On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Peter wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
YTfFYyyfDDk676 (different from time to time of course).
And this will help.... how?
If there is a harnivore system somewhere triggering on nontext codes
it will start wasing serious time and producing huger reports for its
masters if 5% of email has such nonstandard text.
I meant, how will this help against the fact that, if you sign your
emails, they are legally binding?
It would not. But then nothing else would. You see, I ranted in the past
on this list about 'redefinitions' of various kinds. The redefinition of
a digital signature as 'legally binding' is such a redefinition. It may
be useful but imho people are not clear about this (I wasn't for sure
until someone pointed out the relatively recent law).
Consider the following: Many companies and individuals have a standard
signature that contains a disclaimer that says that 'the opinions herein
.. do not represent anything in particular ... are not yada yada ... no
legal advice ...' etc etc. Now consider that such a message is digitally
signed, as are all others going out of a server. On a bad day, someone
who is a known joker who is known to have a crush on Ann sends a
coworker an email with the content 'I'll kill you if you look at Ann
like that one more time'. The recipient is run over by a car the next
day. During the investigation that follows this email is discovered.
What will happen then ? Who knows. Anyway this is exaggerated (as
usual), but the facts remain:
- any communication can contain semantically conflicting information
- redefining some part of it as 'legally binding' raises the part's
value above others in the communication
- if such a 'raised value' item is present then it recursively covers
the semantic content of the communication, whatever that is, and itself!
- if the content of the communication is semantically ambiguous or
contradictory or null then this is made 'legally binding' by signing it
- adding a disclaimer induces such nullification automatically
- therefore any digitally signed communication that contains a
disclaimer is semantically null, same as any unsigned communication that
contains such a disclaimer. Sort of like Tom Cruise's first born's first
piece of c**p, gold plated and preserved, mounted on a mahagony
pedestal, but different.
- the legal value of an unsigned and un-disclaimed email is also
null, defined by hiatus when it is defined that a signed email is
legally binding.
- therefore the values of a signed and disclaimed and an unsigned and
undisclaimed messages are both null.
- yet most people expect their outgoing emails not to be legally binding
even if digitally signed and will hold this position if taken to court.
It is taken for granted that a 'disclaimer' is there even if it is not.
- knowing that courts have fun intrepreting obvious things 'in the
spirit of the law' one cannot know what the outcome will be, even if
such a case ends up in court.
So much trouble for a hash sum. Tsk tsk.
Anyway the short answer seems to be: A digitally signed (with a
certificate) .AND. explicitly undisclaimed [1] email message .MAY. be
legally binding .IF. tested in court under .SOME. jurisdictions.
Peter (or John)
[1]: phew, what a word. 'undisclaimed' ?! Maybe 'not disclaimed' or 'not
covered by any implicit or explicit disclaimer' would work better
PS: I am not a lawyer, and VERY glad about that.
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
