4 ms·

UK MP calls for email disclaimer ban

10 points by timthorn 12y ago

timmillwood 12y ago
Thing that bugs me the most about this... ...email has nothing to do with the web so why bring Tim B-L into it?
- Fastidious 12y ago
  He used it to prove a point. I understood it as "I am proud of Tim B-L, and what he brought us. Let us be proud British, and not bloody asses, and stop this disclaimer non-sense."
- toyg 12y ago
  To avoid appearing as the stereotypical grumpy ol' luddite. It's just a rhetorical device: "hey, I love the internet like the next guy, but...". Politicians often use codified sentences as shorthand for concepts that are already well-understood by the rest of the House; some are more creative than others.
gazrogers 12y ago
> Sir Alan Duncan said the "meaningless missives" led to "forests' worth of paper" being wasted when emails are printed out. Well stop printing out your sodding emails then, you clown.
- duncanawoods 12y ago
  To be honest, its a pretty useful practice for common management tasks involving face to face meetings. As much as I love technology, its amazing how much bringing out a laptop or tablet reduces the quality of person-to-person interaction. A printout of the email relevant to the meeting lets you refer to the key points and make notes while still giving full attention to other participants. Sensitive situations just don't let you make compromises about that.
- nodata 12y ago
  Is it better for the planet if I buy a tablet which lasts three years and bring that to the meeting instead?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Why would a tablet only last three years? In any case, you can simply buy a laptop/tablet hybrid nowadays, instead of the laptop you'd buy anyway (exceptions made for people who need desktops or non-hybrid laptops for some reason, but they're an exception).
    - pjc50 12y ago
      OS updates either aren't available or refuse to run on it, so it's still usable but not safe to connect to the internet.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        The Surface comes with a guarantee of four years of updates (minimum).
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      I don't want the government spending my money on computers they don't need so that they don't need to print anymore.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        I'm not sure what you intend with your post. I assure you I'm not responsible for laptop purchasing decisions in the UK civil service.
        k-mcgrady 12y ago
        I didn't think you were. My point was that if they can quickly fix this issue with a simple law banning government entities from putting disclaimers at the bottom of an email I'd rather that than spending millions on new hardware to prevent printing. Considering most of these people will use Word + Internet Explorer all day money doesn't need to be unnecessarily spent on new hardware.
rollthehard6 12y ago
We need remedial ICT classes for politicians taking office. When I read things like this it makes me wonder how much other legislation is based on bogus knowledge of politicans of topics I know nothing about myself? One of the few good things about The House of Lords in the UK is the fact that there are some people in there with some know how of things outside politics.
- duncanawoods 12y ago
  What's so bogus about it? Even if they were not printing out emails, the effect of disclaimers to a thread between staff of a few different companies is appalling. If using short emails to, say schedule an appointment, it can easily be worse than 1:10 ratio of signal to noise causing loss of important information. I definitely support curtailing this nonsense legalism that has also led us to click through 100 pages of incomprehensible TOS documents. Its pretty clear we need political intervention to protect companies and their users in a sane manner compared to the path we are currently on.
- DanBC 12y ago
  10 minute rule bills rarely become law. It's a way for a politician to create publicity about something they feel strongly about.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
georgespencer 12y ago
Email disclaimers are hokum, legally speaking. They're ordinarily seeking to impose a contractual obligation unilaterally. Unless the contract has been freely negotiated, in Europe, a party can't be bound to it. The Economist covered this in 2011: http://www.economist.com/node/18529895 http://www.economist.com/node/18529895
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Email disclaimers are hokum, legally speaking. That's his point. They're bullshit and a half, but when emails are printed (which is more common than you'd think) they still waste paper and ink.
  - georgespencer 12y ago
    His point seems to be that it's a waste of ink and paper, not the legal aspect.
    - masklinn 12y ago
      The article implies he did call them "useless", "meaningless missives" and "sluggish bureaucratic verbiage".
toyg 12y ago
"The legislation was accepted at first reading, but it is unlikely to become law in its current form without government support due to a lack of parliamentary time." Translated: this Parliament is already over (elections are scheduled in a few months), so MPs are free to pitch in their headline-grabbing pet-projects, stuff that has no chance in hell to ever be taken seriously but might help their campaign prospects.
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Signature collapsing/removal isn't a thing in their email programs I take it. Thunderbird has an option to remove sigs on reply - it's a technically solved problem, it doesn't need a legal solution (that will be impossible to enforce). You could do this by having a government standard though - they presumably have a statement of requirements for basic software (wordproc/email/browser). Add a requirement that any email program paid for with tax-payers money (which would include free ones installed or supported by gov workers) allows signature/banner/disclaimer cropping. It's telling that when he was in control of a gov department he didn't have the disclaimer scotched.
bbody 12y ago
Seems to me like this is a problem that could be solved without legislation?

