caught out on email

tbh

ToasterSparks wrote: »

Really? I mean, if an email was sent in error and was for someone else (like sending account verification details to the wrong person, or similar), then I would understand that you should delete it and forget about it. But it couldn't possibly be legally wrong to read and translate an email that you know contains information relating to yourself. That sounds ridiculous if true.

how do you know it contains information about you? or to rephrase it, how could you prove that you knew it contained information about you? the name means nothing. Even if the letter writer used the OPs full name in the mail, it probably would still look bad.

This question only arises because the mail had to be sent to a third party to be translated, and this was done AFTER the writer told the OP that the letter wasn't meant for the OP. It shows intent to ascertain the contents of a letter the OP knew wasn't meant for her.

hideous ape

So what your saying is that legally I can send my manager an email telling him "I've had Mr Manager's wife and his daughter on his living room floor, the dog joined in too but none of them were any good"...and so long as I send it in polish with his name clearly in the email body. Then I just send a follow up email saying sorry that email was not meant for you and its all ok?

tbh

hideous ape wrote: »

So what your saying is that legally I can send my manager an email telling him "I've had Mr Manager's wife and his daughter on his living room floor, the dog joined in too but none of them were any good"...and so long as I send it in polish with his name clearly in the email body. Then I just send a follow up email saying sorry that email was not meant for you and its all ok?

no. I don't know how you got that, to be honest.

hideous ape

tbh wrote: »

how do you know it contains information about you? or to rephrase it, how could you prove that you knew it contained information about you? the name means nothing. Even if the letter writer used the OPs full name in the mail, it probably would still look bad.

This question only arises because the mail had to be sent to a third party to be translated, and this was done AFTER the writer told the OP that the letter wasn't meant for the OP. It shows intent to ascertain the contents of a letter the OP knew wasn't meant for her.

Eh...this ^^ and the fact you have stated you are an email security consultant so I'm guessing you now more about the legalities than I do. Basically your saying that I can email anything I want so long as its in a foreign language and that after I send it I claim it wasn't meant for that person. The receiver then cannot go and get it translated and take action against me....is that correct or not?

tbh

hideous ape wrote: »

Eh...this ^^ and the fact you have stated you are an email security consultant so I'm guessing you now more about the legalities than I do. Basically your saying that I can email anything I want so long as its in a foreign language and that after I send it I claim it wasn't meant for that person. The receiver then cannot go and get it translated and take action against me....is that correct or not?

it's not correct, and it's not what I said.

what you are saying I said is this:

"you can write whatever you want about anyone you want and as long as you write it in a language they can't understand, there is nothing they can do".

What I actually said was:

"The fact that you got the letter translated after you knew it wasn't for you could raise problems if you decide to report the matter to HR".

two completely different things. You said that if someone gets an email, they can do whatever they want with it. that's quite simply not true.

I've made that as basic and as clear as I can man. If you want to send your boss a mail about shagging his dog, or whatever, then let me know how that works out for you.

ToasterSparks

So wait - I think I see what HA might be trying to get at.

tbh, you're saying that there's a difference between:

a] You get an email in English (a language you understand), you see your name in the contents and read the email, then find out the message wasn't for you, you don't like it and report it to HR/Manager.

AND

b] You get an email in Polish (a language you don't understand), you see your name in the contents, then find out the message wasn't for you, then translate the email, you don't like it and report it to HR/Manager.


. . . .which is fair enough.

---

I think what HA is trying to say is, because the email was in a language the OP didn't understand, it stands more favourably for the email sender, since it bought her time to retract the email before the recipient could understand the contents. An email in English would have been read/understood instantly by the OP.

So effectively, writing a bitchy letter in a foreign language will be less damaging for the writer, because in a working dispute, she can claim it was sent in error and that the OP went out of her way to find out the contents of the email after the mailing error was made known to the OP.

If the letter was in English, the OP could easily claim she had read the email before she realised it was sent in error. So really, foreign language emails are a nice little loophole to save yourself if the matter is taken further with management, right?

hideous ape

ToasterSparks wrote: »

So wait - I think I see what HA might be trying to get at.

tbh, you're saying that there's a difference between:

a] You get an email in English (a language you understand), you see your name in the contents and read the email, then find out the message wasn't for you, you don't like it and report it to HR/Manager.

AND

b] You get an email in Polish (a language you don't understand), you see your name in the contents, then find out the message wasn't for you, then translate the email, you don't like it and report it to HR/Manager.


. . . .which is fair enough.

---

I think what HA is trying to say is, because the email was in a language the OP didn't understand, it stands more favourably for the email sender, since it bought her time to retract the email before the recipient could understand the contents. An email in English would have been read/understood instantly by the OP.

So effectively, writing a bitchy letter in a foreign language will be less damaging for the writer, because in a working dispute, she can claim it was sent in error and that the OP went out of her way to find out the contents of the email after the mailing error was made known to the OP.

If the letter was in English, the OP could easily claim she had read the email before she realised it was sent in error. So really, foreign language emails are a nice little loophole to save yourself if the matter is taken further with management, right?

Yes I usually don't explain myself very well:)

tbh

ToasterSparks wrote: »

So wait - I think I see what HA might be trying to get at.

tbh, you're saying that there's a difference between:

a] You get an email in English (a language you understand), you see your name in the contents and read the email, then find out the message wasn't for you, you don't like it and report it to HR/Manager.

