Brian - t hanks for bring up the issue of those silly confidentiality notices. its really funny to see them on the postings of the Bar Association's list too. But point taken - still - there are generally EULA's that the users sign to work in the entity and in most all instances those have some conveyance statement, or ownership proclamation and expectation of privacy dismissal statement, whether they are enforceable depends on which Jurisdiction one is standing in. Unfortunately the IETF MUST work in the US, EU, Canada, South America, Asia and EMEA and Japan/Australia - and all at once. So how does one do that? Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Rosen" <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "'todd glassey'" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:33 PM Subject: RE: Flaw in the NOTEWell System makes NOTEWELL NOTWELL > I've actually been successful at arguing something like the opposite of > this. > > Many corporations now assert this silly little hunk of text at the end of > every message claiming the email is private and such. A typical one is: > > This message and any attachments to it may contain PROPRIETARY AND > CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION exclusively for intended recipients. Please DO > NOT FORWARD OR DISTRIBUTE to anyone else. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies > of this e-mail from your system. > > This is in direct violation of Note Well, which requires all documents, > including email to not contain proprietary or confidential information. > Further, since the email is sent to the IETF, which has a well established > policy of publicly posting all email sent to it, I have argued that unless > this warning is removed, it renders the admonition ineffective for the cases > it is wanted, since the sender obviously knows that what he is sending is > not confidential, is instantly forwarded, is immediately made public and to > claim otherwise means the sender is not actually serious about defending > truly private IP. Several lawyers have agreed, and forced the corporation > to allow removal of the postscript when sending to public lists, much to the > consternation of the IT folks who thought implementation of the IP notice > was simple. > > Since complying with IETF IP policy is a condition of participation, and no > one is forced to participate, corporations can claim ownership, but cannot > claim confidentiality. > > I also chuckle at the "delete all copies of this email" part. Most > corporations routinely backup inboxes, making this impossible for the > non-intended recipient to comply. I always compare this to the Hollywood > stars who will not answer a call without incoming CallerId, and always block > outgoing CallerId. > > Do note that even post SOX, the notice on the email typically does not claim > ownership. Every company I know claims ownership of everything on their > systems, which would include, presumably, all incoming mail. So you always > have the dueling claims to fight over. > > Brian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: todd glassey [mailto:tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:44 PM > > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Flaw in the NOTEWell System makes NOTEWELL NOTWELL > > > > Hi there Audit Fans - Lets look at NoteWell and figure out how it > > interacts > > with Corporate Governance and Compliance Policies... > > > > let me make a couple of observations: > > > > NOTEWELL http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html has some hidden requirements > > that > > make it broken. Let me illustrate... > > > > 1) All the major players who sponsor people in the IETF have an > > iron-clad email policy which EVERYONE is aware of that says that they OWN > > the IP emanating from their Email System. This is generally not negotiable > > here in the US either. This means that they WILL NOT allow any releases > > against IP sent from their Email Systems or Domain. The cannot - lest they > > lose the control they have over the internal use of the servers which > > might > > seem fun to this group - but its something that NO EXECUTIVE is going to > > allow. > > > > 2) The IETF however claims that any Email sent to it in any form > > constitutes NOTEWELL and becomes its property. The problem is that it has > > no > > agreements with the other email provider to make that true. > > > > 3) The IETF also tries to protect itself by requiring the Individual > > to > > represent that they have formal authorization to participate in the IETF > > through the Entity's resources, except that there is the issue of #1 which > > NO entity in its right mind would consider relaxing... > > > > So who actually owns the IP? > > > > Better yet - can ANY SOX constrained company with public controls in place > > on its internal services allow an Employee or Guest to use their > > infrastructure to participate in a process that directly violates their > > corporate operating guidelines? > > > > ??? > > > > Todd > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf