* * * * *

          “Common sense? We don't need no steeenkin' common sense!”

At the botton of an email I received from a friend today, I following bit of
legal verbiage appeared:

> NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this email and any
> document attached hereto is intended only for the named recipient(s). It is
> the property of XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX and shall not be used, disclosed or
> reproduced without the express written consent of XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX.
> If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible
> for delivering this message in confidence to the intended recipient(s), you
> are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and
> any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email or its
> attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by return email or by calling
> (561) XXXXXXXX. Thank you.
>

I found it amusing.

[The following three paragraphs were written based upon an incorrect
assumption. See below [1] for an update]


[DELETED-Let's see … the company my friend works for (and it's not a law firm
by the way) is claiming ownership of a stream of bits that have been
delivered to my inbox. Well, I think they're claiming ownership of a stream
of bits—it can't be the electrons because the electrons used to transmit the
bits have long since been recycled into other bits streaming hither and yon.
I can't see it being the magnetic flux on the harddrive that's storing the
message, because once I delete the email, there is no message with which to
claim ownership over (okay, technically, deleting the message isn't enough
since the bits comprising the message still exist on the harddrive unless I
overwrite the message with a different pattern of bits, which I may have to
do).-DELETED]

[DELETED-So, they're claiming ownership over the bits that comprise the
message. Or rather, the bits in the order they appear in the message, because
the bits in a different arrangement:-DELETED]

> [DELETED-((())), ,, ,,,…‥156:ACCD EEF FIIIIIIILNN NOOOTTTTT XX XXXX XXXXX
> XXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXY aaaa aaa aaa aaaaa
> aaaaaaaaaaaaa aa ab bbb bbbccccc cc cccccc ccccdddddd dddd ddd ddddd ddd dd
> ddddd eeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeee eeeeeee eee eeeeeee eeeeeee eeeeeee ee eeeeee
> eeeeeeeeee eeeee ee eef fff fff fff fggggghh hhhhhhhhh hh hhh hhhhhhhh ii
> iiiii iiiiiiiiiii iii iiiiiiiiii iiii iiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiii ii kll llllllll
> lllllllmmmmmm mmm mmm mmnnnn nnnnnnnn nnnn nnn nnnn nnnnnnnn nnnn
> nnnnnnnnnnn no oooooo ooo ooo ooooooo oooooooooooooo oooooooppppp pp
> ppppprr rr rrrr rrrrr rr rrr rrrrrrrrrrr rr rrrrrrrr rssssssssss ss sss
> ssss ssssssss ssst ttttt tt tttttt tttttt tttttt ttt tttttt ttttttttttt tt
> tttttt uuuuu uu uu uuvvvvv vwwwx yyyyyyyyy yyyyy yyy-DELETED]
>

[DELETED-lose all meaning (except for the preponderance of “X”, which I used
to cut out any identifying identification, you can determine with a high
likelihood of chance that the text was originally written in English due to
letter frequency). Unless they really are claiming ownership of the bits
reguardless of order they're in, but that's not made clear.-DELETED]

Now, the part that goes “shall not be … reproduced without the express
written consent …” Obviously, I don't have written consent to reproduce the
message here on the blog (although I could claim “Fair Use [2]” in this
instance) but in reading the email initially I didn't have prior written
consent because the very act of receiving the email caused a reproduction to
be constructed—a copy from the bits streaming in from the network to
electrical charges in memory and then a copy from said electrical charges in
memory to the magnetic flux on the harddrive.

Two copies in which I had no written consent for reproduction.

And then there's the four reproductions made when I viewed the email
initially (from disk to memory, from memory to network, from network to
memory, and from memory to video screen).

I'm thinking their lawyers need a clue-by-four in how email works.

Then there's the last bit that goes “[i]f you are not the intended recipient
or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message in
confidence to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that you
have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this email or its attachments is strictly
prohibited.” Assuming I wasn't the intended recipient of this message, I
would have had to “disseminate” the message (from the server to me) and
“review” it to see that it was in fact, not intended for me. The theoretical
legal implications of this are staggering.

Which is why I found this all so silly.

(And to my friend who sent this—yes, I realize you have no say in this, but
that still doesn't mean your company isn't silly for including this in the
first place)

Update some time later today

I misread what they were claiming ownership of—the information, not the
actual bits.

When I was constructing the different arrangement, I briefly debated about
using the original, non-censored paragraph, since the letters would be
scrambled anyway. Then I thought that no, someone could conceivably
reconstruct the censored portion, by removing the letters in the known
portion, and unscrambling the remaining letters, which wouldn't be that hard.
Scrambling the letters didn't hide the information enough to my liking, so I
kept the Xs (which is what I use to censor information in case the associated
CSS (Cascading Style Sheet) isn't used).

Which meant, it really was about the information.


[1] https://boston.conman.org/
[2] http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Email author at [email protected]

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.conman.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.