Re: questions about blocking disclaimers

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl at jifvik dot org>]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org> writes:
>
> > Out of interest I have had long arguments in my workplace about such
> > disclaimers, and it has been alleged that EU Data Protection law (as
> > applied in the UK at least) pretty much requires that any mail sent
> > from a business (including any employees) has to include them. It was
> > a hard fight to prevent them being added to all our email, and
> > allegedly omitting them is being done at some risk to the company
> > directors. I doubt this should change the policy, but it does show
> > that the only solution people may have is not to post from their work
> > at all, so giving them time to arrange an alternative would some
> > reasonable.
>
> I disbelieve that EU law requires you to add anything like "if you are
> not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please destroy it."  Those
> are the problematic cases for us.

I wasn't quite specific enough. I won the argument in my company because I 
persistently put forward the same view as you (backed up by various 
research) - contrary to the allegation from others that Data Protection 
laws effectively require it. But other companies, especially larger ones, 
may not have the ability for the poor suckers at the bottom of the food 
chain to argue. Hence I was saying that we need to give time to arrange an 
alternative, as their company may not see sense (or may find it more 
convenient to insist on the SMTP server doing it, rather than leaving it to 
induhviduals).

Secondly, the risk to the company (and its directors) is allegedly because 
if someone sent a mail without this nebulous "only for the intended 
recipient" line[1], then allegedly there's more risk and liability to the 
company if there should be an accidental disclosure of some sort of 
personal data (as covered by Data Protection) to e.g. a mailing list if a 
mail was sent there by accident, than if this line is not present.

From my investigations and discussions at the time, there seemed to be no 
case law to back this up one way or the other, other than that an 
increasing number of companies in the UK (if not the EU) are making such 
privacy statements mandatory as a matter of company policy. My own argument 
against it was that it seemed like a poor defence to try and use in court. 
The arguments for it were attempting to reduce any risk or chance (or 
degree) of liability.

Anyway, that's what it was all about. I don't think it should have any 
bearing on our desire to get rid of these privacy notices, but may affect 
how heavy the wet fish is that we use to slap people round the head when 
they do it, because it may well be out of their control.

Jifl
[1] Note that this doesn't specify who the intended recipient *is*
--
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine