|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:Well, it does mean that whoever gets the misdirected document has been informed that it's confidential. That conceivably could help establish something in a lawsuit if the person who got the document misused it and was sued, or if they the person who received it wanted to use it in court and the sending lawyer wanted to get it disallowed (like when Alex Jones' lawyers sent huge files to opposing council). It doesn't protect the lawyer from any sanctions they'd get for sending personal information to the wrong person and doesn't really stop the damage. So I think it can do a tiny amount of good in some cases and costs nothing to slap onto every email, and noone wants to be the one to say 'let's stop doing this' and then run into a problem. A post from a while ago but I remember looking into this a couple of years ago and my totally not a lawyer impression is that, at least in Canada and the USA, these notices are probably useless and maybe very slightly worse than useless. They are pretty much useless in terms of suing the recipient for the same reason that the harassing documents "Sovereign Citizen on the Land" types send out claiming that, because you read the document, you now owe them $50k every time you use their name, have no legal force: you cannot unilaterally create a legal obligation on someone simply by having them read a document. The email notice might inform the recipient that the material is confidential and that you don't want them to disclose it to anyone else but the recipient has no actual legal obligation to obey the notice just because they read it. If you send someone an email with a link and a notice that, if they click the link, then they must keep anything behind the link confidential, then you might have grounds to sue them if they disclosed the information because they can chose not to click the link and by clicking on the link they have accepted your terms; a notice alone, however, is not enough to create a legal obligation. Likewise if the information is protected another way (e.g. via an NDA or because it is classified) then the recipient may have a legal obligation not to disclose it but it is not the notice that creates the obligation, the notice is just a reminder of the obligation. The slightly worse than useless comes from the idea that not all emails are actually confidential and if you put such a notice on every email you send then it could be evidence that you are aware that you need to protect confidential information but that you are actually making no effort to properly vet your emails in order to do so. This would then be worse than not putting a notice on anything because you can't even plead ignorance anymore. It would not be a major deciding point in most cases so it is only slightly worse than useless but it is still a consideration. My impression of the overall consensus was that what companies and lawyers should actually do is handle their confidential information properly, not send confidential information over email at all, and dispense with such notices.
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2024 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:How on earth is "I wouldn't empty my bank account into a shoe box and hand it to someone" and "if I thought an LEO was investigating me for a crime, I'd immediately get a lawyer" indicative of an excessive or insatiable desire for wealth? I certainly like having my money, but I don't think 'I don't want to put my savings in a shoe box and give it to someone' is excessively greedy, and 'get a lawyer if the police are questioning you' comes from a desire to not end up in prison, which isn't usually considered 'avarice'. I don't think that the argument is that you would have necessarily fallen for that particular scam or that being aware of common scams won't help you avoid them. There are indeed certain scams you probably won't fall for because you know enough or they just don't appeal to you. I probably won't fall for a Nigerian Prince email scam simply because what they want you to do would be immoral (and illegal) even if it was not a scam so I wouldn't do it for that reason. The argument is that there will be some situation where you will fall for some scam that in retrospect seems obvious. This will be because, essetially through bad luck, the exact nature of the scam will key into something that is happening in your life that makes it seem more reasonable and it will happen at a time when you are sufficiently tired and busy that you will have a momentary lapse of attention and that will allow them to get through long enough that they can get some money out of you before you realize what is going on. Learning about different types of scams and how the work is good and reduces the attack surface but it won't fully protect you because you just can't maintain the level of awareness you need all the time. This can happen to anyone so you need to have a plan to deal with it when (not if) it happens. It is basically that there are millions of scammers with thousands of different scams: only one of them needs to be alert and lucky once to get through whereas you need to be alert and lucky every single time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:As I've already said, I could certainly see myself giving someone pocket money, click on a link, give my credit card number to someone I shouldn't, or similar things that actually involve a momentary lapse of reason. But much more than a momentary lapse of attention is needed to wait until a business day, go to a credit union branch, fill out the forms to withdraw my entire savings account in cash, talk the past the credit union people asking me why I'm withdrawing so much money, put said cash into a bag, wait until evening, look for a car to approach, and hand the bag of cash to the person in the car. I can maintain the level of awareness that I need to avoid going through a likely multi-day process to do something that I know will have significant consequences for my life indefinitely. And this is where I disagree: there will be situations where someone clever enough hitting you at exactly the right time that will be able to get you to do this and it is a bit of hubris to think that it is not possible. I am pretty aware of most of the scams that go round and I still know that I could get caught-out by something like a health emergency scam involving fraudsters impersonating my mother if they hit me at exactly the right time and played on my emotions just right. It would just be plain self-deception on my part to think that there is no situation where this could not happen. quote:I don't believe that it shows arrogance (I'm guessing that's what you meant? You still didn't clarify) to say "I will not go through the multi-hour to multi-day process (that involves talking to people who want to verify I'm not being scammed) required to withdraw my savings account into a paper bag, then hand it to someone" or "If I think I'm the target of an LEO investigation, I will contact a lawyer ASAP even if the alleged LEO tells me not to". The thing is that most people don't have a lawyer on speed-dial and might not really know how to get one, especially in a panic situation. There are also a lot of people who can't afford one unless one is appointed to them (which normally only happens after an arrest). I am a fairly successful upper middle-class professional and I don't really know how I would get a criminal lawyer on spec and would be worried about the cost even though I am pretty financially secure; it is one of those things that is easier said than done for many folks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:We were sure a family member was getting romance scammed by a Filipino woman. They met online and he's a kinda awkward tech dude who hasn't had great luck with women in the states. After a fast and purely digital courtship he flew to the Philippines to propose to her with an expensive diamond ring. The woman already had four kids of varying ages from perhaps two men. So red flags all over the place. His siblings were desperately trying to talk some sense into him. On thing that we tend to forget is that romantic love is not the only basis for a successful marriage. Often successful marriages can be more like business partnerships where both parties are contributing to the success of the enterprise: the financial stability of the family and raising the children in a supportive environment. In such a situation the married parties may not exactly love each other in a romantic sense (or at at least not initially) but they each know what they are doing, have respect and regard for each other, and are committed to supporting each other in the marriage. There are plenty of very successful marriages out there like that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2024 13:13
|
|
|
namlosh posted:I’m not saying it can’t work, but all I can think of reading the above is: Sure, but is that really different from "sorry, I used to love you but now you're just not doing it for me anymore and I have found my true soul mate" 《divorce papers signed》?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2024 18:59
|
|