomplete.net>
Cc: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
From: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:34:31 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Aug 20, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> i got told otherwise, but again this hasnt been tested in a court by
> me. i
> forget the exact detail in the conversation but it was comparing the
> disclaimer
> to what you get in regular mail.. so things like confidentiality,
> opening an
> attachment meaning you agree to things are allegedly okay.
Maybe the UK is different than the US. But if I get something
addressed to me in the mail (dunno about it if it was addressed to
someone else and accidentally delivered), it is MINE. Period. If I
did not order it, too damned bad, I get to keep it, it's a gift.
Bringing this back on topic, IFF that can be extended to e-mail (and my
understanding is that it can), the disclaimer is worthless - at least
the part about having to delete it. There is some question about
whether I can post it publicly (as you saw earlier), and I don't have
the motivation to test it in court, but I certainly feel perfectly
comfortable reading the contents of the e-mail and any attachments, and
doing whatever I like with the information, baring limitations set by
any previous agreements (e.g. NDAs).
Would anyone care to correct me on this? IANAL, and don't even play
one on TV. :-)
> as you say tho this cannot be extended to some things such as by
> reading this
> you owe me $1m etc but the reasonable and logical bits are allegedly
> enforceable
> to some degree
Unclear on why telling me I have to delete something you sent me is
logical. Just the opposite, in fact.
--
TTFN,
patrick