AND

b] You get an email in Polish (a language you don't understand), you see your name in the contents, then find out the message wasn't for you, then translate the email, you don't like it and report it to HR/Manager.


. . . .which is fair enough.

---

I think what HA is trying to say is, because the email was in a language the OP didn't understand, it stands more favourably for the email sender, since it bought her time to retract the email before the recipient could understand the contents. An email in English would have been read/understood instantly by the OP.

So effectively, writing a bitchy letter in a foreign language will be less damaging for the writer, because in a working dispute, she can claim it was sent in error and that the OP went out of her way to find out the contents of the email after the mailing error was made known to the OP.

If the letter was in English, the OP could easily claim she had read the email before she realised it was sent in error. So really, foreign language emails are a nice little loophole to save yourself if the matter is taken further with management, right?

that's pretty much it. It's much easier to prove intent to intercept (i.e. that you deliberately read an email you knew wasn't for you) in this case.

And to be clear, I'm not even saying that HR will definately have a problem with it. Maybe they won't. However, if they did, and I know a LOT of large companies would, saying that you saw your name in the email wouldn't be a defense. Even if it was your full name (and who would use the full name), HR could reasonably say "why didn't you just ask her what she said?"

tbh

hideous ape wrote: »

Yes I usually don't explain myself very well:)

me either man, sorry if I came across as abrupt

herya

ToasterSparks wrote: »

If the letter was in English, the OP could easily claim she had read the email before she realised it was sent in error. So really, foreign language emails are a nice little loophole to save yourself if the matter is taken further with management, right?

If the language matters at all... Say you pick up the phone to dial a number and you hear a conversation between your colleagues (due to lines crossed, whatever). They seem to be bitching about you. Can you bring it up with HR at all? Will it be entertained if it's based on some material which was not meant for you at all and is not public? It's not like HR can realistically ban office gossip even if it's during working hours.

The whole language thing just adds another level of distance (and intention on the OP's part) but the question is there in the first place.

hideous ape

tbh wrote: »

me either man, sorry if I came across as abrupt

No its good to trash these things out so people learn something. Though I think my work mates have broken every email law in the land by now:)

tbh

herya wrote: »

If the language matters at all... Say you pick up the phone to dial a number and you hear a conversation between your colleagues (due to lines crossed, whatever). They seem to be bitching about you. Can you bring it up with HR at all? Will it be entertained if it's based on some material which was not meant for you at all and is not public? It's not like HR can realistically ban office gossip even if it's during working hours.

that's kindof it, but a more accurate analogy would be if someone sent you login information for a conference call about your departments performance, then told you the call was for managers only, and you used the login details to access the call anyway. The difference between the two is the intention.

tbh

hideous ape wrote: »

No its good to trash these things out so people learn something. Though I think my work mates have broken every email law in the land by now:)

most people have in fairness, generally companies only use rules like this to support an action they already decided to take. It's very difficult to enforce, but doesn't mean it can't be enforced

parsi

tbh wrote: »

before passing assumption off as fact, you might want to think again there. are you sure of that? So sure you could quote the relevant legislation?

I'm not saying that, if someone sent me an email, I wouldn't read it after I knew it wasn't for me.

However, I AM saying that sending an email THAT YOU KNOW WAS NOT MEANT FOR YOU, to a third party to be translated is very dodgy, legally.

Are there any cases that can be cited in respect of this ?

tbh

none that I know of. I'd doubt the OP would be any legal trouble, but if the OP's company has an email policy (most have a boilerplate policy to protect themselves) you can be sure this breaches it

again, it's the translation. It's the difference between reading a letter that someone leaves on a table at work, and opening an envelope to read the message inside it.

Stheno

tbh wrote: »

none that I know of. I'd doubt the OP would be any legal trouble, but if the OP's company has an email policy (most have a boilerplate policy to protect themselves) you can be sure this breaches it

again, it's the translation. It's the difference between reading a letter that someone leaves on a table at work, and opening an envelope to read the message inside it.

+1 even if the company have a generic IT Policy that the users all signed up to, where it's stated that the systems are for company use, with limited personal use, and a strict interpretation of even the most basic such policy would be that both users were in breach of the policy.

A more specific email policy within a lot of companies would explicitly state that should you receive an email of which you are not the intended recipient, then it would be expected that you delete it. You will often see this stated clearly on emails being sent outside of most organisations who have any sort of filtering in place.

snowy2008

well i confronted her about it, she denied everything and started crying saying im her friend and shes sorry if i was hurt in anyway and dont go to our manager....i just walked off and i only speak to her when neccesary

daveyid89

i wouldnt use it to get her fired, but id definatly make her sweat over it.... let her know u know wat it says... (it all comes down to how bad it was... if its a bit of "that so and so is useless", then just let her know you know, but if its personal and offensive then think about bringing it furthur

Hagar

The reading of the misdirected email doesn't affect the content or intent of the original email which was to bitch about or otherwise defame the OP. If the OP went to HR and said "I believe that defamatory emails are being circulated about me by Employee X in Polish and I would like you to investigate these emails". I think HR would have to have the emails traced, translated and take the appropriate disciplinary action. That's what I would do in the situation if I was the OP.