Hacker News Reader

Comment by hapless | Hacker News Reader

I've seen a ton of those. I hate them, not because they're insulting, but because they fill the page with garbage when I print e-mails.

How could they be legally binding?

View on HN

I got the impression that in a lot of big organizations they just get automatically added by the email client. The funniest by far is when you get a forwarded email with one of those signatures in the footer.

I think you missed the part of the footer where it says to not print the email and save a tree...

I've always wondered this. Can an agreement like that be legally binding when it's just stuck on the end of an email and is typically not read until the content of the email has been read?

They're also overly broad, often claiming copyright over quotes or even content I just sent them!

a simple example would be accidentally receiving priveleged financial data that will affect prices the following day and using that data. The consequence here being insider trading

Insider trading is already illegal; you don't need a disclaimer on your email for that.

1+ -- there simply isn't a rationale for auto-appending these disclaimers to emails.

As someone else has pointed out, you'd think the mere fact that someone auto-appends these things to every email diminishes the likelihood that a court would take them seriously.

Consider also the absurdity of the sender using an inherently insecure communications channel to communicate information with a demand that the receiver keep it confidential...

> Consider also the absurdity... ..inherently insecure communications channel... This is not only absurd but also irresponsible, irresponsible in a sense that could be made valid in court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com