E-mail confidential.

Media criticism.
June 1 2004 6:42 PM

E-mail Confidential

Who's afraid of Time Inc.'s legal disclaimer?

The other day, a Time Inc. journalist of my acquaintance sent me an e-mail from his corporate e-mail account. I read it quickly and was about to hit the delete icon when I spotted this extraordinary 114-word "disclaimer" sloshing around at the bottom. It read:

This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message.

Thank you.

Advertisement

Ignoring the e-mail's threats, I forwarded it to my 175-pound Samoan attorney for his opinion, and he convinced me that Time Inc. has much more to fear from me than I have to fear from Time Inc. In fine Socratic fashion, my counsel walked me through the disclaimer, sentence by sentence, encouraging me to add my own thinking to our exercise. Here are my notes.

This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates.

My attorney noted that it's probably true in the technical sense that an e-mail message from one of its employees sent via Time Inc.'s e-mail system is Time Inc.'s property. For that reason, Time Inc. employees should probably use their personal e-mail accounts for personal notes.

But sending me an e-mail—like sending a letter—creates an implied license for certain uses. What sort of uses? Surely I have the right to delete it or to print it for my records. I know of nothing in U.S. law that would bar me from sharing it with my friends or even quoting the message in print. Of course, there are limits to what one can do with e-mail or other correspondence. U.S. copyright law gives every letter and laundry list automatic copyright protection, so if you published a slew of e-mail from a correspondent and he sued you alleging copyright infringement, a court might find that you deprived him of the financial rewards of his literary labors and render a decision against you. But I doubt very much if that's going to apply to one in a billion e-mails.

The first sentence of the Time Inc. disclaimer also got me to thinking: If the message is Time Inc.'s corporate "property," what is it doing in my in-box without an invitation? Trespassing?

It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s).

Or it may not be, as my attorney noted. Correspondence between an attorney and his client is usually considered "legally privileged," but an e-mail from a Time Inc. wage slave to me? Not automatically. If the message is privileged or confidential, shouldn't Time Inc. let me know and not leave me dangling with the vague "may be" language? And when the disclaimer declares the message is "intended only for the use of the addressee(s)," to what "use" is it referring? Reading and burning it?

No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient.

TODAY IN SLATE

Justice Ginsburg’s Crucial Dissent in the Texas Voter ID Case

The Jarring Experience of Watching White Americans Speak Frankly About Race

How Facebook’s New Feature Could Come in Handy During a Disaster

The Most Ingenious Teaching Device Ever Invented

Sprawl, Decadence, and Environmental Ruin in Nevada

View From Chicago

You Should Be Able to Sell Your Kidney

Or at least trade it for something.

Space: The Next Generation

An All-Female Mission to Mars

As a NASA guinea pig, I verified that women would be cheaper to launch than men.

Terrorism, Immigration, and Ebola Are Combining Into a Supercluster of Anxiety

The Legal Loophole That Allows Microsoft to Seize Assets and Shut Down Companies

  News & Politics
Jurisprudence
Oct. 19 2014 1:05 PM Dawn Patrol Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s critically important 5 a.m. wake-up call on voting rights.
  Business
Business Insider
Oct. 19 2014 11:40 AM Pot-Infused Halloween Candy Is a Worry in Colorado
  Life
Outward
Oct. 17 2014 5:26 PM Judge Begrudgingly Strikes Down Wyoming’s Gay Marriage Ban
  Double X
The XX Factor
Oct. 17 2014 4:23 PM A Former FBI Agent On Why It’s So Hard to Prosecute Gamergate Trolls
  Slate Plus
Tv Club
Oct. 20 2014 7:15 AM The Slate Doctor Who Podcast: Episode 9 A spoiler-filled discussion of "Flatline."
  Arts
Behold
Oct. 19 2014 4:33 PM Building Family Relationships in and out of Juvenile Detention Centers
  Technology
Future Tense
Oct. 17 2014 6:05 PM There Is No Better Use For Drones Than Star Wars Reenactments
  Health & Science
Bad Astronomy
Oct. 20 2014 7:00 AM Gallery: The Red Planet and the Comet
  Sports
Sports Nut
Oct. 16 2014 2:03 PM Oh What a Relief It Is How the rise of the bullpen has changed baseball.