| 1 |
> Legally binding, maybe But enforcable, hardly. Had the individual mailed |
| 2 |
> you |
| 3 |
> directly and you published it to the web, then you would have been |
| 4 |
> violating |
| 5 |
> the original intent of the sender, to establish a protected conversation |
| 6 |
> between the two of you (or, from the company's perspective, to share |
| 7 |
> privileged information with you, which you then made public). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Well, it's just weird. What if said person is engaging in harassment? Is it |
| 12 |
then illegal to go about spam if they include the little disclaimer? It |
| 13 |
doesn't make sense to me :P but oh well. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
However, as the OP posted his message to the mailing list which is of course |
| 16 |
> archived, republished as digests, and generally available from the |
| 17 |
> website. |
| 18 |
> So there was no intent on his/their part to discretely share information |
| 19 |
> with |
| 20 |
> one or a few individuals. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Look at the guy that just got busted for releasing early information on |
| 23 |
> some |
| 24 |
> apple product (the ipod mini, I think?) There's an example of what can |
| 25 |
> happen if you share info that is given to you by a corporate entity and |
| 26 |
> you |
| 27 |
> go spreading it around. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That's a different case. IIRC the guy who leaked the info on the iPod |
| 32 |
shuffle/Mac mini broke an NDA he signed with Apple - which is then perfectly |
| 33 |
legal. Trade secrets and the like, I suppose. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
But once the individual/company make it public (ala posting a message like |
| 36 |
> that to the list), it no longer carries privilege with it, unless of |
| 37 |
> course |
| 38 |
> it contained information that you used in some way to develop a |
| 39 |
> |
Archives