'Binding' disclaimers on email signatures

Forums › Off topic › "Binding" disclaimers on email signatures

1 | 2

weblordpepe

460 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#104557 13-Jan-2008 19:15

There is a clear difference:
Logging into internet banking/bebo: One is 'pulled' by a web browser (through user interaction) and then SENDS his username and password. By registering and using your account, you agree to the rules + terms
Email: One is PUSHED to your mailbox. Unless you practice reading the end of the email and working yourself, you've in most cases you've read the email and then you see the 'conditions' attached. Then most of the conditions state you have to delete and inform the sender....

Coke, thats all you had to say in the first place. Its not hard.

I've always wondered about the posts that end with something like "all views are mine and don't represent that of abc company".

Someone else mentioned the linking of IP address to the person who posted on the forum (that would be the reason Joe Public assumes that the person is an official representative of abc company). There's been a few court cases around that are based on the premise of IP=person who owns ISP account Vs IP=person at computer.

It does really upstream back to what coke said about push Vs pull. Another factor is who you legally represent when reading/viewing an email. Or posting a message on a forum.

cokemaster

Exited
4937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1089

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#104558 13-Jan-2008 19:19

I thought I had made it quite clear on my previous post

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

weblordpepe

460 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#104559 13-Jan-2008 19:23

??
Thats why I quoted what you said, coke. Is that wrong too? Gez

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#104560 13-Jan-2008 19:24

weblordpepe: There's been a few court cases around that are based on the premise of IP=person who owns ISP account Vs IP=person at computer.

IANAL but your sentence is not evidence of anything... "There are cases", of course there are. But what was the outcome? What decision was made?

Put lightly like you did it just sounds like an Urban Legend. The way you wrote it there's nothing to learn from the post.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

cokemaster

Exited
4937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1089

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#104561 13-Jan-2008 19:31

weblordpepe: ??
Thats why I quoted what you said, coke. Is that wrong too? Gez

When you called that moderators were out to get you?

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

weblordpepe

460 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#104562 13-Jan-2008 19:34

No coke, - about push Vs pull. Gez

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

weblordpepe

460 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#104564 13-Jan-2008 19:37

freitasm:
weblordpepe: There's been a few court cases around that are based on the premise of IP=person who owns ISP account Vs IP=person at computer.

IANAL but your sentence is not evidence of anything... "There are cases", of course there are. But what was the outcome? What decision was made?

Put lightly like you did it just sounds like an Urban Legend. The way you wrote it there's nothing to learn from the post.

I was referring to the RIAA/MPAA cases where they have been hanging around universities, referencing IP addresses and so on from computers in dorms. As for the outcomes, Im not too sure off the top of my head. And nothing to learn from the post?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#104566 13-Jan-2008 19:40

weblordpepe:
freitasm:
weblordpepe: There's been a few court cases around that are based on the premise of IP=person who owns ISP account Vs IP=person at computer.

IANAL but your sentence is not evidence of anything... "There are cases", of course there are. But what was the outcome? What decision was made?

Put lightly like you did it just sounds like an Urban Legend. The way you wrote it there's nothing to learn from the post.
I was referring to the RIAA/MPAA cases where they have been hanging around universities, referencing IP addresses and so on from computers in dorms. As for the outcomes, Im not too sure off the top of my head. And nothing to learn from the post?

The only thing to learn is that there is nothing defined yet as for who is responsible for an IP Address: the institution or the user. Until we hear of the outcome of a case we only know there are doubts, but no definition.

Also you did not post references. "There are cases" is too vague. But I digress out of the topic which is about the validity of an email disclaimer when read by someone who received the email be mistake.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

weblordpepe

460 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#104568 13-Jan-2008 19:46

I only wanted to call attention to that there were arguments back & forwards with regards to the the user of a computer represents, or who the IP address of the computer represents. I wasn't aware I needed solid scientific evidence in a 50 page PDF. Im sure there is someone more knowledgable about it who can speak up.

Although in any case its still related to the legality and liability related to seeing a sentence on the screen. The interesting thing is to assemble the reasons why an email signature isn't binding and apply them to other disclaimers and seeing what happens.

cokemaster

Exited
4937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1089

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#104570 13-Jan-2008 19:53

weblordpepe: I only wanted to call attention to that there were arguments back & forwards with regards to the the user of a computer represents, or who the IP address of the computer represents. I wasn't aware I needed solid scientific evidence in a 50 page PDF. Im sure there is someone more knowledgable about it who can speak up.

Although in any case its still related to the legality and liability related to seeing a sentence on the screen. The interesting thing is to assemble the reasons why an email signature isn't binding and apply them to other disclaimers and seeing what happens.

And this is revelant to email signatures how?

Last warning - stay on topic.

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

weblordpepe

460 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#104573 13-Jan-2008 19:58

???

The arguements against email signatures is not related to email signatures? And the legal consequences about who a person represents when viewing an email signature is not related to email signatures? Its getting a bit obvious coke.

1 | 2