4 ms·

> 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. In ye old

> 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. In ye olden days if you accidentally received someone else's mail it was a felony to open it. If anything the legal restrictions have been drastically reduced when it comes to email.

zucker42 6y ago
Isn't a more apt analogy if you receive mail addressed to you, you open it, and you find a letter meant for someone else?
- jdsully 6y ago
  In that scenario you actually have the legal obligation to return the letter to the post office. The law as written makes it a crime to throw it away or otherwise obstruct delivery. Being asked merely to delete it is a much lower obligation. https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-federal-law-for-opening-mail-not-addressed-to-you/ https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-federal-law...
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    I don’t think that applies in the given scenario. GP said that the letter is addressed to you, but the content is intended for someone else. You can’t obstruct delivery because it’s been delivered to the right place (the address on the envelope). If obstruction of delivery applied in this case then we would end up with the ludicrous scenario where I could deliberately address letters to you, that are intended for my boss, then demand that you somehow deliver or return the letters once you’ve opened them. Imagine if I sent you thousands of these letters, it would be a postal and legal DDOS.
    - wolfgang42 6y ago
      There is no requirement that you attempt to effect delivery to the intended recipient. The legal obligation would be met by writing “not at this address” on the envelope and putting it back in the mailbox. I imagine if you tried to abuse this and then sue your case would be thrown out of court. It would also be awfully expensive; compare the cost of postage to send all those letters with the cost of a rubber stamp to have them returned.

zucker42 6y ago

Isn't a more apt analogy if you receive mail addressed to you, you open it, and you find a letter meant for someone else?

jdsully 6y ago
In that scenario you actually have the legal obligation to return the letter to the post office. The law as written makes it a crime to throw it away or otherwise obstruct delivery. Being asked merely to delete it is a much lower obligation. https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-federal-law-for-opening-mail-not-addressed-to-you/ https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-federal-law...
- avianlyric 6y ago
  I don’t think that applies in the given scenario. GP said that the letter is addressed to you, but the content is intended for someone else. You can’t obstruct delivery because it’s been delivered to the right place (the address on the envelope). If obstruction of delivery applied in this case then we would end up with the ludicrous scenario where I could deliberately address letters to you, that are intended for my boss, then demand that you somehow deliver or return the letters once you’ve opened them. Imagine if I sent you thousands of these letters, it would be a postal and legal DDOS.
  - wolfgang42 6y ago
    There is no requirement that you attempt to effect delivery to the intended recipient. The legal obligation would be met by writing “not at this address” on the envelope and putting it back in the mailbox. I imagine if you tried to abuse this and then sue your case would be thrown out of court. It would also be awfully expensive; compare the cost of postage to send all those letters with the cost of a rubber stamp to have them returned.