With CAN-SPAM in effect, it is at least theoretically possible to curb unsolicited mail by the tedious effort of answering every piece of spam and filling in an "opt-out" form. Software for controlling unsolicited e-mail is also available; the simplest forms of such control require entering addresses from which mail may be accepted; all other mail is rejected; this technique is very effective but, obviously, turns e-mail into a private communications service.
E-mail servers also offer effective filtering services. Nonetheless, a rather negative conclusion must be drawn: with the positive aspects of e-mail go many negative aspects which threaten to erode the effectiveness of this new medium.
The advice offered by organizational experts on handling e-mail boils down to good traditional rules of communication and task management but applied to this medium. Barbara Hemphill, writing in Business Credit , advises senders of e-mail to be clear and brief, to provide sufficient context, and to avoid sending attachments if at all possible. She advises withholding attachments because people fear opening mail with attachments lest they release a virus; if the recipient knows about the attachment, obviously this rule will be unnecessary.
The subject line should be a precise capsule of the e-mails content. When answering mail, the essence of the message being answered should be included so that the receiver knows the context—but the bulk of the incoming message can be deleted first.
Hemphill's advice to receivers of e-mail deals with sorting and ranking: some mail can be tossed at once, some requires action, some should be filed. If an immediate response is possible, it should be made—immediately.
She advises keeping an uncluttered Inbox by keeping messages in separate folders by project. If the organization is involved in some kind of legal process as discussed below , deleting e-mail should be done only if its content has nothing whatever to do with the matter under litigation. In this context, and in general, as a matter of good management, important e-mails should be printed and filed in the old, traditional way.
Jeanette Burriesci, writing in Intelligent Enterprise , has pointed out that fines in the millions of dollars have been assessed by the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC on organizations for failure to keep adequate records. She points out that e-mail has become a main feature of record keeping concerns "because it proliferates so quickly. The act was triggered by corporate accounting scandals and has imposed very strict record keeping requirements on publicly traded companies and accounting firms.
As a consequence of SOX, corporations have been retooling their archiving methods, including collecting and classifying e-mail by subject matter and reorganizing back-up systems so that back-up tapes are not periodically reused lest old e-mails are erased. Small privately held business concerns will, of course, rarely be touched by these issues. They are a part of the global network of infrastructure that everyone has agreed to share. It is hard to make a claim that they are an individual's private property.
Under current law, an e-mail address is technically the property of the owner of the domain name to which it is directed--the whatever in one's e-mail. This could be an employer, an Internet service provider or a free Web-based e-mail service. Philosophically, the claim of private property is tough to make. Far more people use my e-mail address to send things to me than I do for productive, directed and intentional communications.
Despite these observations, most people have an expectation that their e-mail address belongs to them. People believe that they have some control over its use and that it should be protected from abuse, much like physical mail. It is under this expectation that people agree to be part of the network and to use the Internet. Spam proves this expectation to be unfounded. Individual e-mail addresses are unprotected in the commons.
They are being used by others without economic cost. The judge also rejected option v on the basis that that would lead to absurd results as well. For example, anyone who sent you an email could on that basis demand access to your servers to see to whom you forwarded the email and that could apply to anyone no matter how many people stood between you and the original sender. Essentially, there was no good reason for saying that anyone had a proprietary right in the emails apart from the fact that the company had no other avenue in English law in order to obtain the emails or chose not to pursue them if it had.
That was not good enough. As set out above the facts in this case are unusual in that unlike most cases this was not about restricting disclosure or use of the contents of the emails. However the point I want to make in this article is not that we as lawyers can do wonderful things to get your emails back or stop people using them if we have to and I am therefore not going to go into what else could be done if you do want to know more about that, feel free to give me a call.
I simply want to make the practical point that an awful lot of legal argument and expense could have been saved if the Dutch company had arranged their computer systems so that all important correspondence was sent through their server and saved securely.
How many of you know people who sometimes send emails about work on their own computer, phone or other device, probably using their own personal email?
How many of you do that yourselves? Use of University electronic mail systems will constitute awareness and acceptance of the responsibilities regarding the access and responsible and ethical use of these systems as presented in this and other access and acceptable use policies of University computing, networking, telephony and information resources. This policy applies to all students, faculty, staff, and any other person extended access and use privileges by the University.
This policy applies to all electronic mail systems operated or contracted by the University, or connected to the University network. The policy also applies to any electronic mail transmission identified e. Access to and the responsible and ethical use of information technology are essential to the pursuit and achievement of excellence at Loyola University Chicago. The University encourages appropriate use of its electronic mail systems to enhance productivity through the efficient and cost-effective exchange of information to advance the University's mission in education, research and public service.
Use of these resources must be consistent with these goals. These resources must not be used to impede or hinder the University mission. The primary use of a University electronic mail system must be related to the University's educational, research and public service missions and to the person's educational, scholarly, research, service, operational or management activities within the University.
Incidental and occasional personal use is permitted, but it is expected to comply with all university policies and it will be treated no differently than other e-mail messages. As responsible and ethical members of the University community, we are expected to act by the following general guidelines based on common sense, common decency, and civility applied to the University networked computing environment. The same standards of conduct expected of students, faculty and staff regarding the use of telephones, libraries and other institutional resources apply to the use of electronic mail systems.
You will be held no less accountable for your actions in situations involving electronic mail than you would be in dealing with other communications media. You are expected to abide by the security restrictions on all systems and information to which you have access.
You should avoid any communication where the meaning of the message, or its transmission or distribution, would be illegal, unethical or irresponsible. Conduct that involves the use of electronic mail to violate a University policy or regulation, or to violate the rights of another, is a serious abuse subject to limitation of your electronic mail and networking access privileges and appropriate disciplinary action.
The University community must recognize that electronic communications are hardly secure and the University cannot guarantee privacy. The University will not monitor electronic mail messages as a routine matter. These situations include but are not limited to:.
Just as the University cannot guarantee privacy when it comes to electronic mail systems, the University cannot guarantee the integrity of all electronic mail messages, e. The University also cannot guarantee the preservation of confidentiality of any information passing through its electronic mail systems.
The University electronic mail systems should not be used to transmit sensitive or confidential information without the use of more secured methods, e. In general, if the information should not be appearing in a local newspaper it should not be sent through the University electronic mail system without the use of more secured methods. Use discretion and keep in mind that an electronic mail message transmitted without the use of more secured methods is similar to a post card. A system administrator of a University electronic mail system may determine within his or her discretion when it is necessary to temporarily suspend access to the electronic mail system to insure the integrity and operation of the electronic mail system and its availability to the University community.
0コメント