On Message with Ben Gross

For such an inherently dry topic, email policy has become a remarkable hot issue with corporate IT, legal departments, and vendors that offer various forms of automated enforcement.

One of the most common forms of automated enforcement is the attachment of disclaimers. As a polite request to unintended recipients not to forward embarrassing or private mail, or as a notification that an email message does not represent corporate policy, these disclaimers may make some sense. Disclaimers may also reduce liability for inappropriate comments made by employees, or inadvertent creation of a legal contract.

The email disclaimers site offers a few more scenarios in which disclaimers can be useful, tough some are rather far fetched.

Given the proliferation of disclaimers, perhaps it’s inevitable that the practice will continue to spread. But many disclaimers tend toward the ridiculous. I just received one at the bottom of a automatic vacation message stating:

Confidential
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of Belkin Corporation and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed.  If you are not one of the named recipients or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Um. A robot sent me a note. I didn’t enter into a contract as a result, and there is a long legal tradition that stating essentially that letters are the property of recipients.

And it turns out that a number of people think disclaimers are often misapplied, useless, or worse.

The stupid email disclaimers page offers a comprehensive treatment of the subject (my favorite example is a disclaimer attached to a press release prohibiting publication.)

A few years back, Slashdot noted that Warburg Pincus was adding a 1081 word disclaimer to all of its outbound mail. And Slate offered up a rather satirical but legally based dissection of the disclaimer used by Time Inc.

Since I am not a lawyer, I can hardly advise people on whether disclaimers are worth the trouble, but let me close by saying that Messaging News accepts no liability for the content of this posting, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

Now, didn’t that add some value?

Related posts

New and Noteworthy for 10/1/08 People more likely to lie by e-mail: New research summarized by the Social Capital Blog discussing a study on the trustworthiness of people across different com ...

Link roundup for 1/2/08 How to Lose Your Job on Your Own Time: A New York Times piece on the upward trend of employers learning about employees off-clock activities via the employee's ...

Link roundup for 6/16/08 Lost in E-Mail, Tech Firms Face Self-Made Beast: Matt Richtel at the New York Times writes about corporate recognition of the costs of interruption and distract ...