full-disclosure - <RANT> Cart00ney-Sigs (was: Re: Freenet clone)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: nick at virus-l.demon.co.uk (Nick FitzGerald)
Subject: <RANT> Cart00ney-Sigs (was: Re: Freenet clone)

J.A. Terranson wrote:

<<snip good stuff>>
> Now, as for those "Confidentiality notice"s you see on large company email
> systems, where the lowly little luser has no control over what his moronic
> email admin has automatically tagged to the bottom of the email: You DO
> realize that there is absolutely zero case law that holds these "notices"
> to be enforceable, right?  As a common courtesy, people *may* CHOOSE to
> abide, but they don't HAVE to.  And when you send something to a public
> list like this, you have completely wiped away even the common courtesy
> argument.  I would suggest that you ask your legal department to advise
> your email admins to stop making your companies look stupid in public.

Actually, most such amatuerish "disclaimers" have a much worse effect 
than you suggest.  There is some case law that suggests such blanket 
and clearly inappropriately general disclaimers or claims for special 
privileged rights _negate_, or at least substantially weaken, all such 
claims the company makes as the company clearly has no idea which of 
its, or its employees', actions or which of its products do or do not 
contain "protected" material.

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald