> It's like when folks post to mailing lists with signatures reading "THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND ONLY MEANT FOR THE NAMED RECIPIENT." People start to take it less seriously.
A perfect analog to the grandparent's point.
What is it with people being lax towards confidentiality notices, especially when they aren't anonymous?
I've seen so many messages from people on mailing lists reading and replying to mail with confidentiality notices. There is pretty strict language covering these confidentiality notices; they often consist of five or more lines of ALL CAPS text that's hard to miss!
It's a sad state of affairs when people do not care about the contracts that they read. It'll lead to further secrecy in the future, and it's just disgusting how lax some people are being re: confidentiality signatures.
> It's a sad state of affairs when people do not care about the contracts that they read.
That's where your analogy fell off the rails. Signing an NDA is a binding agreement, while reading an email footer places one under no obligation whatsoever.
A perfect analog to the grandparent's point.
What is it with people being lax towards confidentiality notices, especially when they aren't anonymous?
I've seen so many messages from people on mailing lists reading and replying to mail with confidentiality notices. There is pretty strict language covering these confidentiality notices; they often consist of five or more lines of ALL CAPS text that's hard to miss!
It's a sad state of affairs when people do not care about the contracts that they read. It'll lead to further secrecy in the future, and it's just disgusting how lax some people are being re: confidentiality signatures.