Re: Re: [cni] Re: Silly Confidentiality Notices

From: Roy Murphy <murphy[_at_]panix.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:43:46 -0400


On 08/06/03 at 01:26 PM you wrote:
> I have been convinced (I think) by our professional responsibility
> folks that confidentiality statements at the end are not worthless,
> just as copyright statements at the end are not worthless.
>
> True, the damage is already done in some sense if the email went to
> the person "on the other side," but if it went to a third party, who
> is a least neutral, it does put the third party on notice that
> confidentiality is claimed. And, if it goes to the intended party, it
> puts them on notice.

A claim is just a claim. Some claims are meritless. Do you have any statute or legal theory under which the claimed confidentiality imposes any actual obligations on the receiving party absent a preexisting agreement between them?

Roy Murphy CSpice: A Mailing List for Clergy Spouses murphy@panix.com http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html Received on Mon Aug 11 2003 - 08:43:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:49 GMT