Office 365 Disclaimers: Internal / External
-
@JaredBusch said:
But the point of a notice like these is to offset liability from the sender in case of a breach. The legality of it all is something a lawyer would need to weigh in on. Your opinion (or mine) of the legality is not the fact of the legality.
While it is true that we are not lawyers, stating things that you have no right to state doesn't protect you. You can't punch random people in the face and say "if I punched the wrong person you can't sue me." Doesn't work that way. Doing that, actually, makes you slightly more likely to be in trouble rather than less. As it points out that you thought about it ahead of time and did it anyway, that you were willing to attempt to pressure someone with implied force that you do not have, etc.
-
Many of the staff have the Disclaimer. It is set by HR - I will get with them on it. Since we spend so much time a year with the lawyers anyway.. they would know - I just have to make it show up.
I've turned off the Internal Disclaimer for now. I thought it would be 'nice' what is not show above is that there is a mailto: link to send in a support ticket.
-
@g.jacobse said:
Many of the staff have the Disclaimer. It is set by HR - I will get with them on it. Since we spend so much time a year with the lawyers anyway.. they would know - I just have to make it show up.
Do you pay them to review this? It's a very "clueless HR" kind of error. Tons of companies do it, and we always laugh at them and find their emails super annoying. It's very off-putting to customers.
-
We do it... I have mentioned a number of times that it doesn't absolve us of any liability. It was requested by our HR and Finance department... although if you are mis-sending information from either of those departments you have a bigger problem.
-
We're supposed to do it. Pretty much everyone does it, don't they? I don't see how it is off-putting since it is so common, at least here in the UK and I can't imagine the US is any different.
That said, when we upgraded our mail server two years ago, I "forgot" to implement it and no-one has mentioned the fact that it no longer appears. I should probably get round to sorting it out...
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
We're supposed to do it. Pretty much everyone does it, don't they? I don't see how it is off-putting since it is so common, at least here in the UK and I can't imagine the US is any different.
I've never seen a highly respected company do it. It's mostly an SMB thing and flags you as such. No big company that I know of does it. Not Wall St. firms or anything like that. I see it exclusively from SMBs who don't understand the law and don't understand the impression that they give to others.
It's very off-putting. It is rude and insulting. Read what most of those statements say - they make inappropriate demands of a third party. IF someone sends me email they have no right to say those things to me and it is outright rude to do so. Imagine if you stated something like that to someone in person. Bad enough once, now imagine it after everything you say. It's both rude and spammy.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
That said, when we upgraded our mail server two years ago, I "forgot" to implement it and no-one has mentioned the fact that it no longer appears. I should probably get round to sorting it out...
I would leave it. What's the upside? The downsides might be small, but if there is no upside, any downside is still a downside.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I would leave it. What's the upside?
That my boss won't ask me why I haven't done it already.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
That my boss won't ask me why I haven't done it already.
Good point. Although the longer you go, the less likely anyone is to notice. They've been conditioned to not have it. It will slip more and more from their minds. Implement it and it is a flare letting people know that you forgot until now
-
@scottalanmiller said:
No big company that I know of does it. Not Wall St. firms or anything like that.
I've just checked some e-mail's I've received from people at three different big banks and they all have one. Maybe it's more of a UK thing.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I've just checked some e-mail's I've received from people at three different big banks and they all have one. Maybe it's more of a UK thing.
Big ones like HSBC and Barclays? Or little local ones?
-
I just checked and I DID get this from Barclays.
-
-
-
AT&T again.
-
@JaredBusch that one is a little better because it tells what is intended and asks nicely that someone "please" do something. Far better than people demanding that an unknown third party 1) go to a web site to read rules 2) obey the commands of the sender 3) face prosecution for having been the unwitting recipient of potential spam.
-
http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/
Bah hit submit on accident.
Anyway, this post was citing some court decisions that did recognize the disclaimers.
-
Basically it is all a big maybe.
-
@JaredBusch said:
http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/
Bah hit submit on accident.
Anyway, this post was citing some court decisions that did recognize the disclaimers.
Yes, those all make sense. None of those are the case that I find useless, though, which is telling people "if you are not the intended recipient" that they must take some action. Announcing legal confidentiality or putting notices on internal communications are very different - that's a disclaimer between intended parties.
-
UK is looking to take legal action against disclaimers.
