3 ms·
> So you would also like to impose a ban on email forwarding then right? The difference is that email forwarding is part of the RFCs and IETF standards that de
by Alex3917 9y ago
> So you would also like to impose a ban on email forwarding then right?
The difference is that email forwarding is part of the RFCs and IETF standards that define email, e.g.:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5598 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5598
http://arc-spec.org/ http://arc-spec.org/
- downandout 9y agoWhat do RFC's have to do with his comment that he has an expectation of privacy when he sends people messages? Regardless, at least under US law, he's way off base.
- Alex3917 9y agoIf two or more parties are communicating via a standardized protocol, then using that standard constitutes an implied agreement between the parties communicating. Whereas with Facebook, while one or more parties might be bound by some agreement with the company, that doesn't create any clear agreement between users.
- dsacco 9y agoThis is a pretty weak argument. Using a standard established by an RFC implies a user has read that standard about as much as using Facebook implies a user has read the TOS. The TOS establishes a transitive condition that the user agrees to about as much as they agree to one-to-one commumication under the RFC. If you have a problem with usage implying consent to a TOS then you can make that argument, but this one is flimsy.
- acchow 9y agoYou think people using email know anything about email standards? RFCs? They see a "forward" button in their email client. Just like Facebook Messenger has a "forward" button on messages. No one is expecting a different level of privacy in Facebook Messenger over email because of the IETF.