"Phillip Smith" <phillip.smith@weatherbeeta.com.au> writes:
>> In other words, by WRONGLY attaching confidentiality notices, courts
>> might decide to ignore them even in cases where you imagined they
>> ought to be legitimate...
> I've thought about that before and agree completely. Unfortunately this
> disclaimer is added by our perimeter UTM device, which has no way to know
> what is 'public' and what is 'confidential'
Which, indeed, is exactly the sort of fact that would invalidate any
subsequent claims of confidentiality based on the notice. You should
point out to your organization's lawyers that this type of requirement
accomplishes nothing except making them look like fools.
regards, tom lane