I know Marc said no more, but I just had to!
;)
> Thor have you copyrighted you below disclaimer? If not
you should...I am
> going to steal it.
No problem. Let's see, at my $300 per hour legal rate,
that's about 5 bucks
you owe me ;)
>
> Although we all might feel the disclaimers are silly
there are some portions
> or parts of the disclaimers that hold value (e.g.:
>
> Privacy Notice: This e-mail comes from a Monitored
E-mail system; users
> have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy.
Any or all E-mails and
> all files sent through this system may be intercepted,
monitored, recorded,
> copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized
site, and law
> enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials
of other agencies.
> By using this e-mail system, the user consents to such
interception,
> monitoring, recording, copying, auditing, inspection,
and disclosure at the
> discretion of authorized site personnel.
Maybe as a logon banner-- there actually is some value in
requiring a user
to accept the agreement in order to proceed. I have
something similar on my
corp. But there is a big difference- a disclaimer saying
"by using this
system the user consents" can't really have any value
if it is added *after*
the user uses it. I mean, you have to use it in the first
place in order to
find out what the terms of use are. As a user of a system
like that, I
could send out a million emails and never know that the tag
was being added.
> Employer Liability: Our Company accepts no liability
for the information
> contained in this e-mail or for the consequences of any
action taken based
> on the information provided, unless that information is
subsequently
> confirmed in writing. The information contained herein
does not necessarily
> express the opinion or position of the Company and
cannot be attributed to
> or made binding upon the Company.
This is the part that made me reply-- it was a LOL moment
for me (not
picking on you, btw, just your legal dept ;) That entire
paragraph is
fubar-- first, to say "unless the information is
subsequently confirmed in
writing." It's *already* in writing! If you send
that out, and reply to
any reply, then you've confirmed it in writing! LOL. The
best part is
where the last line disclaims the value of the disclaimer
itself- "The
information contained within" INCLUDES THE
DISCLAIMERS, which they say can't
be bound to the Company. ROTFL!!
> And for those of you that have been to court, you have
seen some of the
> silly things that have been successfully litigated. I
have on many occasions
> left a courtroom with the "are you kidding
me" look on my face. At any rate,
> if it makes the attorneys in the legal department
happy, let them use all
> the disclaimers they want.
Yes, I have to agree. But even Judge Kermit V. Lipez
wouldn't be able to
justify upholding a legal disclaimer and term of use that
is, by it's very
design, added *after* the use action has taken place,
particularly when the
language of said disclaimer ends up disclaiming itself.
But, I have to hand
it to your legal dept-- only legal savants could craft such
a
self-obviating, cyclically redundant, logically
anachronistic disclaimer --
one that would require hiring another attorney in order to
fully
misunderstand it! :-p
T
(OK Marc, I'm done now )
VEGAS BABY! Hope to see some of you geeks at Blackhat.
t
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
|