I very much dislike "bans of silence". There are some organisations which seek to ban one to silence even before one has read what they write. In such cases I reply no, my own condition is openness and transparency. Here is an example which a government office sent me last year, which I think is acceptable: "This message may contain information which is confidential, private or privileged in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or file which is attached to this message." Now here is an example which attorneys sent me last year, which is not acceptable: "The information in this email is confidential and is legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised." If one takes it as it stands -- particularly "access to this e-mail by anyone else" -- it is draconian. And some of the things sent under such notices may be alarming.
No comments:
Post a Comment