Re: Software Defined Networking

[Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>]

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 06:59:36PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> Does anybody have a citation that legal disclaimers attached to
> publicly posted mail aren't null and void?  

Disclaimers are invalid on their face because they're an attempt
to unilaterally enforce contractual terms without a meeting of the
minds -- something required for a valid contract.  They're "adhesions",
i.e., they're provisions so one-sided that it's immediately obvious
that they've been dictated by one side and not agreed to by both
as the result of some kind of bargaining or negotiation.

The two best references I'm aware of in this regard are:

        Stupid E-mail Disclaimers and the Stupid Users that Use Them
        http://attrition.org/security/rants/z/disclaimers.html

Quoting in part:

        "We can't help it--this really makes us nuts. When will these
        people learn? You transmitted your crappy mind-numbing message
        to us, in plain text, over the public internet. It's ours (and
        whoever is sniffing our mail) to do with as we please and you
        can't have it back, so piss off. We won't delete it, we will
        publish it, we will forward it, and there is nothing you can do
        about it. Go ahead, take us to court, but try to find a shred
        of legal precedent first, ok?"

and:

        Don't Include Bogus Legalistic Boilerplate.
        http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/#legalistic

Quoting in part:

        "First, such boilerplate contains useless adhesions, meaning
        the explicit and implied threats they make are particularly
        annoying. If you send something via email, the recipients (are
        you sure you aren't sending to a mailing list?) and anyone else
        who sees your clear text postcard in transit can undetectably and
        with full deniability do whatever they want with the information
        written on it in plain view. Even casual users of email know
        email is not a secure communications medium. Thus the threats in
        typical bogus legalistic boilerplate are naught but an attempt
        at highly improper intimidation. Demands made in this manner
        will be regarded as evidence of a hostile attitude on your
        part by a significant portion of recipients. The threats will
        negatively affect how your recipients perceive the other ideas
        in your message."


---rsk