10 points by timthorn 12y ago

timmillwood 12y ago

Thing that bugs me the most about this... ...email has nothing to do with the web so why bring Tim B-L into it?

Fastidious 12y ago
He used it to prove a point. I understood it as "I am proud of Tim B-L, and what he brought us. Let us be proud British, and not bloody asses, and stop this disclaimer non-sense."
toyg 12y ago
To avoid appearing as the stereotypical grumpy ol' luddite. It's just a rhetorical device: "hey, I love the internet like the next guy, but...". Politicians often use codified sentences as shorthand for concepts that are already well-understood by the rest of the House; some are more creative than others.

gazrogers 12y ago

> Sir Alan Duncan said the "meaningless missives" led to "forests' worth of paper" being wasted when emails are printed out. Well stop printing out your sodding emails then, you clown.

duncanawoods 12y ago
To be honest, its a pretty useful practice for common management tasks involving face to face meetings. As much as I love technology, its amazing how much bringing out a laptop or tablet reduces the quality of person-to-person interaction. A printout of the email relevant to the meeting lets you refer to the key points and make notes while still giving full attention to other participants. Sensitive situations just don't let you make compromises about that.
nodata 12y ago
Is it better for the planet if I buy a tablet which lasts three years and bring that to the meeting instead?
- icebraining 12y ago
  Why would a tablet only last three years? In any case, you can simply buy a laptop/tablet hybrid nowadays, instead of the laptop you'd buy anyway (exceptions made for people who need desktops or non-hybrid laptops for some reason, but they're an exception).
  - pjc50 12y ago
    OS updates either aren't available or refuse to run on it, so it's still usable but not safe to connect to the internet.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      The Surface comes with a guarantee of four years of updates (minimum).
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    I don't want the government spending my money on computers they don't need so that they don't need to print anymore.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I'm not sure what you intend with your post. I assure you I'm not responsible for laptop purchasing decisions in the UK civil service.
      - k-mcgrady 12y ago
        I didn't think you were. My point was that if they can quickly fix this issue with a simple law banning government entities from putting disclaimers at the bottom of an email I'd rather that than spending millions on new hardware to prevent printing. Considering most of these people will use Word + Internet Explorer all day money doesn't need to be unnecessarily spent on new hardware.

rollthehard6 12y ago

We need remedial ICT classes for politicians taking office. When I read things like this it makes me wonder how much other legislation is based on bogus knowledge of politicans of topics I know nothing about myself? One of the few good things about The House of Lords in the UK is the fact that there are some people in there with some know how of things outside politics.

duncanawoods 12y ago
What's so bogus about it? Even if they were not printing out emails, the effect of disclaimers to a thread between staff of a few different companies is appalling. If using short emails to, say schedule an appointment, it can easily be worse than 1:10 ratio of signal to noise causing loss of important information. I definitely support curtailing this nonsense legalism that has also led us to click through 100 pages of incomprehensible TOS documents. Its pretty clear we need political intervention to protect companies and their users in a sane manner compared to the path we are currently on.
DanBC 12y ago
10 minute rule bills rarely become law. It's a way for a politician to create publicity about something they feel strongly about.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

georgespencer 12y ago

Email disclaimers are hokum, legally speaking. They're ordinarily seeking to impose a contractual obligation unilaterally. Unless the contract has been freely negotiated, in Europe, a party can't be bound to it. The Economist covered this in 2011: http://www.economist.com/node/18529895 http://www.economist.com/node/18529895

masklinn 12y ago
> Email disclaimers are hokum, legally speaking. That's his point. They're bullshit and a half, but when emails are printed (which is more common than you'd think) they still waste paper and ink.
- georgespencer 12y ago
  His point seems to be that it's a waste of ink and paper, not the legal aspect.
  - masklinn 12y ago
    The article implies he did call them "useless", "meaningless missives" and "sluggish bureaucratic verbiage".

toyg 12y ago

"The legislation was accepted at first reading, but it is unlikely to become law in its current form without government support due to a lack of parliamentary time." Translated: this Parliament is already over (elections are scheduled in a few months), so MPs are free to pitch in their headline-grabbing pet-projects, stuff that has no chance in hell to ever be taken seriously but might help their campaign prospects.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

Signature collapsing/removal isn't a thing in their email programs I take it. Thunderbird has an option to remove sigs on reply - it's a technically solved problem, it doesn't need a legal solution (that will be impossible to enforce). You could do this by having a government standard though - they presumably have a statement of requirements for basic software (wordproc/email/browser). Add a requirement that any email program paid for with tax-payers money (which would include free ones installed or supported by gov workers) allows signature/banner/disclaimer cropping. It's telling that when he was in control of a gov department he didn't have the disclaimer scotched.

bbody 12y ago

Seems to me like this is a problem that could be solved without legislation?