5 ms·

> It really doesn't take that much corporate self awareness I think you underestimate how well anyone in management actually understands this. One job had me c

> It really doesn't take that much corporate self awareness I think you underestimate how well anyone in management actually understands this. One job had me constantly pushing back on three or more paragraphs of legal text in the damndest of places. In one case, the legal text was larger than the form itself to say "we need your email to contact you with changes related to your account". Every time I contacted our company lawyer directly for clarification, he was always fine with the short summaries I wrote. I was the only person in the entire process that stopped to ask if any of this was really necessary. I guess that's why I was the developer handling all most of our legal compliance. Everyone else either didn't care or had given up.

michaelhoffman 7y ago
In many organizations, legal boilerplate has nothing to do with what's reasonable in the law or even what a lawyer thinks is necessary.
- Frost1x 7y ago
  Much text in business has become the ever growing wrapper for: "As the writer, I get as much monetary value as I can or at least make you believe as such and you give up as much monetary value as possible, or at least as much as I can scare or deter you from seeking. I also have no responsibilities and all rights, while you have all responsibilities and no rights." It's simply expanded out a bit more and often gives explicit examples. It's completely unmanageable for any common citizen to process and understand what you almost have to agree to on daily basis to function in our ever more privatized world. The amount of garbage I see on a daily basis wrapped with passive aggressive legal threats around every corner is mind numbing. I even still get emails from people who add footers that they own the information and if you receive it wrongfully, you're "required" to delete it. We essentially have a bunch of children running around running society through businesses driven by greed who never fully socially developed into functioning reasonable and responsible adults.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    You are right, the amount of garbage legal stuff has expanded - but mostly as a result of people doing shit they're not supposed to do. Let's take the email footer... and an email directed to the wrong person: in ye olde times, the recipient would go "not my crap, delete it" and that's it - but now, there is a real risk the recipient uses the information and publishes it, leading to monetary damage or penalties (e.g. if it was information that must not be disclosed prior to a certain date). The company can now sue the recipient or at least threaten him for disclosing stuff. Yes: the error is on the sender side, but in ye olde times the unspoken agreement was that you'd delete mails not addressed to you. Times have changed and so the legal boilerplate had to adapt. A bit more common sense across the world, especially when it comes to the trend of resolving conflicts via courts instead of talking to one another and shaking hands, and there would be a lot less boilerplate and mind-bogglingly dumb disclaimers ("don't put any animals in microwaves") in this world.
    - lainga 7y ago
      Well, I've had enough of this damn legalese. You see where 200 years of peace gets you? The world used to be run on broad but simple threats, where all we had to do was swear fealty to the man in the iron helmet, or pay the iron price.
    - lolc 7y ago
      The proposition that wrongly addressed mail used to be handled more discreetly is very dubious to me. I doubt it even holds for postal mail. It sounds a lot like the "people used to be more honorable" trope.
    - Negitivefrags 7y ago
      Okay, but can anyone find a case where this went to court and a lawyer successfully argued "Your honor, it's not our fault the info was leaked because we put a disclaimer at the bottom of the email when we sent it to the wrong person!" I'm skeptical. If the language doesn't actually prevent liability anyway, then get rid of it.
  - jdsully 7y ago
- nkrisc 7y ago
  This is true. In a previous job the amount of legal text we needed to include depended on whether we had been sued for something related previously.
mangoman 7y ago
Generally I agree that most folks in an organization just don't bother to contribute or push back once 'legal' gets involved. It's a shame - I think if people just tried to understand even a little bit beyond the surface, this whole tweet could have been avoided... if they had instead just said like "We're compiling something special for May 4th! Tweet @Disney using the hashtag #MayThe4th with your favorite Star Wars memory and you may see your memories featured (subject to TOS)" I think generally it's more honest. but yeah i guess no one cares to be 'that person'.
tomerv 7y ago
Seems to me like you're proving GP's point: you had the experience and knowledge to push back against the default legal process. A less experienced person might not have done it.

michaelhoffman 7y ago

In many organizations, legal boilerplate has nothing to do with what's reasonable in the law or even what a lawyer thinks is necessary.

Frost1x 7y ago
Much text in business has become the ever growing wrapper for: "As the writer, I get as much monetary value as I can or at least make you believe as such and you give up as much monetary value as possible, or at least as much as I can scare or deter you from seeking. I also have no responsibilities and all rights, while you have all responsibilities and no rights." It's simply expanded out a bit more and often gives explicit examples. It's completely unmanageable for any common citizen to process and understand what you almost have to agree to on daily basis to function in our ever more privatized world. The amount of garbage I see on a daily basis wrapped with passive aggressive legal threats around every corner is mind numbing. I even still get emails from people who add footers that they own the information and if you receive it wrongfully, you're "required" to delete it. We essentially have a bunch of children running around running society through businesses driven by greed who never fully socially developed into functioning reasonable and responsible adults.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  You are right, the amount of garbage legal stuff has expanded - but mostly as a result of people doing shit they're not supposed to do. Let's take the email footer... and an email directed to the wrong person: in ye olde times, the recipient would go "not my crap, delete it" and that's it - but now, there is a real risk the recipient uses the information and publishes it, leading to monetary damage or penalties (e.g. if it was information that must not be disclosed prior to a certain date). The company can now sue the recipient or at least threaten him for disclosing stuff. Yes: the error is on the sender side, but in ye olde times the unspoken agreement was that you'd delete mails not addressed to you. Times have changed and so the legal boilerplate had to adapt. A bit more common sense across the world, especially when it comes to the trend of resolving conflicts via courts instead of talking to one another and shaking hands, and there would be a lot less boilerplate and mind-bogglingly dumb disclaimers ("don't put any animals in microwaves") in this world.
  - lainga 7y ago
    Well, I've had enough of this damn legalese. You see where 200 years of peace gets you? The world used to be run on broad but simple threats, where all we had to do was swear fealty to the man in the iron helmet, or pay the iron price.
  - lolc 7y ago
    The proposition that wrongly addressed mail used to be handled more discreetly is very dubious to me. I doubt it even holds for postal mail. It sounds a lot like the "people used to be more honorable" trope.
  - Negitivefrags 7y ago
    Okay, but can anyone find a case where this went to court and a lawyer successfully argued "Your honor, it's not our fault the info was leaked because we put a disclaimer at the bottom of the email when we sent it to the wrong person!" I'm skeptical. If the language doesn't actually prevent liability anyway, then get rid of it.
- jdsully 7y ago
nkrisc 7y ago
This is true. In a previous job the amount of legal text we needed to include depended on whether we had been sued for something related previously.

mangoman 7y ago

Generally I agree that most folks in an organization just don't bother to contribute or push back once 'legal' gets involved. It's a shame - I think if people just tried to understand even a little bit beyond the surface, this whole tweet could have been avoided... if they had instead just said like "We're compiling something special for May 4th! Tweet @Disney using the hashtag #MayThe4th with your favorite Star Wars memory and you may see your memories featured (subject to TOS)" I think generally it's more honest. but yeah i guess no one cares to be 'that person'.

tomerv 7y ago

Seems to me like you're proving GP's point: you had the experience and knowledge to push back against the default legal process. A less experienced person might not have done it.